The URL can be used to link to this page

2014.10.21 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2014 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(30 Minutes)Convene in Executive Session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). 2.(10 Minutes) AM-7203 Meet with Planning Board Alternate candidate Michael Nelson for confirmation to the Planning Board 3.(10 Minutes) AM-7205 Meet with Architectural Design Board candidate Tom Walker for confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2014 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 4.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 5.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 6.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7202 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2014. B.AM-7213 Approval of claim checks #211018 through #211133 dated October 16, 2014 for $645,141.91 (reissued check #211078 $118.31) C.AM-7212 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Dylis G. Wiley-Chase (amount undetermined). Packet Page 1 of 676 D.AM-7217 Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Design E.AM-7221 Unscheduled IT Equipment Replacement. F.AM-7206 Cigna Life, Long Term Disability (LTD) and Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD & D) insurance plan(s). G.AM-7207 Approval of the Municipal Court Judge job description & confirmation of position salary and benefits information H.AM-7204 Confirmation of Michael Nelson to the Planning Board Alternate position I.AM-7210 Mayor Earling recommends Tom Walker's confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board J.AM-7208 Acceptance of Street Dedication for Saffold 3-Lot Short Plat located at 19327 88th Ave W (File PLN20100018). K.AM-7214 Report on final construction costs for the 2013 Waterline Replacement Project and acceptance of project L.AM-7215 Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and acceptance of project. 7.(5 Minutes) AM-7186 National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation. 8.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 9.(10 Minutes) AM-7201 Presentation of the Edmonds Sister City Commission 2014 Student Exchange Program Hekinan, Japan trip 10.(15 Minutes) AM-7209 Edmonds Senior Center Presentation on an “Option to Lease and Draft Ground Lease” request 11.(20 Minutes) AM-7153 Economic Evaluation of Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point 12.(60 Minutes) AM-7218 Public Hearing and Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget. 13.(30 Minutes) AM-7219 Intent to approve Shoreline Master Program 14.(45 Minutes) AM-7222 Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. 15.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 16.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW Packet Page 2 of 676 17.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 18.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 3 of 676 AM-7203 2. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Meet with Planning Board Alternate candidate Michael Nelson for confirmation to the Planning Board Recommendation The Mayor is recommending appointment of Michael Nelson to the Planning Board in the position of Alternate Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling has interviewed Mr. Nelson and he is recommending his appointment to the Planning Board Alternate position. Mr. Nelson has a broad degree of experience and Mayor Earling believes he will be an excellent addition to the Planning Board. The Alternate position was vacated when Board member Ian Duncan resigned from Position #2 and Alternate Planning Board member Daniel Robles automatically moved into Position #2 in August 2014 leaving the position of Alternate vacant. Attachments Nelson_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/14/2014 03:37 PM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 4 of 676 Packet Page 5 of 676 AM-7205 3. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Meet with Architectural Design Board candidate Tom Walker for confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board Recommendation The Mayor is recommending appointment of Tom Walker to Position #4 of the ADB Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling has interviewed Mr. Walker and is recommending his appointment to Position #4 of the ADB. Position #4 is the Landscape Architect position. This position was vacated in 2013 by Mr. Walker when he travelled abroad to go to school for his Masters Degree. Mr. Walker holds a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture from the UW and a masters from London School of Economics. Attachments Walker_app Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/14/2014 04:29 PM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 6 of 676 City of Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) NOTE: This form is a public record and may be subject to disclosure upon request (Board or Commission) Name: Date: Address: Day Ph Evening Cell: E-mail: Occupational status and background: Organizational affiliations: Why are you seeking this appointment? What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds: Additional comments: Signature Revised 4/30/14 Please return this completed form to: Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov Phone: 425.771.0247 | Fax: 425.771.0252 Packet Page 7 of 676 AM-7202 6. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments Draft City Council Meeting Minutes 10-14-2014 Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 10/14/2014 08:57 AM Final Approval Date: 10/14/2014 Packet Page 8 of 676 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES Study Session October 14, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Manager Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Petso. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:34 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:38 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Mesaros and Councilmember Bloom. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 9 of 676 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REMOVE ITEM 15 FROM THE AGENDA AND SCHEDULE IT ON THE OCTOBER 28, 2014 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210891 THROUGH #211017 DATED OCTOBER 9, 2014 FOR $577,599.59 C. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH TYROOT AND SUN SM RELATED TO THE 228TH STREET SW CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience members who wished to provide comment. 7. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2013 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this project, awarded in 2013 to D&G Backhoe, replaced approximately 7,000 linear feet of water main in 9 locations throughout the City. The original contract amount was $1.3 million. There was one reconciliation contract change order in the amount of -$15,000 and the project was completed 1.2% under the contract amount. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE LIFT STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained this $3.8 million project upgraded 9 sewer lift stations. The contract was awarded in August 2012 and reached physical completion in May 2014. Throughout the course of construction there were 5 change orders for various items totaling $75,000. The project was completed 1.9% over the award amount. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. ACCEPTANCE OF STREET DEDICATION FOR SAFFOLD 3-LOT SHORT PLAT LOCATED AT 19327 88TH AVE W Packet Page 10 of 676 City Engineer Rob English explained this short plat, located on 88th Avenue north of 196th, is for the existing home and 2 additional lots. The 10-foot street dedication on the east side of the road increases the 20-foot existing right-of-way on the east to 30 feet for a total right-of-way width of 60 feet. The plat has 130 feet of frontage; curb, gutter and a 5’ asphalt sidewalk will be installed to tie into the existing walkway. Councilmember Petso referred to the unusual lot shapes and asked if there were any restrictions on how creative lot lines can be and the reason for the lot shape. Mr. English answered there are restrictions that Planning considers in developing setbacks, etc. Councilmember Petso advised she will follow up with Planning via email. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE JOB DESCRIPTION & CONFIRMATION OF POSITION SALARY AND BENEFITS INFORMATION Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie explained the current Municipal Court Judge Fair is running unopposed for a position in the South District Court. Judge Fair is currently serving the first year of a four year term; Mayor Earling will appoint his successor. The City is in the process of preparing an RFQ for the position which includes the salary and benefit information for the position which is confirmed by Council. The Council approved the current wage for the Judge of $106,078 as a .75 full-time equivalent effective September 1, 2014. The Judge currently receives the following benefits; no change is proposed: 1. 90% medical insurance premiums (employee, spouse and dependents) paid by the City 2. MEBT participant (includes a $75,000 life insurance policy) 3. Participation in state retirement PERS Judicial Benefit Multiplier program She requested the Council approve the new job description and confirm the salary and benefits before the position is advertised. Mayor Earling explained unlike a City Council appointment where an election is held in the next municipal election, an appointed Judge will fulfill the complete term which in this case is an additional three years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed Judge Fair helped prepare the job description. Ms. Hardie explained when preparing the RFQ, it was discovered there was no job description for the Municipal Court Judge. Staff surveyed comparator cities; the job descriptions for other cities are very similar. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the medical insurance premium, recalling the medical insurance premium for other elected officials was modified several years ago, making the coverage available for spouse and dependents but paid for by the elected official. Ms. Hardie explained the Judge position has a different medical benefit; the position receives spouse and dependent medical coverage at 90%; Councilmembers pay for spouse and dependent coverage out of pocket. Her understanding the reason the benefits were similar to an employee was due to the hours, .75 FTE, and the position’s supervisor duties. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 11 of 676 11. CIGNA LIFE, LONG TERM DISABILITY (LTD) AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH & DISMEMBERMENT (AD & D) INSURANCE PLAN(S) Keith Robertson, Alliant, explained about a year ago Ms. Hite, Ms. Hardie and he met to discuss the 7 status of the employees’ life and disability plan and it was decided go to market to see if the plan could be improved. For the past two decades there have not been any competitive alternatives because Standard Insurance had a monopoly on municipal and county plans. Another major carrier, Cigna, filed identical policies with the OIC so there is now a competitive alternative in the marketplace. This proposal has been reviewed by the MEBT Board and the current insurance plan language was updated. He summarized the plan saves the City money, increases the benefit from $75,000 to $100,000 which is in keeping with the requirements of MEBT to keep benefits comparable to social security benefits, has a 3-year rate guarantee, and includes contract enhancements. He commented on the strength of Cigna: • 90+ years Life and AD&D experience • 8.8 million individuals insured • 1.7 billion on annual disability premium • Rated “A” by A.M. Best • Rated “A2” by Moody’s System upgrades include telephonic claim intake; employees can file a claim over the phone and provide an electronic voice signature. The current coverage with Standard Insurance was established: • Life and AD&D 1976 • Long Term Disability 1977 • MEBT 1999 The contracts are outdated according to industry standards. For example: • Life and AD&D o Does not include waiver of premium o AD&D schedule is limited compared to industry standard  Does not provide coverage for coma or paralysis • Long Term Disability o Total disability is required to qualify for a disability o 100% earnings loss is required to be benefit eligible Under the proposed Cigna plan: • Life (for the City and MEBT) and AD&D o Waiver of premium will be included  No premium required during the waiting period o Repatriation and Medical Evacuation with no dollar limit o AD&D schedule will include coma and paralysis benefit o Conversion of the full in-force amount is available  Currently only $2,000 after 5 years • Long Term Disability o No limit on temporary recovery days during the elimination period o Partial disability is covered (100% earnings loss is not required) o Return to work incentive program will be included, allowing an employee to collect up to 100% of their pre-disability income Packet Page 12 of 676 He provided the following comparison: Benefit Standard Cigna Life and AD&D $0.195 and $0.045 $0.18 and $0.022 Cigna matching rate of $0.29 per unit for dependents MEBT Life $13.50 ($75k benefit) $13.94 (100k benefit) Cigna matching rate of $0.54 for disabled lives Long Term Disability $0.595 $0.49 Total Cost Differential -11.9% ($15,713) Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Cigna plan provides greater benefits, less cost and a three year rate guarantee; there are no hidden fees or fine print. Mr. Robertson agreed it seemed too good to be true. Typically when a firm has a monopoly and no competition, their fees are higher. The person who designed and programmed the policy that most municipalities in Washington participate in at Standard, left Standard and went to Cigna. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED (4-0). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) 5. PROCLAMATION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH ~ YWCA WEEK WITHOUT VIOLENCE Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 2014 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the third week of October as YWCA Week Without Violence. Mary Ann Dillon, Senior Regional Director, YWCA Snohomish County, on behalf of the YWCA, thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for raising awareness about domestic violence via the proclamation. She noted there were several members of the YWCA in the audience as well as Dr. Suzanne Poppema, President, Zonta Club of Everett. Zonta is a women’s organization that works on many women’s issues including eliminating human trafficking locally, nationally and internationally. Ms. Dillon explained recent incidents involving NFL players and domestic violence has put the spotlight on the problem and has men and women participating in important dialogue about domestic violence. There are great opportunities to keep the conversation going and make systemic changes. She commented a week without violence would be 7 days, 168 hours, 10,080 minutes free of domestic violence, sexual assault, early childhood enforced marriages, etc. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their commitment to ending violence and the making community safer for all. 12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Council President Buckshnis recalled in a test of the study session format a couple weeks ago the Council used a round robin, three question format. She asked for Councilmembers’ input regarding how study sessions should be run, the configuration, whether to have a time limit on questions, a round robin with a limit on the number of questions, etc., noting the microphones needed to be improved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers take turns asking questions to ensure everyone is able to participate. She noted typically the first person asks multiple questions. She preferred Councilmembers ask one question at a time unless there was a follow-up or clarification question. Councilmember Petso disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Her understanding of a study session format was to promote interactive discussions in a less structured atmosphere. At the study Packet Page 13 of 676 session regarding Westgate, the meeting included questions in a much more structured format than when Councilmembers are seated at the dais and there no discussion. She envisioned a less formal study session would provide opportunity for more dialogue and discussion. Council President Buckshnis commented there was discussion at the end of the study session regarding Westgate. The length of the agenda that evening also limited the amount of discussion regarding Westgate. She favored the round robin format because it allowed each person to speak. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she liked the more informal setting with Councilmembers seated at the table; her preference was to allow all Councilmembers to ask questions and participate in the process versus one Councilmember with a lot of questions monopolizing the subject matter. Councilmember Peterson said he also likes the informal nature of sitting at a table but he has heard from citizens who watch the Council meetings that they are not able to engage due to the poor sound quality and the camera angles. The Council needs to balance what makes them comfortable with the public’s ability to engage in the discussion. The technology is not currently set up to accommodate the format with Councilmembers seated at the table. He suggested gathering feedback from people who watch the Council meetings. Councilmember Johnson said it was beneficial to have rules for study sessions; the Council can make them up as they go or rely on Roberts Rules of Order although Roberts Rules may be too restrictive. She suggested either establishing a time limit or a number of questions. She suggested playing with the table layout, recalling the original configuration did not have Councilmembers in a line and allowed them to see each other. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem with the current configuration is some Councilmembers have their backs to the audience. Councilmember Johnson said she can see the screen better from the table; it is nearly impossible to see the screen when seated at the dais. She noted it would be helpful to provide Councilmembers with presentation materials. Councilmember Petso noted she could see the screen better from the dais than from the table. Council President Buckshnis summarized for future study sessions: • Work on a different table configuration • Round robin with 1-2 questions each Council President Buckshnis asked whether Councilmembers wanted discussion after each question. Councilmember Petso commented it depends on the issue. For Westgate, it may have been more productive to allow discussion after each question was raised. For items on tonight’s agenda that previously would have been handled by committee, few questions arose. She summarized less formality would be preferable. Councilmember Johnson asked whether Councilmembers wanted to start meetings at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. She preferred all the meetings start at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said either 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. was acceptable. With regard to the number of questions, she said to drive democracy the number of questions cannot be limited. She suggested a Councilmember who had a number of questions could continue to ask questions after other Councilmember’s questions had been answered. Council President Buckshnis commented she was surprised by the 6:30 p.m. start time tonight. She preferred to start meeting at 7:00 p.m. because that was what citizens are used to. Unless there were Packet Page 14 of 676 objections, she will continue with a 7:00 p.m. start time and, when necessary, hold executive sessions prior to Council meetings. Mayor Earling commented staff’s understanding was study sessions would start at 6:00 p.m., if there was an executive session, the meeting would start at 6:00 p.m., followed by the executive session and convene the study session at the conclusion of the executive session. There may be an advantage to starting the study session earlier; for example, tonight’s agenda was a 4-hour meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested all Council meetings could start at 6:00 or 6:30 p.m. to avoid confusion. Mayor Earling summarized Council President Buckshnis will take the Council’s comments and present a recommendation at the next study session. 13. PRESENTATION REGARDING FIRE DISTRICT 1 Mayor Earling explained the invoice was provided at an initial meeting with Fire District 1 (FD1) on August 21. Several subsequent meetings have been held including a meeting with Brier’s Mayor, Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and himself where it was agreed the three cities’ Finance Directors would meet to discuss concerns with the billing. Following that meeting the Finance Directors met with FD1’s Finance Director. During these meetings, further information has been requested from FD1. He met with Chief Widdis and Commissioner Chan last Friday where it was agreed the timing and the way the information regarding the increase was presented was handled poorly by FD1. It was also agreed to have further discussion on issues of concern to Edmonds and likely all three cities. Following tonight’s presentation and discussion, there will be a follow-up meeting this week with the three cities’ Finance Directors, Brier’s Mayor, Mountlake Terrace’s City Manager and him. He will be seeking a meeting with the three cities and FD1 late this week or early next week. He summarized there has been a good dialogue to this point. Fire District 1 Chief Ed Widdis commented he provided this same presentation to Mountlake Terrace, illustrating the benefits of contracting with FD1. The primary reasons Edmonds contracted with FD1 were: • More efficiencies o A 12-station fire department o A larger group of employees to pool from o More specialized equipment o More resources for the community o Re-classed the City fire service from a Class 4 to Class 3 • Save Money (He displayed the following spreadsheets): o City Revenue – Edmonds Fire (2010-2016) o Edmonds Fire Budget (2010-2016) o Contract Cost  Edmonds Fire Revenue Loss (Woodway and Esperance Contracts)  Costs Transferred to District o Estimated 5-year outlook (2010-2014)  Estimated savings via contracting : $5.8 million  Actual 5 year savings: $6 million Packet Page 15 of 676 He displayed photographs of the air/light unit, technical rescue unit, Taste of Edmonds, tours, honors, smoke detector distribution, 4th of July parade, Waterball, Sister City, After the Incident briefings, a meeting with the Senior Center and car seat checks. Commissioner David Chan commented Councilmembers are welcome to call Fire Chief Widdis or him with questions. He clarified there was no problem with the service; the concern was with the process. He commented they rely on staff for communication and the turnover in Edmonds’ Finance Directors may be why information was not communicated. He assured FD1 is exploring long term alternatives to improve communication with contract cities. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with Commissioner Chan’s indication that the change in Finance Directors played a role in the City not receiving a bill until recently. Chief Widdis clarified it may have had an impact on communications with staff. The bill was retroactivity for a union contract for 2013-2014. He noted in 2012 the union was provided a 3.7% COLA; they took it for one month and let go for the rest of year. Mayor Earling did not agree with comment about the City’s Finance Directors. Commissioner Chan commented the new Finance Director Scott James has been with the City for six months and has gotten on top of things quickly but there can be communication lag during personnel changes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether FD1 only speaks with the Finance Director. Chief Widdis said the Finance Directors talk to each other; when there is a new Finance Director or City Manager, staff tends to give them some space and time. Council President Buckshnis referred to language in the contract stating the contract payment shall be adjusted each year no later than September 1. She recalled the City had had 3 Finance Directors since 2011, not 7. She expressed concern that notification did not occur as specified in the contract. She also referred to Section 8.1 that states the District Fire Chief will meet quarterly with Finance, the Mayor and two Councilmembers. She was shocked by the numbers in the bill as well as upset by the comment that the turnover in Finance Directors was the issue when the contract states the District should be meeting quarterly with two Councilmembers and the Mayor. Mayor Earling urged caution regarding topics discussed in executive session. Councilmember Johnson commented communication is even more important when there is turnover. She encouraged FD1 to have quarterly meetings regardless of turnover in Finance Directors. She noted surprises are not helpful in annual budget process. Councilmember Petso referred to reports that FD1 had hired 12 new firefighters. She asked whether they were hired because FD1 was understaffed, if there was a policy change or had there been a mass retirement. Chief Widdis answered both. In 2013 and 2014, FD1 hired 22 new firefighters. The first 10 were to staff 2 peak activity units that work 12 hours shifts 7 days/week. The other 12 were hired due to retirements. When the economy was tight, FD1 did not hire and back-filled with overtime. Mayor Earling advised he will report to Council his discussions with FD1. Commissioner Chan commented labor negotiations are very sensitive; they hired a negotiator and the negotiations took two years. Chief Widdis advised in the current labor negotiation, they plan to file for mediation/arbitration sooner. Councilmember Petso asked if the concluded labor contracts are available to the public. Chief Widdis said they are. Packet Page 16 of 676 Council President Buckshnis said the Council will review the contract and consider making some changes. 14. PRESENTATION ON THE SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT OF THE 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the deadline for updating the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to be consistent with State law is mid-2015. The first element to be reviewed is the Sustainability Element. The packet includes a memo regarding the Planning Board’s review process as well as the draft proposed changes to the Sustainability Element. She sought the Council’s general sense that the element is acceptable. Actual adoption of all the updated elements will be considered in mid-2015 as the final step in the Comprehensive Plan update. The Sustainability Element consists of a short background; three topics, 1) climate change, 2) community health, and 3) environmental quality; and implementation. Ms. Hope reviewed the changes proposed by the Planning Board: • Add Edmonds Marsh to the list of unique environmental assets (page 18) • Add “energy efficiency” to Sustainability Goal D (page 20) • Add “minimize waste” to Goal D.3 (page 21) • Add” green infrastructure (emphasizing natural systems and processes)” to Goal 4.3 (page 21) • Add “energy efficiency” to Sustainability Goal E (page 21) • Add to the introduction of Community Health, “Transportation systems, development patterns, community design, and planning decisions can have profound effects on health and wellbeing. All citizens should be able to live, work, and play in environments that facilitate physical activity and offer healthy choices.”(page 27) • Add to Community Health Goal B.3, “Integrate land-use, transportation, community design, and economic development planning with public health planning to increase opportunities for recreation, physical activity and exposure to the natural environment. One example is.” (page 27) Councilmember Johnson referred to B.3, noting public health has a different meaning than community health. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Health District references community health as in public health, the health of the community. The Health District has contacted all cities to include that in their plan. Councilmember Johnson suggested staff work on the language with Councilmember Fraley- Monillas who is on the Snohomish Health District Board. Ms. Hope continued her review of the changes proposed by the Planning Board: • Add to Community Health Goal E.2, “Reduce material consumption, waste generation and resource depletion.” (page 29) • Delete from Goal F, “to the extent feasible” (page 29) • Add “other” to Environmental Quality Goal A (page 30) • Add to Implementing Sustainability, paragraph regarding Implementation Action and Performance Measures (page 34) • Add Performance Measure 1: Annual report on energy usage within the City, both by the City government and by the larger Edmonds community. (page 34) • Add Action 1: By 2017, update the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification. (page 34) Councilmember Petso suggested in addition to a public hearing on all the updated elements, the Council hold an extra public hearing as the draft elements are completed. This would allow staff to explain how questions raised by Councilmembers have been addressed. Mayor Earling clarified a second public hearing would be held on all the elements. Councilmember Petso agreed that was her intent. Packet Page 17 of 676 Ms. Hope explained the intent is to make this information available on a dedicated page on the City’s website. Staff also plans to hold 1-2 open houses to provide information more informally and allow the public to provide comments. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the schedule for review of the next element. Ms. Hope advised next is the Housing Element; it is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Council on October 28. 15. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This item was postponed until October 28 via action taken in Agenda Item 3. 16. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty provided background: • Communication via an array of methods is an effective and important way of engaging and involving public and stakeholders o Newsletters, cable TV channel, website, press etc. • To an increasing degree over recent years, social media have been added such as: o Facebook o Twitter o Flickr o Google+ o YouTube He provided the following information regarding social media: • Increasingly effective way for municipalities to engage/involve public • Provide real time updates/info on events, accomplishments, encourage dialogue, and propagate info easily (like, share, etc.) • Many of neighboring communities have implemented social media tools (Everett, Bellevue, Redmond, Lynnwood, Renton, Shoreline, Mukilteo) o Often have separate City and Police Facebook page For these reasons, he proposed initiating usage of social media in Edmonds. The City Attorney has reviewed and vetted the proposed policy and supporting documents. To do so requires approving Social Media Usage Policy. He reviewed the proposed Social Media Usage Policy: • Section 1.0 Purpose o Supplements Information Services Acceptable Use Policy of City’s Personnel Policy o Applies to all employees, officers, volunteers o Related to the conduct of City business • Section 2.0 Policy o Consistent with City policies o Users are accountable for the form and substance o Maintain propriety and professionalism • Section 3.0 Related Documents o Social Media Comments and Use Guidelines o Social Media Style Guide o Social Media Usage Application Form • Section 4.0 Definitions Packet Page 18 of 676 o Public Information Officer: employee or contractor who manages overall usage, monitors content, etc. o Social Media Content Contributor – Department representative, trained and recognized by PIO, who contributes, manages and monitors posts by department • 5.0 Guidelines and Procedures o Department designates and trains Content Coordinator, uses one-time Application Form for usage o No other employee per department posts, monitors, responds o Facebook, twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Goggle+ o Each new medium requires City Attorney review of usage policies, etc. o Content contributors shall not post content that:  Violates copyrights  Promotes/advertises political campaigns  Promotes illegal activity  Promotes outside organization  Promotes commercial enterprise with no City purpose  Contains libelous/slanderous material  Violates privacy rights  Unrelated to City mission or department purpose(s)  Violates standards of propriety or professionalism o Most appropriate uses of social media are:  Time sensitive or urgent information  Communication/promotional/marketing tool to increase awareness and distribution of City activities, achievements, events, etc. o Frequent monitoring, updating, etc. to ensure usefulness of medium o Open Public Meeting Act Considerations  Councilmembers, Commissioners other appointed officials should not comment or otherwise communicate on City social media sites  Participation in online discussion could constitute a meeting under the OPMA  OPMA provisions existing to protect elected/appointed officials and protect the City o Content posted by public:  Must be monitored to ensure appropriateness  Must to related to posted topic(s)  Inappropriate comment may be removed: - Not topically related - Promotes/advertises commercial services etc. - Supports/opposes political campaigns or propositions - Is obscene - Illegal activity - Promotes discrimination - May compromise public safety - Violates copyrights - Libelous or slanderous - Violates privacy rights o Records Retention/Disclosure  Posted content subject to Public Records Act - Avoid original content when possible - Original content, comments, etc. must be retained - Removals must be documented/retained - Hard copy + files or social media archiving services may be used Packet Page 19 of 676 Mr. Doherty explained when inappropriate comment is removed, it must be documented. In polling three other communities, he found two communities have never deleted anything and one community deleted something once. Council President Buckshnis asked about the estimated cost, observing it appeared there will need to be a new PIO position. Mr. Doherty answered the budget includes a proposal for contracted services in the amount of $30,000 as a pilot in 2015 to assist help with many issues including this. The content contributors from the departments will do the majority of the work such as posting content and monitoring comments. The full range of duties for the Communication/PR/Outreach position includes serving as the PIO for these purpose as well as press inquiries, etc. Councilmember Johnson asked about the model for content, citing Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) as one example where questions/answers become a research tool. Another model is My Edmonds News where there is ongoing discussion about a topic. Mr. Doherty said in looking at other cities websites, the intended use is to portray achievements, accomplishments and upcoming events, feel- good items and to create a sense of community. It is not intended to be a medium for introducing controversial topics for debate. In reading comments posted in other cities, he found they are positive for the most part. If there are questions about a post, the content contributor can interject a comment if necessary. Council President Buckshnis asked how what is inappropriate is determined, noting what is inappropriate to one person may not be inappropriate to another. Mr. Doherty acknowledged there will be a great deal of judgment and discussion. If a content contributor has posted something and an appropriate comment is made, he suggested the contributor seek input from the PIO, the Mayor or him before removing it. Councilmember Peterson asked when comments would be stopped such as persistent questioning about a project or achievement. Mr. Doherty explained in reading the policy and talking with PIOs in other cities, if someone asking a lot of needling questions, they are thanked for their comments and not engaged further. The City does not have a duty to respond to questions. This is an interactive newsletter to get information out that people do not necessarily know is happening. In the case of negative comments, the City can either not respond or if it is really inappropriate, delete the comment. Mayor Earling commented the only issue that specifically involves the Council is entering into a conversation on Facebook and potentially establishing a quorum if four Councilmembers comment. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the policy speaks to that. There is no law on how the OPA will treat social media, therefore, it cannot safely be assumed that a discussion is an open meeting because it occurs on Facebook. Until there is a law that says social media is an open meeting, it should be assumed it is not. It was the consensus of the Council for this item to return to the full Council for a short discussion. 17. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION DESIGN Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City is partnering with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to rehabilitate the fishing pier. The structure is deteriorating and needs to be rehabbed. The pier is owned by State; the City has programmed, managed and maintained it such as changing lightbulbs, etc. WDFW wants the City’s Engineering Division to manage the design process and construction project when it reaches that phase. There is $190,000 available from WDFW for the design phase. Several firms were interviewed following an RFQ process for design services; staff recommends a contract with BergerABAM for $128,600 for design costs and permitting. The packet includes the scope of services and the standard City Engineering Services contract. Packet Page 20 of 676 The packet also includes the contract with the State for the design funds. The remaining funds will cover the City’s costs of administering and implementing the design phase. Once a design has been prepared, it is hoped construction funds will be available. Construction funds are being sought from funds appropriated by the Legislature to the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP) in two grant categories, $500,000 from Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) and $800,000 from Water Access Account (WAC) for a total of $1.3 million. The applications were submitted and the project scored very highly in a recent competition; assuming the Legislature appropriates funds to WWRP in the budget, the two grants are expected to be received which will cover 100% of the construction cost. In the event those funds are not appropriated, WDFW has its own capital budget and this project is the top project in their 2015 CIP. If the construction costs are higher than the estimate of $1.3 million, WDFW could also be a source for additional funds. He requested the Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for design of $128,600 with BergerABAM. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she has two family members who spend 50-75 days/year on the pier. She suggested visiting the dock and asking the people who use it what they want. Mr. Williams answered some of that has been done and he expected more would be done. The scope of this project is focused on structural rehab, painting, etc. There will be some thought given to enhancements such as art and landscaping. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested some communication between the users and the planners. For example, the shelters and windbreaks are very small. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD THE ITEM TO THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 18. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2015 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Mayor Earling advised there departments will make presentations in the coming weeks. Finance Director Scott James provided context for the 2015 budget: • The budget picture for Edmonds has improved in 2015 because of: o Increasing revenues o Increasing property values • Future budgets becoming more challenging o New ongoing costs from FD1 o City will have to look for either new ongoing revenues or ongoing expenditure savings With regard to the economic environment: • The Puget Sound economy continues to be one of the healthiest in the county • Home values continue to increase and housing sales remain healthy o Assessor’s Office advised of an increase in values of 10.8%. This is the reason for some banked capacity in EMS levy o Building permits this year had a valuation estimated at $65.1 million, compared to $24.5 million for the same period a year ago o Permit fees are over $514,000 this year compared to $314,000 last year o Review fees this year are $364,000 compared to $178,000 last year • Anticipate stable or 2015 modest growth and moderating over the next few years • 2015 budget is cautiously optimistic Packet Page 21 of 676 Mr. James displayed and reviewed: • Graph of unemployment rates January 2004 – September 2014 for Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue, Washington and National. • Chart and table of Revenue Trend Analysis (All Funds) 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 YE and 2015 budget for other financing, transfers-in, miscellaneous, charges for services, intergovernmental, licenses and permits and taxes • Chart of Revenue Trend Analysis with lines between years to highlight movement to revenue between categories • Pie chart of revenues by type • Expenditure Comparison All Funds o 2015 expenses anticipated to grow nearly 16% or $12.9 million over what we are projecting to spend this year o However, compared to the 2014 budget, decreasing this year’s request by $2.7 million o Increase in Special Revenue Fund related to increases in funding for street construction and park construction o Increase in Enterprise Fund also relates to projects moving forward funded by bonds • Pie chart of expenditures by type o Salary and benefits account for 27.08% or $25.4 million of the total 2015 budget o Capital outlays make up 24.73% or 23.2 million of budget expenses for 2015 Mr. James explained General Fund revenues are down by 4.9% or almost $2.74 million under projected year end revenues for 2014. If the effects of the $2.76 million bond refunding is removed, 2015 revenues would only be $23,000 higher than 2014 projected revenues. He displayed and reviewed: • Chart and table of Revenue Trend Analysis (General Fund) for FY 2011 – FY 2015 for other financing, transfers-in, miscellaneous, charges for services, intergovernmental, licenses and permits and taxes • General Fund Key Revenues Revenue 2014 YE 2015 Proposed Variance % Discussion Property Tax $9,819,160 $9,960,190 $141,030 1.4% Includes 1% increase EMS Levy Tax $3,051,206 $3,095,002 $ 43,796 1.4% Includes 1% increase Sales Tax $5,750,000 $5,627,000 ($123,000) -2.1% Fewer major projects • Table of Property Tax 2009 – 2015: Total Assessed Value, New Construction Assessment and Regular Property Tax Revenue from New Construction o Property taxes in 2015 budget includes a 1% levy increase • Table of Sales Tax revenues 2012 – 2015 budget o 2015 sales tax revenues are anticipated to decline from 2014 levels as some of major projects wind down • Pie chart of General Fund expenditures He provided highlights of 2015 General Fund expenditures: • The 2015 General Fund expenditures budget is 0.78% smaller than 2014 estimated year end expenditure o Includes transfers from Contingency Reserve to help offset Fire District bill o Includes new dollars to address needs in streets • The 2015 proposed budget is a prudent and conservative budget and funds specific one-time investments such as the $706,000 transfer to the Street Construction Fund Council President Buckshnis asked why the funds to pay the FD1 bill would be taken from Contingency Reserve. Mr. James explained the bill is a one-time expense; one of the purposes of the Contingency Packet Page 22 of 676 Reserve is to pay unexpected, one-time expenses. Funding for the Contingency Reserve originally came from the General Fund. For Council President Buckshnis, Mr. James clarified only the retroactive bill from FD1 would be paid from the Contingency Reserve. Mr. James explained the 2012-2019 Financial Plan: • Is a combination of: o 2012 and 2013 history o 2014 projection o 2015 recommended budget o 2015-2019 projections • Provides a high level view of where we are and where we are going from a financial perspective if there are no major unanticipated changes in the economy, revenues or expenditures • Located on page 15 of the budget book He displayed and reviewed: • Strategic Outlook Total Revenues and Expenditures 2012-2019 Analysis • Strategic Outlook General Fund Fund Balance 2012-2019 Analysis o 2015 budget does not include any new revenues o 2015 budget does not anticipate unexpended dollars • Chart REET revenues o Anticipate $2 million in REET I n2014, may decline to $1.8 million in 2015 Mr. James commented on decision packages: • Departments needing to change how they operate or need to expand services will complete a decision package • 48 decision packages • Funding for each request identified at the bottom of the decision package • A Summary of Decision Packages on pages 30 and 31 of the Preliminary Budget book • Each Cost Center also includes brief narrative for major 2015 budget changes Mayor Earling suggested overview questions from the Council tonight. After a brief discussion, the following budget review schedule was agreed on: October 21 and 28 Department presentations October 21 Public hearing (already noticed) November 3 Public hearing November 10 Study Session November 18 Deliberation and decision Councilmember Petso referred to the comment about banked capacity in the EMS levy. She recalled the Council tried to bank capacity last year and asked if that effort was assisted by the increase in property values. Mr. James answered the City banked $79,000 last year. For 2015 with property values increasing 10.8%, there is $803,000 available to the City. When voters approved a permanent levy in 2009, the levy effective in 2010 had maximum revenue of approximately $3.9 million. Since 2010 citizens have received a tax break compliments of declining assessed values. This year assessed values have increased; if the Council enacted the $803,000, it would bring the levy back to the $3.9 million approved by voters in 2009. 19. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Health District is going through the budget process and has a number of financial challenges related to providing services in Snohomish County. Dr. Goldbaum, Packet Page 23 of 676 Health Officer and Director of the Snohomish Health District, will provide a report at the cities dinner on Thursday. The Health District may cut some programs they provide due to limited funding. Today’s Health District meeting included a report on Ebola; the Health District is working with hospitals and clinics on federal and state guidelines and are confident if an Ebola situation arose in Snohomish County, it would be handled in an appropriate manner. Councilmember Peterson reported on the Snohomish Emergency Response Services (SERS) meeting; the new system is progressing well and test results have been positive. Councilmember Johnson reported the Economic Development Commission heard a presentation from Nick Echelbarger regarding Salish Crossing. She suggested Mr. Echelbarger be invited to make the presentation at a Council study session. Tomorrow’s EDC meeting will include a presentation from Swedish-Edmonds CEO Dr. Jaffe regarding expansion of the hospital. Councilmember Johnson reported on the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee effort to have businesses make a Green Business Pledge. Approximately 40 businesses have pledged, up from only 6 a few months ago. In the coming months, she will identify the businesses that have taken the pledge. Those that have taken the pledge include: • The Cheesemonger’s Table • Gallery North • Merri Lee Jacobs, PhD Psychologist • Landau Associates • Walnut Street Café • City of Edmonds Public Works Department Council President Buckshnis reported WIRA 8’s federal priorities include support of appropriation of at least $65 million for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Funds from the Department of Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies; Puget Sound Recovery Act; and Army Corp of Engineers to help with the Ballard Locks. In the State budget, WIRA 8 asked for $140 million this year, up from $70 million last year, for the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. Of that, $110 million would be dedicated to fund large high priority capital projects submitted by the Puget Sound Watershed including $1.4 million for WRIA 8. Edmonds is one of 4 WIRA 8 projects. WIRA 8 also supports $40 million in General Obligation Bonds to support the Salmon Recovery grant program. The WRIA 8 meeting also included a presentation about salmon by the Friends of Cedar River. Mayor Earling reported the Executive Director of Community Transit retired a few months ago. A nationwide search has been launched for her replacement; the selection is anticipated to be made by February. 20. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked the Council for the first study session, commenting it was a good start and will continue to be fine-tuned. Several items were forwarded to next week’s Consent Agenda. Mayor Earling advised he will forward appointments to the ADB and Planning Board for interviews prior to next week’s Council meeting. 21. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Petso suggested being careful about citing businesses that have signed up for the Green Business Pledge. The comment was made that 40 businesses have pledged but the names of only 6 Packet Page 24 of 676 businesses were read. Her business should be on the list of businesses that have pledged; if the businesses are named, all of them should be listed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso, commenting the Council should be careful not to use public air time for business publicity. She urged everyone to get a flu shot. Councilmember Peterson announced the Veterans Day Ceremony at the Veterans Plaza on November 11 at 11 a.m. put on by various veterans groups and the committee working on Veterans Plaza. He noted all Veterans Day Ceremonies are on November 11 at 11 a.m. because that is the day and time that WWI ended. Councilmember Johnson relayed the meeting regarding the Green Business Pledge was held in September; only the first six are listed on the City’s website. When the remainder becomes public knowledge, she will share the names. Councilmember Johnson reminded tomorrow, October 15 is the registration deadline for the Edmonds Scarecrow Festival. Voting occurs October 16 – November 1. Council President Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the Mayor, Staff and Council for the first study session. Agenda items were processed quickly and she anticipated the study session process will improve. Council President Buckshnis invited dog owners to the Halloween Howl at the Dog Park on Saturday, October 18, 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. The event includes great gifts, auction items and raffle items and costume judging at 1 p.m. 22. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 23. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 24. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:08p.m. Packet Page 25 of 676 AM-7213 6. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #211018 through #211133 dated October 16, 2014 for $645,141.91 (reissued check #211078 $118.31) Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:645,141.91 Fiscal Impact: Claims $645,141.91 Attachments Claim cks 10-16-14 Project Numbers 10-16-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/16/2014 12:02 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 12:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 12:44 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 12:48 PM Packet Page 26 of 676 Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/15/2014 04:42 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 27 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211018 10/16/2014 000195 ACCENT DESIGN 1014009 City Hall - Chambers Office - Replace City Hall - Chambers Office - Replace 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 25.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2.38 Total :27.38 211019 10/16/2014 072189 ACCESS 0781657 STORAGE FEE File storage 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 65.00 SHRED COURT FILES0781764 SHRED COURT FILES 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 50.00 INV#0781765 CUST#STC61515 - EDMONDS PD0781765 SHRED TWO TOTES 9/11/14 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 80.00 Total :195.00 211020 10/16/2014 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W41010460J Water Watch Pager Water Watch Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 28.36 Total :28.36 211021 10/16/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987591653 WWTP - UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MAT wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 8.99 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 76.46 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.85 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.27 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987603026 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.03 1Page: Packet Page 28 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.71 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987607291 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987607292 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 2Page: Packet Page 29 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987607293 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.84 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.75 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987614365 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 91.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 8.65 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987618629 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 3Page: Packet Page 30 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987618630 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987618631 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS1987625927 wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 25.04 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 63.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 8.46 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987625929 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 4Page: Packet Page 31 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 14.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.41 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987630229 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987630230 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 5Page: Packet Page 32 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987630231 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS & TOWELS1987637334 wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 75.21 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 7.15 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987637336 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 14.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.41 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987641638 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 6Page: Packet Page 33 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987641639 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987641640 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 26.50 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 2.52 9.5% Sales Tax 7Page: Packet Page 34 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211021 10/16/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 WWTP - UNIFORMS, MATS, & TOWELS1987660359 wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 63.74 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 6.06 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987660360 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.11 Total :797.36 211022 10/16/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0645455-IN WWTP - DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2, Dyed Bulk fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 4,610.84 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 438.03 Total :5,048.87 211023 10/16/2014 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 93233-0013 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL - SERVER ROOM CITY Cooling system rental - 9/30/14 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 295.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 28.03 Total :323.03 211024 10/16/2014 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 76813 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 149.75 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 149.75 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 8Page: Packet Page 35 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211024 10/16/2014 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 154.28 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 544.80 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 544.80 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.23 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.65 Total :1,586.49 211025 10/16/2014 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 1179 Advertising for Parks Maintenance Worker Advertising for Parks Maintenance Worker 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 62.48 Total :62.48 211026 10/16/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 74260-81 CR FOR RETURN SHOES - SACKVILLE CR FOR BOOTS RETURNED 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -109.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -10.45 INV#74260-81 - EDMONDS PD - SACKVILLE74260-81 BLACK MENS SIZE BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 174.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.63 Total :71.18 211027 10/16/2014 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 19190 PILATES YOGA F 19190 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTUCTOR FEE 19190 PILATES YOGA FUSION INSTUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 363.78 19202 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19202 YOGA 19202 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 9Page: Packet Page 36 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211027 10/16/2014 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 309.60 19205 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19205 YOGA 19205 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 166.06 19208 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19208 YOGA 19208 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 351.00 19211 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19211 YOGA 19211 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 491.40 19214 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19214 YOGA 19214 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 664.20 19217 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE19217 YOGA 19217 YOGA INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 275.40 Total :2,621.44 211028 10/16/2014 069295 BROWN, CANDY 19052 BACKYARD BIRDS 19052 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTOR FEE 19052 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 123.75 Total :123.75 211029 10/16/2014 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 308184 Water Sewer Street Storm - Crushed Rock Water Sewer Street Storm - Crushed Rock 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 888.71 Water Sewer Street Storm - Crushed Rock 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 888.71 Water Sewer Street Storm - Crushed Rock 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 888.71 Water Sewer Street Storm - Crushed Rock 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 888.72 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 84.43 9.5% Sales Tax 10Page: Packet Page 37 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211029 10/16/2014 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 84.43 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 84.43 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 84.42 Total :3,892.56 211030 10/16/2014 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 92243102 Street - Cement Street - Cement 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 275.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 26.13 Total :301.13 211031 10/16/2014 075044 CASWELL, ALICIA 10/10 WOTS REFUND WOTS REFUND FRIDAY FULL DAY WORKSHOP WOTS REFUND FRIDAY FULL DAY WORKSHOP 001.000.239.200 100.00 Total :100.00 211032 10/16/2014 073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 010-057869 INV#010-057869 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE TEST #14-1711 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 870.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2059 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1302 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 610.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-4399 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 405.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-0229 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-1093 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,680.00 EVIDENCE TEST #13-1300 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 915.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-1475 11Page: Packet Page 38 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211032 10/16/2014 (Continued)073221 CELLMARK FORENSICS INC 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,680.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-1816 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-1840 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 1,045.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2624 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-1816 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 405.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2531 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 405.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2493 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 EVIDENCE TEST #14-2386 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 305.00 Total :9,845.00 211033 10/16/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9429413280 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 1,267.70 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 120.43 Roadway - Asphalt9429429709 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 772.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 73.35 Storm - Dirt Dump Fees9429451132 Storm - Dirt Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 949.82 Roadway - Asphalt9429465118 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 352.80 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.52 12Page: Packet Page 39 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211033 10/16/2014 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC Storm - Dirt Dump Fees9429472898 Storm - Dirt Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 281.01 Total :3,850.73 211034 10/16/2014 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E4GA.ROW E4GA.ROW PERMIT ENG20140511 E4GA.ROW Permit ENG20140511 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 115.00 Total :115.00 211035 10/16/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 11050 INV#11050 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD NARCOTICS SGT JULY-SEPT 2014 104.000.41.521.21.51.00 10,044.14 Total :10,044.14 211036 10/16/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2698182-1 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES DISP SOAP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 334.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.73 Fac Maint - Bowlmops, Sanitizer, SprayW2706797 Fac Maint - Bowlmops, Sanitizer, Spray 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 509.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.45 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICEw2707140 paper products 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 51.39 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.88 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESW2708147 ACCLAIM, DOME TOP FOR 55 GL BRUTE, 2 PLY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 331.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.48 13Page: Packet Page 40 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211036 10/16/2014 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS Fac Maint - Bleach, Filters, Mop Heads,W2708927 Fac Maint - Bleach, Filters, Mop Heads, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 567.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.92 Total :1,964.75 211037 10/16/2014 072848 COPIERS NW INV1101102 INV#1101102 HMH636 - EDMONDS PD IRC5045 LEASE 9/5-10/4/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 INV1101103 HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1101103 B/W METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 55.27 COLOR METER CHARGE IRC5045 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 94.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 14.27 Total :412.74 211038 10/16/2014 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100154677 WWTP - JANITORIAL strip and wax floor 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 300.00 Total :300.00 211039 10/16/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3290937 Fishing Pier Rehab Project Ad Fishing Pier Rehab Project Ad 016.000.66.518.30.49.00 395.20 Total :395.20 211040 10/16/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3487 MINUTE TAKING Council Minutes 10/7 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 369.60 Total :369.60 14Page: Packet Page 41 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211041 10/16/2014 070884 EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES INC E4JA.Pmt 2 E4JA.PMT 2 THRU 9/26/14 E4JA.Pmt 2 thru 9/26/14 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 221,745.52 Total :221,745.52 211042 10/16/2014 075043 EDM WDWY ATHLETIC BOOSTER CLUB 140914 Refund Hydrant Use Permit Deposit #1412 Refund Hydrant Use Permit Deposit #1412 421.000.245.110 950.00 Total :950.00 211043 10/16/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 40871 PS - Boiler Sensor Parts PS - Boiler Sensor Parts 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.76 Total :8.75 211044 10/16/2014 073910 EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOP 3rd Qtr 2014 FAC Solar Eect System Porduction FAC Solar Eect System Porduction 001.000.66.518.30.45.00 444.12 Total :444.12 211045 10/16/2014 073461 EDMONDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 10/10 REFUND DAM DEP 10/10 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 10/10 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Total :200.00 211046 10/16/2014 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19142 JACOBO 19142 JACOBO YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 19142 JACOBO YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 47.00 Total :47.00 211047 10/16/2014 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 129262 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 Total :152.00 15Page: Packet Page 42 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211048 10/16/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 103658 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 5.57 COPIER MAINT103929 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 4.14 COPIER MAINT104052 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 90.18 WATER SEWER COPY USE104676 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 29.18 Water Sewer Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 29.17 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2.77 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.77 PW COPY USE104677 PW Copy Use~ 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 42.46 PW Copy Use~ 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 24.06 PW Copy Use~ 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 24.06 PW Copy Use~ 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.98 PW Copy Use~ 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 16.98 PW Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.04 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 2.29 16Page: Packet Page 43 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211048 10/16/2014 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 2.29 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.61 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.61 FLEET COPY USE104687 Fleet Copy Use~ 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.50 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1030105129 Meter charges for Planning Dept. C1030 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 27.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 2.57 Meter charges for Building Dept. C1030105130 1 Meter charges for Building Dept. C1030 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 32.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.13 Additional Copies and maintenance105131 1 Additional Copies and maintenance 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 17.88 COPIER MAINT105149 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 1.63 Total :409.66 211049 10/16/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH589863 NEWSPAPER AD Public Hearing 2015 Budget 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 158.24 Van Caryl ADU/PLN20140047 legals.EDH592859 17Page: Packet Page 44 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211049 10/16/2014 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Van Caryl ADU/PLN20140047 legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 72.24 A. Jay Young/PLN20140045 legals.EDH592863 A. Jay Young/PLN20140045 legals. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 72.24 Total :302.72 211050 10/16/2014 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 68528 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES ALUMINUM REMNANTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 104.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.93 Total :114.43 211051 10/16/2014 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC M958 YOST POOL PUMP REPAIR PUMP REPAIR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 444.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 42.21 Total :486.54 211052 10/16/2014 067113 FAST WATER HEATER COMPANY BLD20140946 Address not in city limits. Address not in city limits. 001.000.257.620 75.00 Total :75.00 211053 10/16/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU33231 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.77 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.36 Total :4.13 211054 10/16/2014 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 3041917 Library - Plumbing Supplies Library - Plumbing Supplies 18Page: Packet Page 45 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211054 10/16/2014 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 212.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.22 Total :233.08 211055 10/16/2014 075015 FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING 941978 INV 941978 EDMONDS PD - SEPTEMBER 2014 CREDIT CHECK - HWANG 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 9.00 Total :9.00 211056 10/16/2014 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 252.36 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 252.36 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 5.48 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 20.78 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.60 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 19Page: Packet Page 46 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211056 10/16/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 31.59 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.03 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 80.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 67.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 67.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 89.79 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 126.76 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 48.69 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 63.04 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 50.45 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 27.87 Total :1,356.53 211057 10/16/2014 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 68.78 Total :68.78 211058 10/16/2014 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19186 TAEKWON-DO 19186 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 20Page: Packet Page 47 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211058 10/16/2014 (Continued)073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA 19186 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 333.00 Total :333.00 211059 10/16/2014 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 30782 E3GA.SERVICES THRU 9/2014 SITE #5 E3GA.Services thru 9/2014 Site #5 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 2,090.00 E2FB/E4FA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 201430783 E2FB.Services thru September 2014 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,269.11 E4FA.Services thru September 2014 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 653.79 E3GA.SERVICE THRU 9/2014 SITE #630818 E3GA.Services thru 9/2014 Site #6 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 1,077.50 Total :5,090.40 211060 10/16/2014 072515 GOOGLE INC 11709611 C/A #396392 MESSAGE DISCOVERY BILLING Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 421.00 Total :421.00 211061 10/16/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9552231228 City Park Bldg - Notice Sign City Park Bldg - Notice Sign 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.58 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Tool Replacement9552813710 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Tool Replacement 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 103.63 9.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 9.55 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Tool Replacement9557215234 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Tool Replacement 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 77.74 21Page: Packet Page 48 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211061 10/16/2014 (Continued)012199 GRAINGER 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 7.38 Total :216.56 211062 10/16/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1040359 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.23 Fac Maint- Unit 5 - Tool Replacements1043481 Fac Maint- Unit 5 - Tool Replacements 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 1,200.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 114.04 FAC - Supplies1280473 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.71 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies2032618 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.89 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies2040213 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 45.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.32 FS 17 - Supplies2043372 FS 17 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.50 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.96 9.5% Sales Tax 22Page: Packet Page 49 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211062 10/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.22 Fac Maint - Unit 5- Tool Replacements2083455 Fac Maint - Unit 5- Tool Replacements 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 1,078.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 102.46 Traffic - Conduit for Loop Install at2090042 Traffic - Conduit for Loop Install at 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 21.44 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.04 Traffic - Supplies3085358 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 16.82 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.60 PW - Supplies3097186 PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.87 Fac Maint - Supplies32808 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.29 Sewer - Supplies3594598 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.24 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.40 FAC - Supplies4043096 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.72 23Page: Packet Page 50 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211062 10/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.21 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Hammer Drill4047523 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Hammer Drill 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 299.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 28.41 FS 20 - Supplies4093871 FS 20 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.88 FAC - Supplies43592 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.28 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies5280430 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.39 Traffic - Supplies5590009 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 14.97 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.42 Parks - Hot Water Heater Supplies562236 Parks - Hot Water Heater Supplies 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 100.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.59 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies6041322 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 24Page: Packet Page 51 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211062 10/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.46 PW - Fleet - Radiant Heater Supplies7042822 PW - Fleet - Radiant Heater Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.58 Water - Supplies7082912 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 58.95 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.60 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Hooks, Supplies7260863 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Hooks, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.33 Water - Supplies76682 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 92.07 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.75 Parks - Hot Water Tanks for Parks8040761 Parks - Hot Water Tanks for Parks 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 536.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.92 PW Fleet - Radiant Heaters Supplies8042714 PW Fleet - Radiant Heaters Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 119.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.38 Traffic - Supplies8161742 25Page: Packet Page 52 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211062 10/16/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.74 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.55 Sewer - Supplies83641 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 56.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.34 Street - Supplies9042561 Street - Supplies 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 196.65 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 18.68 PW - Radiant Heater Supplies9042582 PW - Radiant Heater Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 104.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.92 PW - Supplies9095052 PW - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.18 Total :4,690.61 211063 10/16/2014 072047 ICLEI M2012-5468 Edmonds WA Membership renewal 2015. Edmonds WA Membership renewal 2015. 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 600.00 Total :600.00 211064 10/16/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2520274 Misc. office supplies including report Misc. office supplies including report 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 271.70 9.5% Sales Tax 26Page: Packet Page 53 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211064 10/16/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 25.81 Another chair for Shane's meeting table2521005 Another chair for Shane's meeting table 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 204.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 19.41 BIC PENS2523912 BIC velocity gel retractable pens - 1 dz 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 14.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.36 SUPPLIES2524592 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 271.93 SHARP DISPLAY CALCULATOR - D KENYON2525187 Sharp print display calculator for D 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 139.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 13.25 WIRELESS MOUSE2525233 Logitech wireless mouse 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 46.49 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.42 SUPPLIES2525268 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 38.34 Misc. office supplies including 11x172525861 Misc. office supplies including 11x17 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 288.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 27.43 CRT SCREEN CLEANING WIPES2525990 Read Right OneStep CRT Screen Cleaning 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 5.75 27Page: Packet Page 54 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211064 10/16/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 0.55 Total :1,373.37 211065 10/16/2014 075040 JAMES & ELIZABETH COLE 1-06800 #951400098-BMF UTILITY REFUND #951400098-BMF Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 252.35 Total :252.35 211066 10/16/2014 072728 KAVADAS, JANET 10/2 WGHT RM ORIENT 10/2 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 10/2 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 50.00 9/4 WEIGHT RM ORIENT9/4 WEIGHT RM ORIENT 9/4 WEIGHT RM ORIENT 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 50.00 Total :100.00 211067 10/16/2014 075041 KEN & KAREN NICHOLS-HOPPE 5-07275 #4221-2138516 UTILITY REFUND #4221-2138516 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 85.25 Total :85.25 211068 10/16/2014 016600 KROESENS INC 22150 INV 22150 CUST # 1320 EDMONDS PD - BROMA 3/4 SLEEVE POLO SHIRTS W/BADGE 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 45.00 SHIRT EMBROIDERY 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 17.80 UNIFORM SHOES 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 62.50 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 85.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 19.98 Total :230.28 28Page: Packet Page 55 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211069 10/16/2014 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 10072014-01 INV#10072014-01 - EDMONDS PD 22 CAR WASHES $5.03 (INC TX) 9/14 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 110.66 Total :110.66 211070 10/16/2014 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 33908 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 9/27/14 E3FH.Services thru 9/27/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 930.00 Total :930.00 211071 10/16/2014 072059 LEE, NICOLE 1333 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 142.56 INTERPRETER FEE1334 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 142.56 Total :285.12 211072 10/16/2014 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC OCT-14 10-14 LEGALS FEES 10-14 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00 Total :32,000.00 211073 10/16/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6968 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 9/30/14 E1DA.Services thru 9/30/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 460.92 Total :460.92 211074 10/16/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1378 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1394 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INV#4634 - EDMONDS POLICE4634 TRANSLATION CASE #14-3713 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 80.00 29Page: Packet Page 56 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :256.6421107410/16/2014 069362 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 211075 10/16/2014 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 71 LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,073.00 Total :8,073.00 211076 10/16/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 14161664 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE office casters 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 41.12 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 7.46 WWTP- SUPPLIES, OFFICE & OPERATIONS14161665 office leveling mounts 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 12.87 padlocks 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 71.50 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.03 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE14391375 office casters and feet 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 50.65 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 7.46 Total :198.09 211077 10/16/2014 075034 MEYER, DANIEL ENG20140344 Owner changed plans-not using Owner changed plans-not using 001.000.257.620 115.00 Total :115.00 211078 10/16/2014 067800 MICROFLEX CORP #774353 IN1497644 Shop Work Gloves Shop Work Gloves 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 108.05 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.26 30Page: Packet Page 57 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :118.3121107810/16/2014 067800 067800 MICROFLEX CORP #774353 211079 10/16/2014 020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C64128 Grandstands - Wood Supplies Grandstands - Wood Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 195.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.61 Total :214.50 211080 10/16/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 199268 PARKS MAIN SUPPLIES SPARK PLUGS, LINE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 30.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.93 Fac Maint - Supplies199334 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.28 Total :60.05 211081 10/16/2014 072991 MOE, CHELSY 10/6 PRESCHOOL SUB 9/29 - 10/2, 10/6 PRESCHOOL SUB 9/29 - 10/2, 10/6 PRESCHOOL SUB 001.000.64.575.56.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211082 10/16/2014 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY s6025977.002 WWTP - C412 SUPPLIES controllogix, 8 point 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 4,603.65 misc sales tax % 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 432.74 Total :5,036.39 211083 10/16/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-993534 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET2-1038727 31Page: Packet Page 58 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211083 10/16/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :231.30 211084 10/16/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 622723 PW Office Supplies PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 107.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 10.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES752614 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 106.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 10.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES839560 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 63.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.05 P&R OFFICE SUPPLIES881807 CALENDARS, WHITE BOARD CLEANER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 14.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.39 Total :319.63 211085 10/16/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 12030 YOST POOL SUPPLIES ACID MAGIC, SODIUM BICARB, ALGAECIDE, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 717.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 68.17 Total :785.76 211086 10/16/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 181015 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 32Page: Packet Page 59 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211086 10/16/2014 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 120.00 Total :120.00 211087 10/16/2014 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC A03700 Water - S Prof 14" x .125 Ductile Iron Water - S Prof 14" x .125 Ductile Iron 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 288.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.00 Total :304.00 211088 10/16/2014 074931 PEAK CMS LLC 4837a CITY WIDE PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE Remaining 25% for City wide phone 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 2,739.33 Total :2,739.33 211089 10/16/2014 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20140026.001-1 E2FB/E4FA.SERVICES THRU 9/28/14 E2FB.Services thru 9/28/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 3,928.33 E4FA,Services thru 9/28/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 1,964.17 Total :5,892.50 211090 10/16/2014 008350 PETTY CASH P&R PC 10/14/2014 P&R PC 10/14/2014 FRED MEYER: STORAGE BOXES MICHELLE 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 5.48 QFC: SHRIMP FOR TOUCH TANK FOOD, SALLY 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 4.80 TARGET: GUMMY WORMS FOR BIRD FEST CROW 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 4.00 THRIFTWAY: VINEGAR & PAPER TOWELS FOR 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 13.69 TRADER JOE'S: WOTS SUPPLIES, FRANCES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 45.84 BED BATH & BEYOND: NEW PLASTIC BOX FOR 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 5.46 33Page: Packet Page 60 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211090 10/16/2014 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH CHILDREN'S BOOKSHOP: PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 8.74 FRED MEYER: PRESCHOOL STORAGE BINS, 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 5.48 JO-ANN: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES, SENTENCE 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 3.05 HOBBY LOBBY: PRESCHOOL STICKERS FOR 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 0.97 HOBBY LOBBY: PRESCHOOL CARD STOCK FOR 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.62 DOLLAR STORES: WOTS CONFERENCE 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 8.76 TRADER JOE'S: WOTS CONFERENCE SUPPLIES, 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 37.51 PCC: WOTS CONFERENCE SUPPLIES SPONSOR 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 7.47 WA STATE FERRIES: FERRY FARE ROUNDTRIP 001.000.64.571.22.43.00 27.80 Total :181.67 211091 10/16/2014 008400 PETTY CASH 10/1/14 PD ADMIN PC OCTOBER 1, 2014 POLICE ADMIN PETTY CASH ZIPLOC BAGS FOR CITATIONS - ANIMAL 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.39 LAMP FOR PRISM ROOM 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.94 REPLACEMENT KEY 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 2.05 POSTAGE - RETURN SAMPLE LIGHT TO VENDOR 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3.04 UPHOLSTERY CLEANER FOR VEHICLES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.56 LYSOL WIPES FOR OFFICE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.88 BULB FOR ARMORY LAMP 34Page: Packet Page 61 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211091 10/16/2014 (Continued)008400 PETTY CASH 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.82 PARKING @ SNO CO - HAAKENSON RETIREMENT 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 6.00 REIMBURSE MILEAGE FOR JURY DUTY - ROTH 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 17.92 PARKING - HWANG BACKGROUND INTERVIEW 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 10.00 FIVE FRAMES FOR MISSION, VISION, VALUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 21.85 POSTAGE TO MAIL TRACKER BACK TO 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 14.50 Total :127.95 211092 10/16/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC f241335 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRIC electric supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 48.02 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 4.56 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICF252746 electric supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 378.23 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 35.93 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICf263444 electric parts 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 34.73 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 3.30 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICf268702 electric supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 379.22 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 36.03 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICf296586 electric supplies 35Page: Packet Page 62 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211092 10/16/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 588.38 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 55.90 WWTP - SUPPLIES, ELECTRICf299355 electric supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 484.34 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 46.01 Total :2,094.65 211093 10/16/2014 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 213012 Fleet - King Salmon Marine Postage Fleet - King Salmon Marine Postage 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 15.68 Fleet- Setcom Postage213063 Fleet- Setcom Postage 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 31.55 Total :47.23 211094 10/16/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.67 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 46.89 Total :163.56 211095 10/16/2014 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 19179 FELDENKRAIS 19179 FELDENKRAIS 19179 FELDENKRAIS 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 288.00 19182 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE19182 FELDENKRAIS 19182 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTOR FEE 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 350.00 Total :638.00 211096 10/16/2014 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0086750-IN WWTP - SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS 36Page: Packet Page 63 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211096 10/16/2014 (Continued)030695 PUMPTECH INC operating supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 1,430.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 135.85 Total :1,565.85 211097 10/16/2014 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000149375 MARKER AND INSCRIPTION FREDERICKSEN MARKER AND INSCRIPTION FREDERICKSEN 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 349.00 Total :349.00 211098 10/16/2014 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000047958 Storm - Sweeping Dump Fees Storm - Sweeping Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 2,192.85 Total :2,192.85 211099 10/16/2014 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 147.84 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.73 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 112.97 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 112.99 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 158.07 37Page: Packet Page 64 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211099 10/16/2014 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50 Total :970.01 211100 10/16/2014 066977 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC 80279 Traffic - Strip-Off Traffic - Strip-Off 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 327.40 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 31.40 Total :358.80 211101 10/16/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5032714706 Meter charges for large copier 907EX Meter charges for large copier 907EX 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 60.99 Meter charges for Engineering color5032715266 Meter charges for Engineering color 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 466.47 Total :527.46 211102 10/16/2014 070042 RICOH USA INC 93317215 Renewal on Reception copier MP171SPF Renewal on Reception copier MP171SPF 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 30.66 Renewal on Engineerins's MPC6000 for93362227 Renewal on Engineerins's MPC6000 for 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 443.48 Renewal on Large copier 907EX for93362228 Renewal on Large copier 907EX for 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 827.00 Total :1,301.14 211103 10/16/2014 075038 RIVELLE, MAUREEN PLN20140032 Applicant withdrew Conditional Use Applicant withdrew Conditional Use 001.000.257.620 525.00 Total :525.00 38Page: Packet Page 65 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211104 10/16/2014 074507 SARAH CHO 4Z0720334 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 200.00 Total :200.00 211105 10/16/2014 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS E71/19560 PS - Paint Supplies PS - Paint Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.18 Total :36.66 211106 10/16/2014 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0176239-IN Unit EQ93PO - 2 White Light Mounts Unit EQ93PO - 2 White Light Mounts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 158.40 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 13.05 Total :171.45 211107 10/16/2014 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC 3514 CITY PARK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVIC CITY PARK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 6,464.40 Total :6,464.40 211108 10/16/2014 071725 SKAGIT GARDENS INC 52224748 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES VIOLA AND KALE 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 153.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 14.57 Total :167.97 211109 10/16/2014 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0403903 PARKS SUPPLIES STRAW BALES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 64.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.17 39Page: Packet Page 66 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :71.1221110910/16/2014 036955 036955 SKY NURSERY 211110 10/16/2014 074666 SNEERINGER, MARY KAY BID 04192014 0418201 REIMBURSEMENT MAILING FOR ANNUAL MEETING Reimbursement for mailing ballots for 627.000.61.558.70.49.00 113.84 Total :113.84 211111 10/16/2014 074651 SNO CO CLERKS OFFICE E7AC.Tyroot.2 E7AC.TYROOT PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT AGREE E7AC.Tyroot Preliminary Settlement 112.200.68.595.20.61.00 156,000.00 Total :156,000.00 211112 10/16/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4 WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER WWTP FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99 / METER 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.27 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 91.61 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 32.23 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / METER2019-2988-2 WWTP FLOW METER 8421 244TH ST SW / 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 31.27 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 134.95 Total :321.33 211113 10/16/2014 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 56066 5 stamps for Jeanie McConnell in 5 stamps for Jeanie McConnell in 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 127.72 Total :127.72 211114 10/16/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4239844-01 Water - Work Boots - R Shore Water - Work Boots - R Shore 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 158.85 40Page: Packet Page 67 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211114 10/16/2014 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 15.09 Total :173.94 211115 10/16/2014 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 838520 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 9/26/14 E4JB.Services thru 9/26/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 42,758.29 Total :42,758.29 211116 10/16/2014 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON 09032010 REFUND FOR CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE Refund for concealed pistol license 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 32.00 STREET - FLASHERS FOR SCHOOL LIGHTS AND12985 STREET - FLASHERS FOR SCHOOL LIGHTS AND 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 207.00 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 10.00 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 19.53 Traffic - Flasher Cube, Supplies12999 Traffic - Flasher Cube, Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 255.00 8.9% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 22.70 REFUND ST CUT DEPOSITEng20060465 P/A 7211 Meadowdale Beach Rd~ 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00 REFUNDHONIGBAUM0504 REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 15.00 Application withdrawn.STF20100020 Application withdrawn. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 140.00 Total :801.23 41Page: Packet Page 68 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211117 10/16/2014 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1-24025 4243-1885462 UTILITY REFUND 4243-1885462 Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 91.97 #611038509-KK UTILITY REFUND2-20525 #611038509-KK Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 84.50 RE:#1001-5013695 UTILITY BILL REFUND2-24615 RE:#1001-5013695 Utility refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 104.26 RE:#1001-5004431 UTILITY BILL REFUND3-31725 RE:#1001-5004431 Utility refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 118.27 #611049102-KK UTILITY REFUND4-07025 #611049102-KK Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 142.07 #120396SL UTILITY REFUND8-50222 #120396SL Utility Refund due to 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 46.52 Total :587.59 211118 10/16/2014 075045 STEVENS, JAN 10/14 REFUND MONITOR 10/14 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEES 10/14 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR FEES 001.000.239.200 37.50 Total :37.50 211119 10/16/2014 074570 STULLER, PAM BID-10062014 REIMBURSEMENT PURCHASE OF FONTS Reimbursement for purchase of fonts for 627.000.61.558.70.31.00 326.31 Total :326.31 211120 10/16/2014 074882 TEC CONSTRUCTION INC TEC APP 5 WWTP - CONSTRUCTION AFP 5 AFP #5 - September 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 63,966.62 Less Retainage 423.100.223.400 -3,198.33 9.5% Sales Tax 42Page: Packet Page 69 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211120 10/16/2014 (Continued)074882 TEC CONSTRUCTION INC 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 6,076.84 Total :66,845.13 211121 10/16/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUM 118 5TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 337.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 32.09 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALLUS53323 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL 121 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,042.54 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.04 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTERUS54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 242.77 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.06 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTERUS54537 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 49.70 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTERUS54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.95 Total :1,841.95 211122 10/16/2014 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC L36002820101 WWTP - SUPPLIES, COMPUTER power over ethernet 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 53.98 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 9.62 WWTP - SUPPLIES, COMPUTERL58175630101 ethernet transceiver 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 186.98 Freight 43Page: Packet Page 70 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211122 10/16/2014 (Continued)074669 TIGER DIRECT INC 423.000.76.535.80.31.42 13.24 Total :263.82 211123 10/16/2014 075039 TIMOTHY & LINDSEY RINEHART 8-50165 #611085326-JMG UTILITY REFUND #611085326-JMG Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 10.57 Total :10.57 211124 10/16/2014 042260 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO 989444 Hydrant Maint - Blue Buttons and Hydrant Maint - Blue Buttons and 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 485.00 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 34.04 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.31 Total :568.35 211125 10/16/2014 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 20997 Fac Maint - Keys Fac Maint - Keys 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.02 Traffic - Lock Supplies21022 Traffic - Lock Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 138.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 13.11 Total :185.88 211126 10/16/2014 062693 US BANK 0108 INV#0108 10/06/14 THOMPSON - EDMONDS PD WAPRO CONFERENCE-THOMPSON 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 140.00 MAGNETIC WALL POCKETS~ 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 58.63 BOTTLE OF FATAL PLUS FOR A/C 44Page: Packet Page 71 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 68.25 Advertising for Parks Maintenance Worker0378 Advertising for Parks Maintenance Worker 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 25.00 INV#2519 10/06/14 - TRAINING - EDMONDS P2519 MEAL FOR WITNESS 001.000.41.521.21.43.00 20.31 FERRY CHG FOR WITNESS TO KINGSTON FROM 001.000.41.521.21.43.00 25.30 FERRY CHG FOR TAKING WITNESS TO KINGSTON 001.000.41.521.21.43.00 17.30 FUEL/PNWD-IAI MTG- MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 36.81 FOOD/PNWD-IAI MTG - MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.10 WIPER BLADE FOR CITY CAR 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 14.57 MEAL/PNWD-IAI MTG - MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 38.70 LODGING/PNWD-IAI MTG - MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 144.27 INV#3181 10/06/14 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181 STREAMLIGHT FLASHLIGHT 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 80.68 AMMO CANS 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 21.22 SD FLASH MEMORY CARD 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 53.95 BLADE-TECH TASER HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 54.74 REPLACEMENT BELT CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 14.70 ENCRTPTED PADLOCK HARD DR 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 235.90 45Page: Packet Page 72 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK ONLINE SCHEDULING NEW WORLD 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 23.00 SUPPLIES3249 SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 9.87 NCSC ONELINE COURT TRAINING FOR BOMAR 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 595.00 HOTEL FEE FOR E-COURT TRAINING FEREBEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 133.28 AIRFARE FEE FOR E-COURT TRAINING CLIFTON 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 214.20 AIRFARE FEE FOR E-COURT TRAINING 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 219.20 BAKED GOOD FOR JURORS 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 50.00 HOTEL FEE FOR E-COURT TRAINING FEREBEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 133.28 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 30.30 HOTEL FEE FOR JIS TRAINING FOR BOMAR 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 319.86 HOTEL FEE FOR JIS TRAINING GARRETT-JONES 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 321.36 HOTEL FEE FOR PRESIDING JUDG'S 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 272.80 INV#3314 10/06/14 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314 4X6 ZIPPER BAGS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 25.20 6X9 ZIPPER BAGS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 47.00 9X12 ZIPPER BAGS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 134.27 13X18 ZIPPER BAGS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 134.26 46Page: Packet Page 73 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK PADDED CD MAILERS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 19.85 SINGLE CD/DVD MAILERS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 33.00 6" ECONON LONG RANGE TARGET 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 74.34 8" ECONO LONG RANGE TARGET 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 94.41 10" ECONO LONG RANGE TARGET 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 112.79 NWGIS USER GROUP REGISTRATION, DOMAIN NA3470 NWGIS User Group registration for 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 350.00 Bulkregister.com - domain name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 27.90 INV#3520 10/06/14 TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3520 MEAL/SWAT CONF - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 39.46 FOOD/SWAT CONF - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7.70 MEAL/SWAT CONF - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 45.00 AIRLINE CHG FOR 2 BAGS/SWAT/LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 50.00 FOOD/SWAT CONF - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.84 LODGING/SWAT CONF - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 478.50 AIRLINE CHG FOR 1 BAG SWAT-LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00 AIRLINE CHG O/W BAG/SWAT-LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 75.00 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 12.17 47Page: Packet Page 74 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 37.00 MEAL/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.00 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.40 MEAL/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.42 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 13.47 MEAL/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.15 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.46 FEDEX CHG RETURN TO MICH 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3.20 FUEL/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 29.51 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 21.55 MEAL/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 24.00 FOOD/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 16.61 LODGING/ADV SWAT YAKIMA - LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 377.20 4675 PARKS CR CARD4675 PARKS CR CARD WSU PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION ANDY 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 120.00 STAPLES: WOTS SUPPLIES TABLE STANDS 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 51.20 WSU SNOHOMISH COUNTY EXTENSION BEACH 001.000.64.571.23.49.00 30.00 AMERICAN CEMETERY MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION 48Page: Packet Page 75 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 49.00 PANERA WOTS LUNCHES 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 1,509.46 SEPTEMBER CHAMBER LUNCHEON4697 September Chamber Luncheon 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 20.00 Tent signs 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 52.78 Retirement poster framing 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 65.70 Coffee for breakroom 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 56.97 breakroom supplies 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 37.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.01 LED MONITORS, ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION, UPS F5179 Newegg.com - ASUS VS Series VS228H-P 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 269.98 UPS freight 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 21.51 ExpertsExchange.com - IT Solutions 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 19.95 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD5593 Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 228.00 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 432.00 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 432.00 Renew 1 certification and reinstatement6045 Renew 1 certification and reinstatement 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 193.75 Shane Hope's travel to Planning7209 49Page: Packet Page 76 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 211126 10/16/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Shane Hope's travel to Planning 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 622.78 ENG CREDIT CARD SEPTEMBER 20148313 Hauss.APWA Fall Conference ($75)~ 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 155.25 5-Year Maintenance HPA 111.000.68.542.90.51.00 150.00 E4GA.Easement Purchase from Sno Co. 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 9.50 GFOA - Annual Gov't GAAP update webinar8842 GFOA - Annual Gov't GAAP update webinar 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 135.00 Total :10,437.31 211127 10/16/2014 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 4090117 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 108.74 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 108.74 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 112.03 Total :329.51 211128 10/16/2014 065269 VALLEY FREIGHTLINER INC 2242720022 LS 10 - Supplies LS 10 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 46.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.39 Total :50.59 211129 10/16/2014 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 47728 FS 16,17,20, Sr Center, PS, PW, Fleet - FS 16,17,20, Sr Center, PS, PW, Fleet - 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,761.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 262.30 50Page: Packet Page 77 of 676 10/15/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 5:34:18PM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :3,023.3021112910/16/2014 067216 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 211130 10/16/2014 074801 WAHL, KIM BID 092414 REIMBURSEMENT FOR LUNCHES FOR BID 9/24/1 Reimbursement for BID work meeting with 627.000.61.558.70.49.00 325.08 Total :325.08 211131 10/16/2014 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-9833 Street - Tree Removal 830 Sprague Street - Tree Removal 830 Sprague 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 460.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 43.70 Total :503.70 211132 10/16/2014 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000026100 Traffic Control - Loop Finder Traffic Control - Loop Finder 111.000.68.542.64.35.00 365.04 Total :365.04 211133 10/16/2014 075035 WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM ENG20140406 Scope of work changed and additional Scope of work changed and additional 001.000.257.620 180.00 Total :180.00 Bank total :645,260.22116 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 645,260.22Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report116 51Page: Packet Page 78 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA 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 STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 79 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 80 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 81 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 82 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 83 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR c451 E4CB 2014 Chip Seals STR c452 E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 84 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 85 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals STR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STM E4FA 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 Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 86 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 87 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES m013 E7FG Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 88 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 89 of 676 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 10/15/2014 Packet Page 90 of 676 AM-7212 6. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Dylis G. Wiley-Chase (amount undetermined). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Dylis G. Wiley-Chase 524 3rd Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 (amount undetermined) Attachments Wiley-Chase Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/15/2014 12:13 PM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 91 of 676 Packet Page 92 of 676 Packet Page 93 of 676 AM-7217 6. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time: Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Review Committee: Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Action Information Subject Title Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Design Recommendation Staff recommends that the entire Council approve of this consent agenda item at the meeting on October 21, 2014 and thus authorize the mayor to sign an agreement for design services as proposed by Berger ABAM for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. Previous Council Action On February 18, 2014, the Council approved the mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The intent of this agreement is to provide up to $190,000 to execute design and permitting services for a project to rehabilitate the Edmonds Fishing Pier. At the Council meeting on October 14, 2012, the item to award design services to BergerABAM was approved for the consent agenda of the Council meeting October 21, 2012. Narrative The Edmonds Fishing Pier, per an agreement made upon its construction in the late 1970s, has been owned by the WDFW and operated by the City of Edmonds. During this time nothing comprehensive has been undertaken to address the structural deterioration that would reasonably accrue to any facility constructed directly in a marine environment. Earlier this year, agreement was reached between the City and the WDFW to provide up to $190,000 to fund design and permit services for a project whose ultimate intention was to bring the pier back up to snuff. A copy of the signed grant contract is attached to this agenda item. The further goal of this project is to ensure the pier will remain available as a valuable waterfront amenity for several decades to come. In July of this year, the City released an RFQ for consultants to address its need for a firm to provide design and permitting services for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project. As a result of the evaluation of the statements of qualification received, three firms were chosen to be interviewed by a team consisting of Carrie Hite, Rich Lindsay, and Jim Stevens. Of those three interviewed, BergerABAM was selected as the best suited to prepare a proposal for services to the City for this work The first step in this process of rehabilitation is the design and permitting work itself. The proposal for Packet Page 94 of 676 these services is attached to the agenda and amounts to $128,600. As the construction work is envisioned, this amounts to roughly 10% of the value of such a construction cost. Currently City staff members are working to acquire the grant funding to perform this contract work, so the intention is that the entire cost of the rehabilitation project, from design to completion, will be from grant awards. Attachments WDFW Grant Contract BergerABAM Proposal Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 08:30 AM Public Works Phil Williams 10/16/2014 03:19 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 03:40 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 10/16/2014 06:03 AM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 95 of 676 Packet Page 96 of 676 Packet Page 97 of 676 Packet Page 98 of 676 Packet Page 99 of 676 Packet Page 100 of 676 Packet Page 101 of 676 Packet Page 102 of 676 Packet Page 103 of 676 Packet Page 104 of 676 Packet Page 105 of 676 Packet Page 106 of 676 Packet Page 107 of 676 3 October 2014 Mr. Jim Stevens Project Manager City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Dear Mr. Stevens: BergerABAM Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Edmonds to provide final design and bid support services for rehabilitation of the fishing pier. We have based this proposal on our knowledge of the facility, which includes our December 2006 and May 2014 reports and our meeting on 23 September 2014. SCOPE OF WORK We will develop contract documents for the fishing pier rehabilitation, with submittals at four stages of design; 30 percent, 60 percent, 90 percent, and final. Our efforts will be based on items identified in our May 2014 report titled “City of Edmonds Fishing Pier Cost Estimate Update” (excluding navigation aids) and will include the following components. Structural Repairs We will develop plans of the pier and walkway decks and pile caps, and identify areas that include deck panel flange repairs, deck panel web repairs, pile cap spall repairs, and distress at drains for the fish cleaning stations. We have included one site visit by a two‐person team to confirm measurements of the repair areas. Repairs and Upgrades to Architectural Features As discussed in our meeting on 23 September, a positive perception by the public of this rehabilitation work is essential. Approximately 75 percent of the work is structure‐related and essentially “out of sight”; what remains is work that has a direct daily impact on the public. Our landscape architects will review site photographs, visit the site, and assess alternatives for improving the facility’s appearance. This will be combined with work required to replace the windbreak partitions, replace roofs on fish cleaning stations, repair and repaint windbreak partitions, upgrade benches, and repair the handrails (including replacement of the top rail). Packet Page 108 of 676 Mr. Jim Stevens 3 October 2014 Page 2 We have included one meeting with the City to review the alternatives developed. Please refer to Attachment A, where we describe our approach to this portion of the work in more detail. Utility Repairs – Water Line We will include replacement of the water line that provides service to the fish cleaning stations. The work will consider how to protect the line from impact by crab pots and similar items lowered and raised from the deck into and out of the water. Utility Repairs – Electrical On the pier, our efforts will include replacement of, and adding bird spikes to, the pole lights; repairs to concrete pole bases; replacing lights at the fish cleaning station; and minor demolition of utilities that are no longer used. At the restroom, our efforts will include replacement of existing heaters, adding head trace, and removing electrical equipment no longer in use. Permitting Support For this effort, we will develop permit figures for the permit application and a project description of the proposed work. We have not included completing the JARPA application; we assume that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will complete this effort. Additional Scope Items During our meeting on 23 September, we briefly discussed a question brought up during our interview regarding possible degradation in the prestressed concrete piles supporting the fishing pier. The piles were fabricated in 1977/1978, during which a local fabricator cured piles at too high of a temperature, resulting in delayed‐ettringite formation—a reaction that is delayed by th e high temperature and then restarts in the piles later when in service after prolonged exposure to water. We did not observe that degradation in 2006 when we inspected the piles underwater, but have included an optional one‐day dive inspection in our proposal to check the piles for that distress. Deliverables Submittal at the four stages of design will consist of plans, technical specifications (special provisions), and a construction cost estimate. Not all plans will be developed at the 30 percent stage, and the special provisions will consist of a list of only those items we will develop. We assume the City will develop the general provisions and requirements for the contract documents. We will also provide the City with a summary of the architectural alternatives and minutes from our proposed meeting. Packet Page 109 of 676 Mr. Jim Stevens 3 October 2014 Page 3 SCHEDULE We propose to commence work within one week after receipt of the notice to proceed. Assuming we start work by 1 November 2014, we would expect to have contract documents ready by early to mid‐March 2015, assuming one‐week review periods by the City and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our milestones for submittals would be as follows.  Meeting with the City to discuss architectural features – mid‐November 2014  30 Percent Contract Documents – mid‐December 2014  60 Percent Contract Documents – late January 2015  90 Percent Contract Documents – mid to late February 2015  Final Contract Documents – early to mid‐March 2015 FEE We propose to perform this work on a time‐and‐materials basis using the rates defined in the attached fee estimate worksheet. Our efforts will be as follows. Project management, quality control (4 submittals) and bid period support for all disciplines $30,700 Structural and civil design and contract documents $54,600 Landscape architectural design and contract documents $19,600 Permitting support $6,300 Electrical design and contract documents $11,900 Mileage – meetings (6 total) $300 Day rate for inspection boat (2 days assumed) $300 Diving (optional, 1 day, all‐inclusive) $4,900 Total Fee: $128,600 We assume the basis for the contract will be a standard City of Edmonds Professional Services Agreement, similar to the agreement executed for our 2014 inspection work. The basis for our fee is shown in the two attached worksheets. We will not exceed this amount without your authorization. CLOSING If you agree with this proposal, please return one executed (signed) copy of this letter along with a Notice to Proceed. Packet Page 110 of 676 Mr. Jim Stevens 3 October 2014 Page 4 We appreciate that you have considered BergerABAM for this project. We look forward to working with you again. Sincerely, Elmer W. Ozolin, PE Vice President EWO:CSB:keh Attachments Attachment A – Recreation Design Approach Attachment B – BergerABAM Fee Estimate Worksheet Attachment C – BergerABAM Underwater Inspection Fee Estimate Worksheet ACCEPTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________________________ Signature _______________________________________ Name (Printed) _______________________________________ Title _______________________________________ Date Packet Page 111 of 676 City of Edmonds BergerABAM, Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Attachment A 3 October 2014 Edmonds, WA Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A RECREATION DESIGN APPROACH This project will also develop conceptual designs and prepare architectural details to renovate the recreational and urban design amenities at the Edmonds Fishing Pier. We expect high public interest in the construction of the pier repairs. We believe that enhancing the recreational amenities at this facility will improve usability, safety, and public enjoyment. During the conceptual design phase, we will evaluate a range of potential design enhancements and amenities for the pier, including the following.  Enhanced entry, educational, and regulatory signs  Site furnishings including repaired and new benches and trash receptacles  New wind breaks and sun/rain shelters  Upgraded fish cleaning stations including new roofs, surrounds, lighting, and utilities  Improved Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fishing accessibility  Repaired guardrails including new metal coatings and top rails; and  Potential public art features including sculpture, murals, or other interpretive features We will work with the City to review various design options and associated costs. We will refine the project program based on City preferences and budget. We believe that including innovative recreation amenities will ensure this project is inviting, dynamic, and inspiring. 30 Percent Recreation Design BergerABAM will attend a site visit to review the condition of the existing fishing pier amenities and use patterns. We will research precedence of potential design enhancements for the fishing pier design, and will include materials, furnishings, structures, railings, and public art and educational elements. We will develop design alternatives for potential amenities and will prepare illustrative site plan drawings, sketches, and other concept graphics to convey design intent. We will format and include the various design alternatives in the 30 percent drawing submittal. BergerABAM will prepare rough order of magnitude cost estimates for the various design options and a list of specification amendments to be provided during final design. We will meet with the City discuss the design alternatives and associated costs. 60 Percent Recreation Design Based on 30 percent review comments, we will update the recreation designs and prepare the 60 percent submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and condition of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and Packet Page 112 of 676 City of Edmonds BergerABAM, Fee Proposal for Engineering Services Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Attachment A 3 October 2014 Edmonds, WA Page 2 of 2 plan enlargement drawings as needed, and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates and prepare draft specifications. 90 Percent Recreation Design Based on 60 percent review comments, we will update the recreation designs and prepare the 90 percent submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and condition of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and plan enlargement drawings, as needed, and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates and draft specifications. Final Design Based on 90 percent review comments, we will finalize the recreation designs and prepare the final PS&E submittal. This submittal will include a materials and layout plan indicating the location and conditions of the recreation amenities. BergerABAM will prepare design details and plan enlargement drawings, as needed and coordinate with structural and electrical designers. We will update the cost estimates, unit quantities and final specifications. Packet Page 113 of 676 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d Br a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 T a s k 0 - P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t Bu d g e t m o n i t o r i n g , d o c u m e n t c o n t r o l 8 8 $2,517 Co m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h C i t y s t a f f 4 8 $1,758 De v e l o p q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e p l a n 2 $363 Su b t o t a l : 1 2 8 2 8 $4,638 T a s k 1 - L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e C o n c e p t D e v e l o p m e n t a n d P e r m i t t i n g S u p p o r t Si t e v i s i t 6 6 $ 1 , 6 2 6 De v e l o p a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n c e p t s 6 16 $2,540 6 $996 D ev e l op p e r m it fi gu r e s (us e 30 % d ra w i ng s as b a s i s ) 1 1 1 2 1 6 $ 3 , 3 5 5 De v e l o p p r o j e c t d e s c r i p t i o n 16 $2,959 Su b t o t a l : 1 17 18 18 16 16 $11,475 T a s k 2 - 3 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s De v e l o p s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g s 4 2 0 3 6 $ 6 , 7 9 8 De v e l o p c i v i l d r a w i n g s 10 12 24 $5,630 De v e l o p l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r a l d r a w i n g s ba s e d o n a p p r o v e d c o n c e p t s 4 20 $2,594 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n l i s t 11 1 1 $685 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 8 1 4 $1,621 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 8 2 4 1 2 $ 3 , 2 7 7 Su b t o t a l : 8 1 1 5 0 8 2 9 7 2 1 $ 2 0 , 8 9 2 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T Me e t w i t h C i t y s t a f f - r e v i e w a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n c e p t s Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 1 of 3 Packet Page 114 of 676 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d Br a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T T a s k 3 - 6 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s a n d S t r u c t u r a l R e p a i r Q u a n t i t y V e r i f i c a t i o n Co n t i n u e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 3 2 3 6 $ 8 , 0 5 8 Si t e v i s t t o v e r i f y r e p a i r q u a n t i t i e s 32 $3,360 Co n t i n u e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 16 20 30 $8,209 C on ti nu e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 4 3 0 $ 3 , 5 5 8 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 4 2 16 8 $4,296 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 4 $1,201 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 48 $1,873 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 4 2 4 8 $ 2 , 4 3 7 Su b t o t a l : 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 8 1 5 3 9 7 4 1 $ 3 3 , 2 8 0 Ta s k 4 - 9 0 % P S & E D o c u m e n t s Co n t i n u e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 1 6 1 6 $ 4 , 2 7 8 Co n t i n u e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 8 12 16 $4,420 C on ti nu e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 4 2 0 $ 2 , 5 9 4 De v e l o p s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 2 2 16 6 $3,505 Up d a t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 2 $1,008 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 28 1 6 $4,205 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Ad d re s s a n d i nc o r p o r a t e Ci t y a n d WD F W co m m e n t s 2 4 2 4 8 $ 2 , 4 3 7 Su b t o t a l : 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 6 1 3 2 7 4 0 1 $ 2 2 , 7 3 3 Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 115 of 676 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Fi s h i n g P i e r R e h a b i l i t a t i o n B e r g e r A B A M La b o r Sr P r o j e c t P r o j e c t S e n i o r Q A / Q C L a n d s c a p e L a n d s c a p e C A D W o r d P r o j e c t S u b t o t a l s B A DS C = D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t M a n a g e r M a n a g e r E n g i n e e r S p e c i a l i s t A r c h M g r D e s i g n e r O p e r a t o r P r o c e s s i n g C o o r d i n a t o r T a s k O/ H = O v e r h e a d Br a n l u n d ( b l e n d e d ) ( b l e n d e d ) E n g l i s h S a c a m a n o C h r i s t i a n M e n d e n h a l l B r e t a n a G r a m l i n g Sub-totals Ra t e = D S C + O / H + P r o f i t * ( D C S + O / H ) $2 2 9 . 4 3 $ 1 8 4 . 9 4 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 1 8 1 . 6 2 $ 1 6 6 . 0 1 $ 9 6 . 4 8 $ 1 0 5 . 0 1 $ 9 4 . 3 5 $ 8 5 . 1 5 AT T A C H M E N T B - F E E E S T I M A T E - D E S I G N , P E R M I T T I N G S U P P O R T , B I D S U P P O R T T a s k 5 - F i n a l P S & E D o c u m e n t s Co m p l e t e s t r u c t u r a l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 4 8 8 $ 2 , 5 9 8 Co m p l e t e c i v i l d r a w i n g d e v e l o p m e n t 8 8 12 $3,580 C oo m p l e t e l an d sc a p e a r c hi t ec t ur a l d ra w i ng de v e l o p m e n t 2 8 $ 1 , 1 0 4 Co m p l e t e s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n s 2 2 8 2 8 $2,756 Co m p l e t e c o s t e s t i m a t e 1 4 1 2 $1,008 Qu a l i t y c o n t r o l r e v i e w 14 8 $2,102 P re p a r e a n d s u b m it d oc u m e n t s f or r e i ve w by C i t y a n d W D F W 1 1 1 $ 2 8 7 Su b t o t a l : 8 1 0 3 3 8 5 1 1 2 0 8 1 $ 1 3 , 4 3 5 Ta s k 6 - B i d P e r i o d S u p p o r t At t e n d p r e - b i d m e e t i n g 4 6 $1,548 Re p l y t o b i d d e r s q u e s t i o n s ( f r o m C i t y ) 2 4 2 2 $1,315 As s i s t i n b i d r e v i e w 4 $918 Su b t o t a l : 8 2 10 2 2 $3,780 To t a l H o u r s - B e r g e r A B A M : 5 9 68 29 3 34 61 12 4 2 2 2 8 12 $1 3 , 5 3 7 $ 1 2 , 5 7 6 $ 3 0 , 7 6 7 $ 6 , 1 7 5 $ 1 0 , 1 2 7 $ 1 1 , 9 6 3 $ 2 3 , 3 1 2 $ 7 5 5 $ 1 , 0 2 2 $ 1 1 0 , 2 3 3 Su b c o n s u l t a n t s Cr o s s E n g i n e e r s I n c . (f i n a l d e s i g n , s e e a t t a c h e d f e e p r o p o s a l ) $11,900 Cr o s s E n g i n e e r s I n c . (b i d p e r i o d s u p p o r t ) $1,000 Su b t o t a l S u b c o n s u l t a n t s : 12,900 $ BA E x p e n s e s a n d D i v i n g Me e t i n g s 6 t r i p ( s ) @ 90 0. 5 6 $ p e r m i l e = 302.40 $ In s p e c t i o n B o a t 2 d a y ( s ) @ 15 0 . 0 0 $ p e r d a y = 300.00 $ Di v i n g ( s e e A t t a c h m e n t B , a l l - i n c l u s i v e d a y r a t e ) 1 d a y ( s ) @ 4 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 $ p e r d a y = 4,900.00 $ Su b t o t a l B A E x p e n s e s : 5,502 $ $128,635 Su b t o t a l - B A L a b o r : T O T A L F E E P R O P O S A L ml e s p e r r o u n d t r i p @ Da t e : 1 0 / 3 / 2 0 1 4 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 116 of 676 ATTACHMENT C - UNDERWATER INSPECTION Location: City of Edmonds Facility: Fishing Pier Date:FY2015 Dive Days:1 Contingency Days:0 Labor Costs - Underwater Inspection Name Burdened Report & Administration Rate Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Hours Amount Scott Branlund, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Lee Marsh, PE, PhD -$ -$ -$ -$ Mike Wray, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Louis Klusmeyer, SE -$ -$ -$ -$ Brett Ozolin, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Ben Pesicka, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Nick Colson, PE $102 -$ 6 612$ 5 510.00$ -$ Garth Nelson, PE $98 -$ 6 588$ 5 490.00$ -$ Phil Olson, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Matt Bollinger -$ -$ -$ -$ Matt Perry $98 1 98$ 6 588$ 5 490.00$ 4 392$ Joe Stockwell, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Eric Neal, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Frank Yang, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Mike Dodson, PE -$ -$ -$ -$ Diana Gramling $84 -$ -$ -$ 1 84$ Subtotals:1 98$ 18 1,788$ 15 1,490$ 5 476$ Subtotal Labor Costs:3,852$ Expenses - Underwater Inspection Dive Pay:300$ Vehicle Mileage:39.55$ Lodging:-$ Rate: diver/day 100.00$ Rate: 0.565$ Rate:105.00$ # of divers 3 # of miles:70 # of people:3 # of days 1 Boat Launch:10.00$ # of days:0 Dive Tanks:48.00$ Rate:10.000$ Meals & Misc. Expenses: 75$ Rate per tank 6.00$ # of days:1 Rate:25.00$ # of tanks 8 U/W Camera - Still 150.00$ # of people:3 # of days 1 Rate:150.00$ # of days:1 Dive Boat:400$ # of days:1 Airfare:-$ Rate:400.00$ U/W Camera - Video -$ Rate:-$ # of days:1 Rate:175.00$ # of people:0 Dive Trailer:-$ # of days:0 Excess Baggage:-$ Rate:-$ Thickness Gage:-$ Rate:-$ # of days:0 Rate:150.00$ # of bags:0 # of days:0 SD Cards:-$ Rate:20.00$ #0 Subtotal Expenses:1,023$ Flow Through at 5.00%51$ Subtotal Expenses:1,074$ Total - Labor Costs + Expenses =4,926$ Say,4,900$ Diving & TendingPlanning & Preparation Mob & Demob & Travel 2014 BergerABAM - Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation - Fee Proposal - Underwater Inspection - 2014-10-03.xlsPacket Page 117 of 676 AM-7221 6. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Brian Tuley Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Information Information Subject Title Unscheduled IT Equipment Replacement. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative During the Second Quarter Budget Amendment process, Council approved an additional $128,935 for "Unscheduled IT Equipment Replacement" project to replace several key components of the City's Information System. Staff will provide an update on the systems and telephony projects. Attachments IT Update PowerPoint Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/16/2014 01:08 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 10/16/2014 01:14 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:10 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/16/2014 12:55 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 118 of 676 Unscheduled IT Equipment Replacement October 21st 2014 Update Packet Page 119 of 676 Servers / Network / Storage Equipment to be based in Edmonds is installed 50 out of 60 servers migrated to new platform Public facing servers in secure zone Backup Strategy Tape Backups running Contracts are in place with Yakima Data Center Connection from Everett to Yakima is lit Configuring hardware to be placed in YDC Contract with Iron Mountain Packet Page 120 of 676 Telephony All equipment in place and running Packet Page 121 of 676 Cost to Budget Packet Page 122 of 676 Questions Packet Page 123 of 676 AM-7206 6. F. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Cigna Life, Long Term Disability (LTD) and Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD & D) insurance plan(s). Recommendation Approved at Study Session on 10/14/14 for Council consent on 10/21/14. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The City currently offers life, long term disability (LTD), and an accidental death and dismemberment policy (AD & D) insurance plans through the Standard as part of the benefits package and part of the required social security replacement program (MEBT) plan benefits. HR has been in the process of continuing to review and identify areas (such as compliance) to minimize risk exposure and potentially create opportunities through better program design(s) that may also achieve potential cost savings for the City. As part of this due diligence, HR request that Alliant, our life, LTD and AD & D insurance broker sent out a request for proposal to the market to determine if there were any available alternative plan options. During this process, it was also discovered that the current insurance plan language was outdated in some areas and needed to be updated for compliance with state insurance changes. As a result of this process, Cigna insurance was able to provide some additional benefits options at a lower rate than that our current plan does not include such as: 1. A partial disability benefit 2. Limitations on pre-existing conditions (3 months) 3. Paralysis benefits, speech and hearing disability benefits 4. Portability of the plan for employees 5. No suicide exclusions (state mandated benefit) 6. $25,000 increase to the total life insurance benefit under the MEBT life insurance plan. The cost savings to the City for switching to the plan is projected to be approximately $15,719.12 per year. Packet Page 124 of 676 Keith Robertson, our Life insurance broker will be at the meeting to make a presentation. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 01:49 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:14 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 10/14/2014 04:43 PM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 125 of 676 AM-7207 6. G. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie Department:Human Resources Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of the Municipal Court Judge job description & confirmation of position salary and benefits information Recommendation The Municipal Court Judge Job description and position salary and benefits approved at the 10/14/14 Council Study Session for consent by Council at the 10/21/14 Council meeting. Previous Council Action The Judge's salary and benefits were recently approved by Council at the September 2014 Council Meeting. This position has not had a previous job description. Having a job description sets clear, written expectations of performance and accountability for this position. The Municipal Court Judge job description and salary and benefits approved at the 10/14/14 Council Study Session for consent by Council at the 10/21/14 Council meeting. Narrative The City is in the process of preparing an RFQ for the Municipal Court Judge position as there will be an opening for the remainder of the Judge's term effective 1/1/15 - 12/31/17. Included in the RFQ is the salary and benefits information for the position, which is confirmed by Council. The current wage for the Judge was set at $106,078 as a .75 full-time employee equivalent effective 9/1/14 as approved by Council. Additionally, the Judge currently receives the following benefits: 1. 90% medical insurance premiums (employee, spouse and dependents) paid for by the City. 2. MEBT participation (includes a $75,000 life insurance policy). 3. Participation in state retirement PERS Judicial Benefit Multiplier program (JBM). We are asking the Council to approve the job description and confirm this salary and benefits for this position before we advertise. Attachments Packet Page 126 of 676 Municipal Court Judge job description Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 01:49 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 08:29 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2014 08:39 AM Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 10/14/2014 07:09 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 127 of 676 City of EDMONDS Washington MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE Department: Municipal Court Pay Grade: Bargaining Unit: Non Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: September 2014 Reports To: Mayor POSITION PURPOSE: Presides over and adjudicates a variety of hearings and trials related to criminal and civil cases in accordance with established legal procedures and as prescribed by the United States and the Washington State Constitutions, the Revised Code of Washington, and court rules; imposes appropriate sentences and penalties and communicates with City, County and State criminal justice agencies. The position is an elected position but will be filled by Mayoral A ppointment and confirmed by the City Council for the balance of a 4-year term as set by statute. This position is accountable for ensuring the operations and procedures of the court comply with the Washington State Administrative Office of the Court’s requirements and for the integrity and appropriateness of judgments made in the Court. This position is a .75 full-time employee (FTE) equivalent position. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties. • Directs and controls the proceedings involved in court hearings, pre-trials and trials; presides over a variety of Municipal Court hearings and trials in criminal and civil cases in accordance with the State and Federal Constitution and with Washington State law. • Supervises recruitment and training of all judges pro-tem. • Responsible for training and supervision of court operations and staff including accountability in ensuring the operations and procedures of the court comply with the Washington State Administrative Office of the Court’s requirements. • Presides over and adjudicates court and jury trials, pre-trials, arraignments, post-conviction reviews, and other hearings. • Reviews and signs warrants and other documents; researches legal issues and maintains current knowledge of legislative changes impacting Municipal Court procedures. • Presides over a variety of causes related to misdemeanor crimes, traffic and parking violations, including mitigation and contested hearings. • Hears and weighs testimony and evidence presented to render appropriate verdict(s); imposes sentences and penalties as prescribed by law; utilizes alternatives to incarceration such Packet Page 128 of 676 as EHM, work crews, remedial and community service programs as appropriate. • Makes probable cause determinations on weekends and holidays as needed. • Directs the preparation and maintenance of court dockets and supporting documents; assuring proper collection, disbursement and accounting for fines and other monies paid to the City. • Communicates with a variety of City departments including the Mayor’s Office, the Attorney’s office, Finance Department, Public Safety Department and others regarding court cases, complaints and other issues. • Communicates with various community agencies and County offices regarding probation, specific referrals, driving records, domestic violence cases, common defendants and treatment programs available for mental health and alcohol problems. • Speaks to community groups and presides at ceremonial functions as requested; and administer oaths of office and other duties prescribed by law. • Performs other related duties as assigned. Required Knowledge of: • United States and Washington State Constitutions and judicial systems; Municipal Court rules, procedures, conduct and Rules of Evidence and laws of arrest; and State laws and City ordinances pertaining to civil, traffic, and criminal cases. • Experience in the trial of court cases and/or administrative proceedings. • Remedial and community service and treatment programs available. • City organization, operations, policies and objectives. Required Ability/Demonstrated Ability to: • Communicate effectively, orally, and in writing, to a diverse audience in a tactful, patient and courteous manner. • Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with others. • Understand and apply sound administrative and management techniques. • Hear and weigh testimony and evidence, and impose appropriate sentences and penalties in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds. • Read, interpret, apply, and explain codes, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. • Grasp complex factual data, draw appropriate conclusions and formulate sound legal decisions, applying a broad legal background to judgments made of the bench. • Be sensitive to diverse personalities, lifestyles and orientations. • Maintain an atmosphere of decorum and professionalism in the courtroom. • Analyze situations accurately and adopt an ethical and effective course of action. • Manage a large case load and work independently. • Make difficult decisions under stress and to be fair, open minded and committed to equal justice under the law. • Work with stressful situations, under strict deadlines. • Have punctual, regular and reliable attendance. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be U.S. and Washington State citizen and a resident of Snohomish County. • Must be an attorney on active or judicial status with the Washington State Bar Association. Must have been a practicing attorney for at least five (5) years. Packet Page 129 of 676 • Must have at least two (2) years criminal law experience, including participation as trial counsel or judge. • Experience as a judge or judge pro tem is preferred. • Must agree to a criminal background investigation including a credit check and educational reference check and review of his/her file with state bar association. • Must take an oath of office and be bondable. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Possess a valid license to practice law in the State of Washington. • State of Washington Driver’s License WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Office and courtroom environment. • Constant interruptions. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person and on the telephone. • Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to accomplish tasks. • Sitting or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time. • Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 10lbs. Hazards: • Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied members of the public and/or exposure to criminal behavior. • Possible exposure to communicable diseases and illness from defendants and others in the courtroom and court office. Packet Page 130 of 676 AM-7204 6. H. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Confirmation of Michael Nelson to the Planning Board Alternate position Recommendation Mayor Earling recommends Michael Nelson's confirmation to the Planning Board for the position of Alternate. Previous Council Action Narrative After meeting with Michael Nelson Mayor Earling recommends his confirmation to the Planning Board in the position of Alternate. Mr. Nelson will fill the remainder of the term vacated by Board Member Alternate Dan Robles who moved into position #2 on the Planning Board when it was vacated in August by Board Member Ian Duncan. Mr. Nelson's term on the Planning Board will expire in December 2016. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:13 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/14/2014 04:19 PM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 131 of 676 AM-7210 6. I. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Mayor Earling recommends Tom Walker's confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative After meeting with Tom Walker Mayor Earling recommends his confirmation to Position #4 of the Architectural Design Board. Mr. Walker will fill the remainder of the term vacated by him in 2013 when he resigned from the Board to complete his Master's degree. The term will expire in December 2014. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/15/2014 10:57 AM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 132 of 676 AM-7208 6. J. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action Information Subject Title Acceptance of Street Dedication for Saffold 3-Lot Short Plat located at 19327 88th Ave W (File PLN20100018). Recommendation Accept the 10' street dedication and authorize the Mayor to sign the plat documents. Previous Council Action Council reviewed the dedication at their October 14, 2014 study session and forwarded it to the October 21, 2014 consent agenda for acceptance. Narrative On June 29, 2010, the Saffold 3-lot short plat located at 19327 88th Ave W received preliminary short plat approval. As a condition of approval, a 10-foot street dedication is required along the 88th Ave W frontage of the property. Attached is a copy of the final short plat documents signed by the Directors of Public Works and Development Services showing the dedication. After receiving authorization from the City Council to accept the street dedication and for the Mayor to sign the face of the short plat documents, the 10-foot street dedication will be deeded to the City of Edmonds upon recording of the short plat with Snohomish County. Please note, the decision the Council makes regarding acceptance of the dedication is for the street dedication only and does not include final approval of the short plat which is an administrative decision. During the October 14 study session, Council Member Petso had a question not having to do with the dedication itself but about why Lot 3 was shaped the way it was. Neither the zoning code nor the subdivision code requires a specific lot shape. The subdivision code requires that new lots contain a usable building area and that they meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. So while new lots are roughly rectangular in many cases, elements like minimum lot size and width as well as the location of access and utilities and similar factors contribute to lot shape and occasionally those requirements lead to irregularly-shaped lots. Attachments Final Short Plat - Signed Packet Page 133 of 676 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/15/2014 03:29 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/15/2014 05:15 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/15/2014 08:51 PM Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 10/15/2014 08:49 AM Final Approval Date: 10/15/2014 Packet Page 134 of 676 Packet Page 135 of 676 Packet Page 136 of 676 Packet Page 137 of 676 AM-7214 6. K. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the 2013 Waterline Replacement Project and acceptance of project Recommendation Accept project. Previous Council Action On April 23, 2013, Council voted to award the waterline replacement contract in the amount of $1,304,457.70 to D&G Backhoe, Inc. and authorize a 10% management reserve for changes during construction. Narrative On May 10, 2013, D&G Backhoe was given the Notice to Proceed with construction, stipulating 120 working days to complete the project. This project is part of the City's program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City. Approximately 7,000 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meters, fire hydrants, and two pressure reducing stations were replaced. The contract award amount was $1,304,458 and Council approved a management reserve of $130,000. During the course of the contract there were zero added-cost change orders. The actual construction cost was 1.2% under the original contract amount. The final cost paid to D&G Backhoe was $1,289,200. Attachments Project Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/15/2014 04:57 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/16/2014 03:17 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 03:38 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:06 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/15/2014 04:48 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 138 of 676 Packet Page 139 of 676 Packet Page 140 of 676 AM-7215 6. L. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project and acceptance of project. Recommendation Accept project. Previous Council Action On November 3, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On July 21, 2009 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On May 17, 2011 Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. On November 15, 2011, Council approved Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC. On June 19, 2012 Council authorized for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC. On August 21, 2012, Council awarded a contract to Razz Construction in the amount of $3,872,095.20. Narrative Construction of the Lift Station Rehabilitation Project is complete and the project refurbished and improved nine existing sewer lift (pump) stations constructed in the 1960's and 1970's. The improvements replaced obsolete mechanical and electrical equipment to prevent pump failures, reduce the risk of sewage overflows and reduce maintenance costs. Existing piping, ventilation and structures were also upgraded or replaced to improve the overall operation and efficiency of each station. The revised contract award amount was $3,862,240.20 and the City Council approved a management reserve of $387,000. There were five change orders on the project that totaled $75,092 in extra costs. The final cost paid to Razz Construction was $3,937,332. Packet Page 141 of 676 Attachments Site Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/15/2014 05:02 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/16/2014 03:17 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 03:38 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:06 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/15/2014 04:57 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 142 of 676 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 3 o f 6 7 6 AM-7186 7. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative This proclamation commemorates the efforts of millions of people in our country, including the many arts organizations and individuals in Edmonds who work to make the arts and humanities a part of everyone's life while contributing to our economic vitality and enhancing education for our youth. Edmonds is known as a community that supports the arts and many talented cultural organizations call Edmonds their home, including: Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Theater, Edmonds Arts Festival and Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Historical Museum and the Olympic Ballet Theatre. In addition the city is home to a rich variety of arts related businesses. The City of Edmonds Arts Commission works on behalf of the City to foster the literary, performing and visual arts with such programs as the nationally recognized Write on the Sound writers' conference in October, free Summer Concerts in the park, a significant collection of public art and ongoing exhibits by regional artists. Partnerships, sponsorships and volunteers are key to the success of Edmonds Arts Commission programs. This proclamation encourages citizens to reflect on the benefits and opportunities to experience a broad array of cultural events throughout October and all year long. Attachments NAHM_2014 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/08/2014 02:10 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/08/2014 02:50 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/08/2014 03:03 PM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/07/2014 10:55 AM Final Approval Date: 10/08/2014 Packet Page 144 of 676 Packet Page 145 of 676 Packet Page 146 of 676 AM-7201 9. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation of the Edmonds Sister City Commission 2014 Student Exchange Program Hekinan, Japan trip Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative A group of 10 students and 2 chaperones travelled to Hekinan, Japan this past summer as part of the Edmonds Sister City Commission student exchange program. Trip chaperones' Karyn Heinekin and Phil Onishi will provide a recap of the trip and show a slideshow of their stay in Hekinan. Some of the student delegates will also be on-hand for the presentation. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 10/14/2014 08:54 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/14/2014 09:24 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/14/2014 09:26 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 10/13/2014 03:22 PM Final Approval Date: 10/14/2014 Packet Page 147 of 676 AM-7209 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Edmonds Senior Center Presentation on an “Option to Lease and Draft Ground Lease” request Recommendation Previous Council Action City Council Passed Resolution 1313 on March 18, 2014 supporting the razing and rebuilding of the Edmonds Senior Center at its current location (see attached). Edmonds City Council Meeting 3/18/14: Minutes attached. Edmonds City Council Retreat Meeting 3/14-15/14: Minutes attached. Narrative The Edmonds Senior Center Board, Fundraising Campaign Committee, and Strategic Planning Committee are moving forward and it is at this juncture that the Edmonds Senior Center, on the advice of our attorney, would like to initiate an Option to Lease (ground). All the major funders, particularly government require demonstrated tight control of the property. The method to achieve this goal would be the Option to Lease (ground) with references to a Draft Ground Lease contract. The Senior Center recently approached the City to request consideration of an option for a long-term land lease before beginning a capital campaign to raise funds for a new building. The Mayor and staff gave direction to the Senior Center to bring this request forth to Council. The Senior Center will present their request and options on terms. This is the first opportunity for Council to discuss this. This presentation is to bring Council up-to-date and to initiate the process with the Administration on initiating a Option to Lease (ground) and subsequently the Draft Ground Lease. After the presentation, the City is looking for direction from the Council. Attachments Attach 1 - Reso 1313 Sr. Center Attach 2 - 3-18-14 Council Minutes Attach - 3-14-15-2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 4 - Resolutions 943 and 342 Form Review Packet Page 148 of 676 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 09:52 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 09:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2014 09:56 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/15/2014 10:10 AM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 149 of 676 Packet Page 150 of 676 Packet Page 151 of 676 8. SENIOR CENTER STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION Council President Buckshnis explained the resolution is the final step of a two-step process that Mr. Fleming and Mr. Lovell began with a presentation to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee last Tuesday and a detailed presentation and lengthy Q&A at the Council retreat. She read the resolution into the record: RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER FOR ITS SERVICE TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS Whereas, the City of Edmonds Resolution No. 342 was passed by City Council in October 21, 1975 resolving and declaring the Senior Center at 220 Railroad Avenue to be the permanent Edmonds Senior Citizen Center facility; Whereas, the Strategic Action Plan for the City of Edmonds adopted by the City Council on April 2, 2013 specifically ranks in Quality of Life Item 3.a.1 that the City should work “towards develop(ing) a long term solution for maintaining and updating the Edmonds Senior Center” as VERY HIGH; Whereas, the City of Edmonds Resolution No. 943 passed by the City Council on January 5, 1999 declares and resolves that the City Council supports the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new Edmonds Senior Center at its current waterfront location towards meeting projected facility and program needs in the future; Whereas on October 16, 2013 , the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Senior Center directed its Strategic Action Group to focus on the long - term viability of the current structure and/or replacement at its current location; Whereas, The Board of Directors, the Executive Director and Staff of the Edmonds Senior Center have invested hundreds of thousands of hours and public government grant moneys and private contributions to continue Edmonds Senior Center services and programs to assist in the facilitation of thousands of citizens that utilize the Edmonds Senior Center every day; Whereas, hundreds of volunteers have donated thousands of precious hours providing services at the current site of the Edmonds Senior Center to senior citizens living in Edmonds and in south Snohomish County; Whereas, the programs and services donated to the City of Edmonds and to local residents by the Edmonds Senior Center have greatly benefitted the community and the city of Edmonds; Whereas, each year the Edmonds Senior Center Staff and Volunteers raises more than 70% of its annual budget; Whereas, the partnership between the Edmonds Senior Center and the City of Edmonds has been a great benefit to the taxpayers of the City of Edmonds; Whereas, the income from the Edmonds Senior Center thrift store and facility rentals have allowed the Edmonds Senior Center to provide these services to residents of Edmonds; Whereas, the Edmonds Senior Center should remain in its current location as stated in the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan approved by the City Council on February 25, 2014 and the City Council should acknowledge this important resource center. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1) The City Council would like to reaffirm the intent of resolution No. 342 placing the Edmonds Senior Center as a permanent facility at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds WA 98020, 2) The City Council would like to reaffirm the intent of resolution No. 943 which supports the demolition of the current Edmonds Senior Center and construction of a new Edmonds Senior Center at current location. 3) The City Council recognizes that the Edmonds Senior Center is an important Edmonds institution contributing needed services and programs to residents of Edmonds and to south Snohomish County; Packet Page 152 of 676 4) The City Council and the Mayor hereby agree that the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Senior Center and all of the volunteers and members of the Edmonds Senior Center are to be commended for their efforts to date to seek to construct a new Edmonds Senior Center on its current waterfront site and are to be encouraged in continuing those efforts which could include many aspects from a feasibility study to fundraising efforts; COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS READ. Council President Buckshnis explained Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she used to be on the Senior Center Board; she is still on the Board, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ term expired last year. She asked whether she should recuse herself from the vote as Mr. Wambolt suggested. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained State law refers to beneficial interest in contracts and requires Councilmembers to recuse themselves from that type of vote. He did not sense there was any contract from which Council President Buckshnis would profit. He was not aware of anything in State law that would prevent her from voting but reasonable minds can differ with regard to perception. In some instances Councilmembers voluntarily recuse themselves even if the law does not require it. He encouraged the Council to formulate an ethics policy that outlined the expectation for voting on such matters. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. 9. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF FILE # PLN20130074 AND THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL TO REZONE ONE PARCEL (7533 228TH ST. SW) FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-1.5) Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing was for the City Council to consider the Planning Board’s recommendation that property located at 7533 228th Street Southwest be rezoned from Residential Multifamily RM2.4 to Residential Multifamily RM 1.5. A rezone is a Type IV-B application where staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board and the Planning Board forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final action. Mayor Earling opened the closed record public hearing and described the procedures. The City Clerk will make a recording of the proceedings. There will be no opportunity during the closed record hearing for public testimony. The parties of record would normally include the applicant and any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. In this case there was no testimony other than the presentation by staff and no written comments were received. Therefore staff will be the only presenter. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires the hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision-making body has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this matter outside the public hearing process. Councilmembers Fraley- Monillas, Peterson, Petso, Johnson, Bloom and Mesaros, Council President Buckshnis and Mayor Earling stated they had not had any communication outside the public hearing process. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Council President Buckshnis, Councilmembers Mesaros, Bloom, Johnson, Petso, Peterson and Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Earling stated they had no conflicts. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmembers’ participation. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling advised only staff will Packet Page 153 of 676 Council comments included: • Coordinate issues in Strategic Plan, envision this person communicating with stakeholders and pulling things together • Envision consultant taking direction from Mr. Clifton’s office • Establish mechanism for the person to coordinate with the Council • Brief the Council throughout the process • Concern with devoting City resources to low priorities in the Plan that citizens do not want, need to identify those items • Establish tracking method to identify status of actions such as those that have been accomplished/implemented, i.e. forming the BID • Economic Development Strategic Action Plan Committee work with contractor to monitor status of items • Quarterly reports to Council 6. REPORT ON SENIOR CENTER STRATEGIC PLAN Council President Buckshnis explained a presentation was provided at Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meeting. Next Tuesday’s Council agenda will include consideration of an updated resolution. Phil Lovell, representing the Senior Center membership, Board and the Center’s Strategic Action Committee, introduced this item, commenting on the long, viable relationship/partnership between the Edmonds Senior Center and the City. He noted the following information was well received at a Senior Center membership meeting. Ferrell Fleming, Senior Center Executive Director, explained the goal is to build a new state of the art “Edmonds kind of” senior center on the present waterfront site. The structure will take full advantage of the magnificent views and be a resource to the whole community. The intent is for the building to function as senior center weekdays 8:00am-4:00pm with community use in off hours and weekends. The greater the proposed use, the greater support toward funding and operating the new facility. To the question of why a new building, he explained: • Cost of significant refurbishment too high – 2007 structural survey • Two choices: 1. Band-aid existing building and hope for the best 2. New building He described advantages of a new building: • Secure building envelope • Level floors throughout • Designed to accommodate new programs • Meet contemporary seismic standards • Takes maximum advantage of views with dramatic vistas from almost every room • Meet high green building standards • It will welcome people and invite them in • State of the art technology • Would be used by entire community • Coffee shop, café meeting places for all ages • Increased parking • Increased view corridors • Health & Wellness Wing with one-on-one spaces • A really good dance/exercise floor Packet Page 154 of 676 • Dramatically increased rental income • More Parks & Recreation programs • Lower maintenance costs • It will maintain the senior center on this site • All of Edmonds would be proud of it Mr. Fleming commented on the context: • City’s Strategic Plan o City’s Strategic Plan 3a.1: “Develop long term solution for maintaining and updating the senior center.” (Leads: Senior Center & Parks and Recreation Department) Very high • City’s PROS Plan (2014) o 1.D Consider new strategic partnerships with..the Edmonds Senior Center...that would increase recreation opportunities for Edmonds residents in accordance with this PROS Plan. o 2.Y Work with the Edmonds Senior Center in developing a long term solution for upgrading and maintaining the Senior Center • City’s CFP (2014) o Project Description: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building complex on the City waterfront o Project Benefit/Rationale: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The floors are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. o Schedule: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other sources (2019-2025) Mr. Fleming commented on the partnership with the City: • The City/Center partnership is 46 years old • Project must recognize financial limitations of City • Current strategy envisions the Senior Center funding the facility’s replacement on City’s land parcel granted under a long term lease arrangement • Land to remain regional park with beach access • Possible model: East County Senior Center (Monroe) where nonprofit built, owns, and maintains the building, City owns land, Center has ground lease Mr. Lovell commented on the Fundraising Capital Campaign • Exploring creating a Senior Center Foundation to manage campaign • The Foundation would involve Boomers • Many naming opportunities • Grants (particularly WA State) and large donors will drive success • Initial WA Capital Grant application – June 2014 He also described elements of a feasibility study process: • Agreements with City • Legal – Shoreline Management Program • Programs of new senior/community center • Architectural – conceptual drawings • Fundraising: Foundation & capital campaign • Community input • Feasibility Study Timeline 2014 o January – Special Membership Meeting o February – Hired lawyer and two architects Packet Page 155 of 676 o March – Legal work, presentations to City, conceptual drawings by architects, Center’s Annual Membership Meeting o April – Community Forums o May – Feasibility study completed o June – Board Decision, WA Capital Grant App Mr. Lovell and Mr. Fleming responded to Council questions and discussion ensued regarding the location of the site in a seismic hazard zone, parking, pedestrian overpass, current funding of the Edmonds Senior Center, expanding park aspects in the design to increase the City’s interest, enhancing public access/use of the beach, intent for the non-profit to raise 100% of funds and generate sufficient revenue to maintain the facility, establishing a process to consider other proposals/concepts for that property, resolution on Tuesday’s Council agenda that updates two previous resolutions, seeking community input on site elements, size of the site, maximizing the views and site elements, existing zoning and building heights, potential public/private partnership funding, developing an alternate plan to continue building functions if a new facility is not feasible, senior center as a high priority in the Strategic Action Plan and encouraging public/other potential users to provide input to senior center. Mr. Fleming summarized this is the senior center’s response to the charge they were given via the Strategic Plan to take the lead on a long term solution to the senior center. Summary: Resolution on March 18 Council agenda updating two previous resolutions. 7. DISCUSSION REGARDING GREEN RESOURCE CENTER Councilmember Peterson described the intent of the Green Resource Center. Discussion followed regarding physical changes that have been made and their cost, the amount allocated in budget, Bellingham as an example and establishing green resource incentives. The configuration of the area will be finalized once Ms. Hope joins the City. 8. TRANSPORTATION FORECASTING INCLUDING RE-ESTABLISHING THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Council President Buckshnis relayed $1.2 million was allocated for overlays in the 2014 budget. Topics for discussion include whether the Council wants to establish an annual set aside for streets and if so, how to fund it. Mayor Earling explained the $1.2 million allocated in the 2014 budget is a start; there is a lot to catch up on for the years when no funding was allocated for street overlays. It has been estimated that $1.5 million will be necessary for the next 10 years to catch up. He emphasized the need to identify a stable funding source for street overlays for a period of time. Mayor and Council comments/suggestions included: • Continue the annual allocation, not opposed to 3-year levy for paving • Overlays are an essential service, need to make it a priority • Voters defeated the proposed additional TBD fee • TBD vehicle fee versus property tax levy • Reallocate REET revenue to provide more for streets • Reestablish Transportation Committee to address funding sources for pavement restoration • Research where levies are passing and what makes them pass • Establish Transportation Committee, consider reallocating REET • Have Planning Board Members and City Councilmembers on Transportation Committee Packet Page 156 of 676 Packet Page 157 of 676 Packet Page 158 of 676 Packet Page 159 of 676 AM-7153 11. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmember Mesaros Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Economic Evaluation of Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mr. Sean Ardussi, a senior planner with the Puget Sound Regional Council, will present a study regarding train traffic and the impact of coal trains entitled "Economic Evaluation of the Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point". This study was commissioned by the Puget Sound Regional Council and was comprised from the findings of three firms: The PFM Group, Parametrix and HR & A. Attachments PSRC Presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 09:52 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 09:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 10/16/2014 09:56 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/17/2014 08:48 AM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 160 of 676 Presentation Prepared for: Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Board Economic Evaluation of Regional Impacts for the Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point July 24, 2014 Packet Page 161 of 676 Packet Page 162 of 676 •Purpose: To provide an objective analysis of the economic effects of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project proposal for the four-county region. •Scope of study: –Project background information and previous studies –Regional rail profile –Impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal on the four county region –Opportunities for mitigation •Topics outside scope of study: –Crude oil train safety –Coal dust and public health Project Purpose and Scope Packet Page 163 of 676 Overview of Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal •SSA Marine proposed the development of Gateway Pacific Terminal – a full-service dry bulk commodity export-import facility at a naturally occurring deep-water location in Cherry Point, Washington, approximately sixty miles north of Snohomish County. Packet Page 164 of 676 Overview of Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal •Current plans call for the project to be operational at full capacity by 2019. •The Terminal’s total export capacity would be approximately 54 million metric tons of dry bulk commodities per year. Full Build-Out Annual Tonnage 54 million metric tons Additional Trains from Baseline 18 (9 to Terminal, 9 from Terminal) Train Length 1.6 miles Packet Page 165 of 676 Environmental Process Feb. 2011 Project Information Document Submitted Oct. 2011 State, County and Corps agree on joint review Feb. 2012 State, County and Corps issue determination of significance Sept. 2012 – Jan. 2013 Scoping and comment period July/Aug. 2013 Scoping finalized – dual track – County/State (SEPA) and Corps (NEPA) Current Drafting EISs 2015 or later Draft EISs public, hearings 2016 or later Final EISs issued; full operation estimated for 2019 Packet Page 166 of 676 •Development and operation of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal would lead to new jobs, mostly during the construction phase and mostly in Whatcom County. •The proposed Terminal may have an impact on rail capacity in the central Puget Sound region – depending on whether BNSF responds to the increase in demand for service by increasing capacity. •Rail freight traffic is already projected to grow in Washington State and in the central Puget Sound region – even without the proposed Terminal •The most direct economic impacts on the central Puget Sound region will be due to increased rail traffic through cities and counties. •Economic impacts directly related to gate down-time vary greatly from location to location within the region. •Mitigation is possible in most if not all cases, but may be costly. Overview of Major Findings Packet Page 167 of 676 Projected Freight Rail Growth 64 116 238 0 50 100 150 200 250 1991 2010 2035 (proj) To n s ( m i l l i o n s ) Annual Tons of Freight Moved by Rail in Washington State (millions) Tons of Freight Moved by Rail in Washington State (millions) •Statewide rail freight is forecast to grow anyway •State projections for increased rail freight volume do not include service to a series of proposed new or expanded terminals in the Pacific Northwest, nor export of Bakken oil. Packet Page 168 of 676 Context – Other Proposed Coal Terminals •Multiple coal export terminal expansion or new construction proposals •Energy companies with ready supplies of Powder River Basin coal •2 active proposals in WA/OR •4 active proposals in British Columbia Packet Page 169 of 676 Potential Impact of Coal on Rail System Coal Volume that Could Move Through Central Puget Sound Region by Rail if all Projects Approved and Operated at Full Capacity Annual Million Metric Tons Gateway Pacific Terminal 54.0 Fraser Surrey Docks 8.0 Ridley Terminal (current contract volume potential) 2.5 Westshore Terminal (current contract volume potential)* 0.75 Millennium Terminal (Longview) 0.0 Port of Morrow 0.0 Total 65.25 *Assuming 25 percent of increased capacity Note: Potential Canadian terminal volume may or may not move through region depending upon multiple variables Coal Volume that Could Move Through Central Puget Sound Region by Rail if all Projects Approved and Operated at Full Capacity How much coal would potentially move through the region if Gateway Pacific isn’t built? Approximately 11.25 million metric tons out of a total potential of 65.25 million Packet Page 170 of 676 Potential Benefits •Rail capacity expansion could allow the region’s ports to move more goods and increase the region’s economic activity. •The region’s ports may become more economically attractive to shippers. Potential Risks •Current rail traffic could be constrained, costs could increase, there could be delays in shipments at the region’s ports •Passenger rail service could be disrupted, cost more, or both. •Current commodities and passenger rail services could get “priced out,” “squeezed out,” delayed, or face increased costs due to a lack of capacity. Regional Impacts – Domestic and Int’l Trade Packet Page 171 of 676 Annual Economic Impacts of Increased Gate Downtime by Community Packet Page 172 of 676 Impact on Residential Property Values – Findings Property Value Impacts BNSF Mainline Aggregate Property Value in Buffer ($ millions) 5% 7% Stanwood $47 $2 $3 Marysville $433 $22 $30 Edmonds $595 $30 $42 Seattle $5,203 $260 $364 Kent $178 $9 $12 Auburn $144 $7 $10 Sumner $575 $29 $40 Puyallup $447 $22 $31 Tacoma $1,786 $21 $29 Steilacoom $114 $6 $8 Stevens Pass Everett $619 $31 $43 Monroe $540 $27 $38 Snohomish $38 $2 $3 Stampede Pass Covington $257 $13 $18 Maple Valley $894 $45 $63 *Unincorporated areas not evaluated in study Packet Page 173 of 676 Impact on Commercial Property Values – Findings BNSF Mainline Aggregate Property Value in Buffer ($ millions) Property Value Impacts (5%) ($ millions) Stanwood $15 $0.8 Marysville $254 $13 Edmonds $71 $4 Seattle $5,696 $285 Kent $1,220 $61 Auburn $697 $35 Sumner $65 $3 Puyallup $121 $6 Tacoma $696 $8 Steilacoom $9 $0.4 Stevens Pass Everett $34 $2 Monroe $125 $6 Snohomish Stampede Pass Covington Maple Valley *Unincorporated areas not evaluated in study Packet Page 174 of 676 Impact of Increased Gate Downtime – Methodology •Estimate total number of personal and commercial travelers •Estimate additional gate downtime from train traffic •Estimate value of travel time for personal and commercial travelers •Criteria were used to determine that 34 crossings had a range of different impacts warranting closer examination. •Aggregate costs per selected grade crossing per year Packet Page 175 of 676 Regional Impacts Transportation Regional Gate-Down Time: Gate down time in 2035 with Gateway Pacific Terminal trains would increase on average by 65% compared to 2035 without the terminal. Study Area: 101 Mainline BNSF At-Grade Crossings in the Puget Sound region. 77 Crossings in Cities and Towns. Packet Page 176 of 676 Economic Analysis – Community Based Approach •Community specific impacts: –15 communities identified on or near potential freight route based on criteria. –Stanwood, Marysville, Edmonds, Seattle, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Tacoma, Everett, Monroe, Snohomish, Covington, Maple Valley Study took a community-based approach, examining most highly impacted crossings in detailed profiles for each community Packet Page 177 of 676 Other Regional Impacts Environmental Justice: •The study found in some locations, low income and minority population in Kent and Seattle would have impacts from train operations. In some locations, low income and minority populations in Everett, Auburn, Algona, Pacific and Fife would also be impacted by the additional trains travelling to and from the proposed terminal. Emergency Response: •The study identified 21 crossings in the region where additional waits for trains could impact the delivery of emergency response service due to close proximity to fire stations or emergency medical facilities. •There could be a 2-6 minute delay per crossing event for emergency response vehicles. Transportation Access: • Access to transportation facilities (bus stops, park and rides) could also be delayed by 2-6 minutes per crossing event. Packet Page 178 of 676 Mitigation •Grade separation of highly impacted crossings ($50m - $200m) •Other mitigation measures could include: –Crossing consolidation –Signal timing –Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) –Crossing improvements •Policy measures to assist in mitigation could include: –Scheduling train traffic –Use of different freight routing –Work with state lawmakers and Congress to expand funding for grade crossing improvements before after Packet Page 179 of 676 What Have We Heard? •Concerns about public safety •Uncertainty about environmental effects •Questions about who will pay if mitigation is necessary •Funding is needed for local mitigation •Many potential impacts are local, but are driven by issues beyond local control •Concern that rail service should continue to serve best economic interests of the state and region •Tribal issues need to be considered Packet Page 180 of 676 Next Steps •Draft EIS is anticipated to be finished sometime in mid 2015 – Opportunity for public comment •Continuously inform transportation planning (FAST, Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable, Transportation 2040) •Listening to feedback from PSRC boards and membership Packet Page 181 of 676 Questions? For more information, contact: Sean Ardussi Puget Sound Regional Council sardussi@psrc.org 206-464-7080 Packet Page 182 of 676 AM-7218 12. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:60 Minutes Submitted By:Scott James Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Public Hearing and Discussion regarding the 2015 Proposed City Budget. Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2015 Budget to City Council during their October 7th City Council meeting. During tonight's Public Hearing, staff will provide Council a brief overview of their 2015 budget requests. Tentative Department Budget Presentations are scheduled as follows: October 21st: 1. City Clerk; 2. Mayor's Office; 3. Human Resources; 4. Economic Development; 5. Finance & Information Services; 6. Nondepartmental (Presented by Finance); 7. Development Services; and 8, Parks, and 9. Municipal Court. October 28th 1. Police; 2. Public Works Utilities; 3. Public Works Roads; and 4. Public Works Administration, Facilities Maintenance, ER&R & Engineering. November 3rd: Public Hearing on Proposed 2015 Budget. November 10th 2015 Budget Study Session. November 18th 2015 Budget Adoption. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 10/16/2014 12:10 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 12:29 PM Packet Page 183 of 676 Mayor Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 12:49 PM Finance Scott James 10/16/2014 12:54 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 01:03 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:08 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 10/16/2014 12:05 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 184 of 676 AM-7219 13. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Committee: Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Intent to approve Shoreline Master Program Recommendation Come to consensus on the setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation and the physically separated functionally isolated provision in staff on the setback/buffer establish within the new Interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation and on the physically separated functionally isolated provision in 24.40.020.F.2.g (pg. 41 of Exhibit 1). and direct staff to bring back final SMP packet for submittal to Ecology on consent. Previous Council Action The City Council heard a brief introduction to the Shoreline Master Program at the December 4, 2012 council meeting. The December 4, 2012 introduction focused on how the Shoreline Master Program applied to the Harbor Square property. Council continued its review of the SMP at the February 26, 2013 meeting with a broader overview of the SMP update. At the March 26, 2013 meeting, staff provided an in depth review of the three Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments (ECDC 24.30.070) as well as a brief discussion of the allowed uses and setbacks in the various shoreline environments. During the April 23, 2013 Council meeting, staff reviewed how proposed changes to the City's SMP may impact property owners around Lake Ballinger as well as other single family property owners within the City's shoreline jurisdiction as well as changes to the Meadowdale Marina area. The Council held a public hearing on the SMP update on June 6, 2013. The Council continued its discussion at the October 8, 2013 Council meeting and directed staff to bring back options for a new shoreline environment and setbacks/buffers for the Harbor Square property. At the December 17, 2013 Council meeting, Council directed staff to draft an Urban Mixed Use IV interim shoreline designation for Harbor Square and the Unocal/Chevron property on the south side of Edmonds marsh. The Council received a briefing on the SMP update at the September 2, 2014 Council meeting, including discussion of the new Interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation. The City Council held a second public hearing on the SMP at the September 16, 2014 Council meeting. Council minutes are included as Exhibit 2. Narrative The City of Edmonds is in the final stages of the Shoreline Master Program update. Currently staff is Packet Page 185 of 676 The City of Edmonds is in the final stages of the Shoreline Master Program update. Currently staff is preparing the final submittal package to the Department of Ecology. According to Ecology's SMP website this consists of: Task 5.6: Approve SMP and submit to Ecology The local elected body must approve the draft SMP. Local governments should then assemble the complete draft SMP (Task 5.1) and submit the locally-approved SMP and supporting documents to Ecology. Deliverables must include two hard copies and one digital copy in Microsoft Word format of the following, with accompanying maps: A complete, locally approved SMP including maps, with relevant supporting documentation (Tasks 5.1 and 5.7) SEPA products: checklist, MDNS or EIS; SEPA notice (Task 5.3)1. Evidence of compliance with GMA notice requirements (Task 5.4)2. Public hearing record (Task 5.5)3. Response to comments received (Task 5.6)4. WAC 173-26-110 requires the following as part of the submittal package: A signed resolution or ordinance documenting local approval of the submittal. Specific text amending or replacing the existing master program. Amended environment designation maps. A summary of proposed amendments and explanation text, staff reports, records of hearing and other materials. Evidence of compliance with SEPA. Copies of all public, agency and tribal comments received and a record of names and addresses of interested parties involved in the local government process. Task 5.7: Demonstrate how Phase 5 complies with the Guidelines Local governments must fill in the SMP Submittal Checklist for the tasks completed under Phase 5. After reviewing Council minutes (Exhibit 2), there are two remaining items that staff needs final direction from the City Council on in order to finalize the draft regulations in Exhibit 1 for submittal to Ecology. (1) Setbacks and buffers for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. As apparent from the comments that have been submitted during the SMP update process (Exhibit 3) this issue has drawn the most interest with 16 of the 20 comments submitted touching on the topic. This has also been the subject the Council has spent the most time on. However, a review of the minutes does not indicate there has been a final decision regarding the Urban Mixed Use IV setbacks. The Department of Ecology has recommended the City Council go with the 50-foot buffer with an interim shoreline environment designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment (Comment No. 13 in Exhibit 3). Staff has recommended City Council adopt a 50-foot setback for the interim Urban Mixed Use IV environment (Exhibit 4). The current draft the SMP has setbacks of 150 feet from the edge of the marsh, with the requirement to establish a 50-foot vegetative buffer. In order to finalize the draft regulations for submittal to Ecology, staff needs Council to make a final decision on the buffer/setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. (2) Physically separated / functionally isolated provision in 24.40.020.F.2.g (pg. 41 of Exhibit 1). This provision would allow development to occur within an area that, while technically within the physical buffer distance, is located in an area that would not impact the critical area -- either in a negative or positive way. For example, the railroad separates the Port of Edmonds property east of Admiral Way from the Edmonds Marsh. That property is within the buffer distance of Edmonds Marsh, but is physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh by the railroad tracks. This provision Packet Page 186 of 676 physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh by the railroad tracks. This provision would allow development to occur at that location, provided the development is consistent with the other elements of the SMP. A review of the minutes indicates one council member requested this provision be removed, while another council member suggested this provision remain. A draft resolution of intent to adopt the SMP is included as Exhibit 5. This will accompany the City's submittal of the SMP and supporting documents to the Department of Ecology for their review and approval. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Draft SMP Regulations Title 24 ECDC Exhibit 2 - Council Minutes Excerpts Exhibit 3 - Response to Comments Exhibit 4 - Staff Memorandum with Recommendation on Urban Mixed Use IV Exhibit 5-Draft Resolution Intent to Adopt SMP Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Planning Department Rob Chave 10/17/2014 10:02 AM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/17/2014 10:41 AM Mayor Dave Earling 10/17/2014 10:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/17/2014 11:51 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 10/16/2014 12:46 PM Final Approval Date: 10/17/2014 Packet Page 187 of 676 DRAFT Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Part I. 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 Part III. 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 Packet Page 188 of 676 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 ................................................................................................. 48 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 Designation1 ...... 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.................................................................................................. 67 24.50.040 Landfill ............................................................................................................................................ 75 24.50.050 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs ............................................................................................ 78 24.50.060 Dredging and dredge material disposal ........................................................................................... 81 24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and enhancement projects ................................. 86 Part VI Specific Use Policies & Regulations ..................................................................................................... 88 24.60.000 Applicability ................................................................................................................................... 88 24.60.010 Aquaculture ..................................................................................................................................... 88 24.60.020 Boating Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 95 24.60.030 Commercial Development and Light Industrial ............................................................................ 102 24.60.040 Forest Practices ............................................................................................................................. 105 24.60.050 In-stream Structures ...................................................................................................................... 106 24.60.060 Recreational Development ............................................................................................................ 106 24.60.070 Residential Development .............................................................................................................. 110 24.60.080 Transportation and Parking ........................................................................................................... 113 24.60.090 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 120 Part VII Nonconforming Development ......................................................................................................... 124 24.70.000 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 124 24.70.010 Nonconforming Uses .................................................................................................................... 124 24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure .............................................................. 125 24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots ............................................................................................................................ 128 24.70.040 Nonconforming Signs .......................................................................................................................... 129 24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities .................................................................................................. 130 Packet Page 189 of 676 Part VIII Administration – Shoreline Permits ............................................................................................... 130 24.80.000 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 130 24.80.010 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Process ......................................... 130 24.80.020 Letter of Exemption ...................................................................................................................... 134 24.80.030 Review Criteria for All Development ........................................................................................... 135 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria ...................................................................................... 135 24.80.050 Conditional Use Permit Criteria .................................................................................................... 135 24.80.060 Variance Permit Criteria ............................................................................................................... 136 24.80.070 Minimum Application Requirements ............................................................................................ 137 24.80.080 Notice of Application .................................................................................................................... 139 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 .................................................................................................................................. 147 Part IX 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 O ....................................................................................................................... 152 24.90.040 Definitions: P to R........................................................................................................................ 156 24.90.050 Definitions: S to T ........................................................................................................................ 158 24.90.060 Definitions: U to Z ....................................................................................................................... 159 Part X Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 160 24.100.000 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 Packet Page 190 of 676 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 Packet Page 191 of 676 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 Packet Page 192 of 676 24.10.060 Document Organization This Master Program is divided into the following nine 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 J. Part X, ECDC 24.100.XXX through 24.100.XXX, 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 Packet Page 193 of 676 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. Packet Page 194 of 676 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 Packet Page 195 of 676 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. Packet Page 196 of 676 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 1. 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 programs 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. Packet Page 197 of 676 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 1. 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. Packet Page 198 of 676 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: 1. 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 Packet Page 199 of 676 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 1. “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. Packet Page 200 of 676 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. 10.14. The rehabilitation of “natural systems” (e.g., the improvement in water quality, removal of beach obstructions, etc.) should be encouraged. 11.15. Shoreline Use and Development Review. Packet Page 201 of 676 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. Packet Page 202 of 676 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 Packet Page 203 of 676 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. Packet Page 204 of 676 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 1. 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. Packet Page 205 of 676 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. 1. 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, Packet Page 206 of 676 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 Packet Page 207 of 676 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. Packet Page 208 of 676 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. Packet Page 209 of 676 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. 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. C. Area Designated Packet Page 210 of 676 1. 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 1. 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 described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. Packet Page 211 of 676 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; Such shoreline areas include largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as wetlands, estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact shoreline habitats. Packet Page 212 of 676 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: 1. 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, e. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside Natural- designated shorelines. Packet Page 213 of 676 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 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 Packet Page 214 of 676 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 1. 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 1. 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. Packet Page 215 of 676 2. Shoreline Residential I: 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 1. 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. Packet Page 216 of 676 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 1. 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. Packet Page 217 of 676 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. 4.5.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. C. Area Designated Packet Page 218 of 676 1. 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: a. 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. b.a. 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. c. d.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 1. 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 may be 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. Packet Page 219 of 676 6. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development techniques where feasible and appropriate. 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. Packet Page 220 of 676 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. 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: 1. 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. Packet Page 221 of 676 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 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.C. 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 though 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.C, 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 ?) 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.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas b. ECDC 23.80.070.A.1.b & A.2: Buffer reduction and alterations 3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Packet Page 222 of 676 a. ECDC 23.90.040.D.2: Reduced buffer widths b. ECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to structures existing within stream buffers 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.I: 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. Packet Page 223 of 676 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 Page 224 of 676 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 rated according to the Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington (Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – 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 I. 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). c. 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 Packet Page 225 of 676 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). b. Wetland Buffer requirements for wetlands within City of Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction. Wetland Category Standard Buffer Width Additional buffer width if wetland scares 21-25 habitat points Additional buffer width if wetland scares 26-29 habitat points Additional buffer width if wetland scares 30-36 habitat points Category I: Based on total score 75 ft Add 30 ft Add 90 ft Add 150 ft Category I: 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 Packet Page 226 of 676 enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of corridors or connections • Maintain connections to offsite areas that are 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: Packet Page 227 of 676 1. Water quality protection; 2. Provision of wildlife habitat; 3. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and 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 Packet Page 228 of 676 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. i. 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: 1. 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. Packet Page 229 of 676 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 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. 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 Packet Page 230 of 676 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. 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. c. 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: Packet Page 231 of 676 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; 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 c. 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 Packet Page 232 of 676 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 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. Required View CorridorsView Protection Regulations. Packet Page 233 of 676 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: a.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 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 III 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. Packet Page 234 of 676 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 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. e. 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. Packet Page 235 of 676 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. 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. c. Modification of vegetation in association with a legal, nonconforming use provided that said modification is conducted in a manner consistent with this Master Program and results in no net loss to ecological functions or critical fish and wildlife conservation areas. 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. 1. 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. Packet Page 236 of 676 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. 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. Packet Page 237 of 676 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 Designation1 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 II Conservancy Natural Aquaculture SCUPX SCUP SCUP SCUP X SCUP SCUPX SCUPX X SCUP XSCUP SCUP SCUP Artwork SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X*2 X*2 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 Packet Page 238 of 676 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 II Conservancy Natural Commercial and Light Industrial Water-oriented X SDP SDP SDP SDP X X X X* X* X X Nonwater- oriented X SDP+ SDP+ SDP+ SDP X X X X* X* X X 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* X* X* X* X* X* X* X* Recreation X SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP Residential Detached Residential (Single-family) X X X XSDP X SDP SDP SDP X X X X Attached or stacked Residential (Multi-family) X X X SDP X X X X X X X X Shoreline Stabilization Groins SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP X* Breakwaters and jetties SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP SCUP SCUP X* Bulkheads and similar structures SDP SDP SDP SCUP X SCUP X X SDP X* X* SCUP X* Bioengineering SDP SDP SDP SDP X SDP X X SDP SDP+ SDP+ SDP X* Gabions X X X X X X X X X X X X Packet Page 239 of 676 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 II Conservancy Natural 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 water- dependent use SDP SDP SDP SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP+ X Parking – not supporting an associated water- dependent use SDP SCUP+ SCUP+ SDP SDP X X X X X SCUP+ X 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 1: 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. Packet Page 240 of 676 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 buffers distances and may be larger if a critical area is present consistent with ECDC 24.40.020 and Title 23 ECDC. 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 II Conservancy Natural Aquaculture – Over Water Structures Shore Setback1 (waterward ordinary high) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1500 N/A 1500 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1500 N/A N/A Maximum Height above deck of overwater structure 3 ft 3 ft 3 ft 3ft 3ft 3ft N/A 3ft N/A N/A 3 ft N/A 3 ft. 3ft N/A 3 ft Commercial and Light Industrial Development Water Dependent 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 Varies15 0’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Height16 N/A 30’ 30’ 35’16 25’ 35’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Coverage N/A None None None None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback N/A 15’ 15’ 50’17 150/5017,18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Side Setback (commercial/ residential) 15 N/A 0’/15’ 2, 3 0’/15’ 2, 3 Varies15 0’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Height16 N/A 30’ 30’ 35’16 25’ 35’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Coverage N/A None None None Varies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Packet Page 241 of 676 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 II Conservancy Natural Recreation Shore Setback N/A 15’ 15’ 15’17 15’17 N/A N/A 35’ N/A N/A 50’ N/A14 Maximum Height16 N/A 30’16 30’16 35’16 25’ 35’ 25’16 25’16 25’16 15’ 4 15’ 4 25’ 25’ Maximum Coverage N/A None None None None 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A 10% or 4,000 square feet N/A Maximum impervious N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20% or 10,000 square feet N/A Residential Development Shore Setback N/A N/A N/A 25 50’17 150/5018 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 Height16 N/A N/A N/A 35’16 25’ 35’ 25’ 25’ 25’ N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 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 Maximum Density6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies12 7.3 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Coverage N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A N/A N/A Transportation and Parking Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 60’ 60’ 60’7 25 50’17 150/5018 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60’ N/A Structured Parking Shore Setback N/A N/A N/A 25 50’17 150/5018 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Height16 N/A N/A N/A 35’16 25’ 35’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ferry Terminals Maximum Height 8 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ N/A N/A N/A 35’ 35’ N/A N/A Railroads Maximum Height 25’ 9 30’ 9 30’ 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Property line 5’ 5’ 5’ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Packet Page 242 of 676 setbacks 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 II Conservancy Natural All Other Development Shore Setback N/A 15’ 15’ 25 50’17 150/5018 N/A N/A 35’ N/A N/A 50’ N/A14 Maximum Height16 25’ 30’ 30’ 35’16 25’ 35’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 25’ 35’/15’ 10 25’ 25’ Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) N/A None None None None Varies11 6,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Density N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Varies12 7.3 3.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Maximum Coverage None None None None Varies19 35% 35% 35% N/A N/A 10% 10% 1 : Aquaculture pens shall be no closer to the shoreline than the identified distance. 2 : See ECDC 24.40.040.B.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 II zone, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080.D.2.c. 8 : Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.070.C.10. 9 : Subject to exceptions, see ECDC 24.60.080.D.1.b.xiii.1 through ECDC 24.60.080.D.1.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 dwelling units per acre depending on the underlying zoning. 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. 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 by the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation. Height limits greater than 35 feet shall be supported by view analysis and structures designed to minimize impacts on public views. 17 Fences within the shore setback of the Urban Mixed Use III 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 150 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. Packet Page 243 of 676 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. 1. 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.EC.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. Packet Page 244 of 676 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. 4.5. 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; Packet Page 245 of 676 • 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. c. 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 Packet Page 246 of 676 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 in 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. Packet Page 247 of 676 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 Packet Page 248 of 676 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 ant 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. Packet Page 249 of 676 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; c. 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. Packet Page 250 of 676 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. Packet Page 251 of 676 b. Gabions are prohibited. Packet Page 252 of 676 3. Urban Mixed Use II 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 Packet Page 253 of 676 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. B. Moorage: Piers, Docks, and Floats Policies Packet Page 254 of 676 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 e. The pier or dock will not have a significant long-term adverse effect on aquatic habitats. Packet Page 255 of 676 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: a. Private, shared, public and commercial moorage structures are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Packet Page 256 of 676 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 of any kind intended for the permanent storage of waste or hazardous substances shall be permitted. 3. Urban Mixed Use II Packet Page 257 of 676 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. 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 Packet Page 258 of 676 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 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 Packet Page 259 of 676 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 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. 10. Aquatic II 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 may be within 100 feet of a public park. Packet Page 260 of 676 c. 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. 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. Packet Page 261 of 676 24.50.040 Landfill A. Applicability. 1. 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 1. Landfill should only be permitted to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate an approved shoreline use or development and with assurance of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and 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. d. Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with the dredged material management program of the Department of Natural Resources. Packet Page 262 of 676 e. 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: 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. Packet Page 263 of 676 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 I: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Landfill is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. 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. Packet Page 264 of 676 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 water mark 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. 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 Packet Page 265 of 676 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 proved 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. 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. Packet Page 266 of 676 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 permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. 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 may be permitted as a conditional use if accessory to a water- dependent use and littoral sediment transport is not significantly disrupted. 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. Packet Page 267 of 676 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. 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. Packet Page 268 of 676 5. Minor dredging for fill materials as part of ecological restoration or enhancement, beach nourishment, public access or public recreation should be permitted if consistent with this Program. 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. 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. Packet Page 269 of 676 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 Act0 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). c. 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. 5. Proposals for dredging and dredge spoil disposal, when permitted, shall: a. Be kept to the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use. Packet Page 270 of 676 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. c. 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. c. Information on stability of bedlands adjacent to proposed dredging and spoils disposal areas. 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. Packet Page 271 of 676 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 1. Urban Railroad: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: Dredging may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Packet Page 272 of 676 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.1.b 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.1.b 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. 24.50.070 Shoreline habitat and natural systems restoration and enhancement projects Packet Page 273 of 676 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. c. 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 1. Urban Railroad: Restoration activities are permitted subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Packet Page 274 of 676 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 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 Packet Page 275 of 676 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. 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 Packet Page 276 of 676 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 1. 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 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. Packet Page 277 of 676 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). 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; Packet Page 278 of 676 i. Water quality. ii. Tidal variations. iii. Prevailing storm wind conditions. iv. Current flows. v. Flushing rates. vi. Littoral drift. vii. Areas of differing substrate composition. viii. Areas of aquatic, intertidal, and upland vegetation complexes. ix. Existing shoreline or water uses and structures. x. Aquatic and benthic organisms. xi. A vegetation habitat survey must be conducted. The WDFW must be contacted prior to the survey to ensure it is conducted according to the most current WDFW eelgrass/macroalgae survey guidelines. xii. Further baseline studies including surveys and sampling may be required depending upon the adequacy of available information, existing conditions, and the nature of the proposal. c. A detailed description of the project proposal including: i. Species to be reared. ii. Substrate modification or vegetation removal. iii. Planting, harvest and processing location, method and timing, including work proposal and construction techniques proposed, type of work, frequency, and duration. 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. Packet Page 279 of 676 e. 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. j. 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. l. 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. 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 Packet Page 280 of 676 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 may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program.Aquaculture is prohibited. 2. Urban Mixed Use I: 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 may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. 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 may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Proposals containing net pen facilities shall be located no closer than 1,500 feet from the OHWM of this environment, unless a specific lesser distance is determined to be appropriate based upon a visual impact analysis. Other types of floating culture facilities may be located with 1,500 feet of the OHWM but in such cases a visual analysis shall be mandatory. Aquaculture is prohibited. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Aquaculture may be permitted as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Proposals containing net pen facilities shall be located no closer than 1,500 feet from the OHWM of this environment, unless a specific lesser distance is determined to be appropriate based upon a visual impact analysis.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. Proposals containing net pen facilities shall be located no closer than 1,500 feet from the OHWM of this environment, unless a specific lesser distance is determined to be appropriate based upon a visual impact analysis. Packet Page 281 of 676 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. 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 Packet Page 282 of 676 1. The following moorage structures are prohibited in the shoreline jurisdiction: 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. Packet Page 283 of 676 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. 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. Packet Page 284 of 676 D. Boating Facilities – Shoreline Area Regulations 1. Urban Railroad: Boating facilities are prohibited. 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. Packet Page 285 of 676 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. 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 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. 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. Packet Page 286 of 676 vii. Boat launch ramps that meet the following requirements: 1. The ramp is paved with concrete. 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 Packet Page 287 of 676 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: 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 may be within 100 feet of a public park. c. 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. Packet Page 288 of 676 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. 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. 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 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. 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 Packet Page 289 of 676 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 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 1. 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. Packet Page 290 of 676 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. c. 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-orientatedoriented 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-orientatedoriented 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-orientatedoriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater- orientatedoriented commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such uses in ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.d. Packet Page 291 of 676 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: a. Water-orientatedoriented commercial and light industrial use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Nonwater- orientatedoriented 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 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. 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 Packet Page 292 of 676 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. 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 1. 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 Packet Page 293 of 676 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. 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 Packet Page 294 of 676 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; 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-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 3. Urban Mixed Use II: Water-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Water-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. Packet Page 295 of 676 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-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 7. Shoreline Residential II: Water-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 8. Shoreline Residential III: Water-orientatedoriented recreational use and development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 9. Aquatic I: Water-orientatedoriented 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-orientatedoriented 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-orientatedoriented 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-orientatedoriented 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. Packet Page 296 of 676 c. Recreational development requiring extensive structures or substantial alterations to topography or native vegetation is prohibited. 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. Packet Page 297 of 676 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. 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 1. 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. Packet Page 298 of 676 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. 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. e. 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. i. 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. Packet Page 299 of 676 7. Shoreline Residential II: Single family residential development is permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this Master Program. 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. Packet Page 300 of 676 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 1. Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent uses. 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 Packet Page 301 of 676 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 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 Packet Page 302 of 676 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. 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. Packet Page 303 of 676 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. 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.1.b.xiii.1 through ECDC 24.60.070.D.1.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. 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.1.b.xiii.1 through ECDC 24.60.070.D.1.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. 4. Urban Mixed Use III: Packet Page 304 of 676 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 iii. Parking. Packet Page 305 of 676 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. Railroads; and ii.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. c.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. Railroads; and ii.i. Parking. Packet Page 306 of 676 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 Packet Page 307 of 676 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 1. Prohibited Pipelines. Except for gas or oil pipelines, city-approved sanitary sewer, stormwater outfall lines, or other conveyance systems for on-site drainage collection Packet Page 308 of 676 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: Packet Page 309 of 676 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 1. 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. Packet Page 310 of 676 10. Aquatic II: 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 Packet Page 311 of 676 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. Packet Page 312 of 676 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. Packet Page 313 of 676 J. 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: 1. 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. Packet Page 314 of 676 24.70.030 Nonconforming Lots A. A noncornforming 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 Zone % Needed for Legal Lot Lot Size Needed for legal lot (1) RS-20 60% 12,000 Packet Page 315 of 676 (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. Packet Page 316 of 676 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. Packet Page 317 of 676 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: 1. 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 Packet Page 318 of 676 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 Packet Page 319 of 676 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; c. 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. Packet Page 320 of 676 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 Packet Page 321 of 676 wetland area. Specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.) C. Apart from the activities listed in ECDC 24.80.020.B, 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. Packet Page 322 of 676 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: Packet Page 323 of 676 1. 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: Packet Page 324 of 676 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 Packet Page 325 of 676 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 Packet Page 326 of 676 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 36.70B.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. 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: 1. 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.B. An open record public hearing shall be required for all of the following: Packet Page 327 of 676 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 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; Packet Page 328 of 676 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 43.21C. 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 (21) 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 Packet Page 329 of 676 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 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 may be increased a maximum of ten 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. Packet Page 330 of 676 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. 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: 1. 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.B. 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. Packet Page 331 of 676 3.4.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. 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 24.80.140.A.1 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 Packet Page 332 of 676 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 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 Packet Page 333 of 676 considered a violation of this Master Program and a public nuisance subject to enforcement proceedings. 24.80.170 Enforcement 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”, and “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. Packet Page 334 of 676 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. 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. I. “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. Packet Page 335 of 676 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 designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope of landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation or surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystemmeans 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 soning 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. Packet Page 336 of 676 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. 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 Packet Page 337 of 676 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). 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. Packet Page 338 of 676 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. 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. Packet Page 339 of 676 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. I. “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 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. Packet Page 340 of 676 M.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. N.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. O.R. “Mean sea level” means the level of Puget Sound at zero tide as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. P.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. Q.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. R.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. S.V. “Moorage” means a place to tie up or to anchor a waterborne craft. T.W. “Mooring buoy” means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for waterborne craft. U.X. “Moorage facility” means a pier, dock, dolphin, buoy or other structure providing docking or moorage space for waterborne craft. V.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. W.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. X.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. Packet Page 341 of 676 Y.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. Z.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 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. AA.DD. “Off-street parking” means motor vehicle parking facilities within the lot area of a private lot or public lot established for that purpose. BB.EE. “Official newspaper of the city” means the publication designated by ordinance or resolution to contain official newspaper publications for the city government. CC.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. DD.GG. “OHWM” means ordinary high water mark (see ECDC 24.90.030.FF). EE.HH. “Open space” means land not covered by buildings, roadways, parking areas or other surfaces through which water cannot percolate into the underlying soils. FF.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. GG.JJ. “Oriented” means facing or directed toward. Packet Page 342 of 676 HH.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. 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 Packet Page 343 of 676 (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. 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. Packet Page 344 of 676 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. A.B. “Shoreline areas” and “shoreline jurisdiction” means all “shorelines of the state” and “shorelands” as defined in RCW 90.58.030. B.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. C.D. “Shoreline Management Act (SMA)” means Chapter 90.58 RCW as now or hereafter amended. D.E. “Shoreline master program (SMP)” means the ordinance of the City of Edmonds adopted under authority of Chapter 90.58 RCW. E.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. F.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. G.H. “Silt or sediment” means the soil particles mobilized and deposited by the processes of erosion and deposition. H.I. “Street” means the public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicular access to more than three lots. I.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. J.K. “Structural alterations” means any change in a supporting member of a building or structure. K.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.” Packet Page 345 of 676 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. 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: 1. 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. Packet Page 346 of 676 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. Part X Appendices 24.100.000 Maps of Shoreline Environments and Jurisdictions OTHER APPENDICES? Packet Page 347 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 9 Main Motion #4 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE 2013 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. Councilmember Bloom recalled during the last legislative session the Senate or the House voted to exempt audio recordings of executive sessions from public records requests and if a request was made, a judge would review the tape to determine if the Council met the criteria for an executive session. She suggested including that on the 2013 legislative agenda. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled Councilmember Bloom’s interest was for all audio recordings of executive sessions to be automatically exempt from public records regardless of the subject of the executive session versus the current hodge- podge of exemptions. Councilmember Bloom clarified her intent was to support the original bill that was approved by either the House or Senate. If the Council was not interested, she was okay with not pursuing it at this time. Action on Main Motion #4 THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Main Motion #5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY. Action on Main Motion #5 THE MOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the City has been working on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update for about six years. The Planning Board recommended the Council review the SMP update concurrent with the Harbor Square Master Plan. He provided an overview: • Shoreline Management Act (SMA) o Passed by legislature in 1971, adopted by voters in 1972 • SMA policies address: o Shoreline Uses o Environmental Protection o Public Access • Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. In 2003, the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted new guidelines for SMP development. The SMP guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their SMPs. The guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. The SMP consists of several sections, including: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions Packet Page 348 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 10 • Cumulative Impact Analysis In 2006 the City received a grant from DOE to begin work on the SMP update. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed who reviewed policies, inventory and characterization, restoration plan, and shoreline environments. A consultant drafted ECDC Title 24 and the Cumulative Impact Analysis. Tonight’s presentation is intended to be an introduction to the SMP update; Mr. Lien envisioned there would be several reviews/discussions with the Council in the first quarter of 2013. Once the Council adopts the SMP; it is forwarded to DOE for approval. Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained the intent of shoreline environments is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. The TAC reviewed the environmental designations with the exception of Mixed Use III and how it applies to Harbor Square. In the current draft SMP, there are 11 shoreline jurisdictions. Mr. Lien displayed a map of current shoreline designations, explained the current shoreline jurisdiction is 200 feet from Puget Sound. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh is considered an associated wetland, meaning shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the Edmonds Marsh boundary. As part of the update, the Edmonds Marsh was determined to be a shoreline, meaning that shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the Marsh. He displayed an aerial view of the Edmonds Marsh, identifying historic boundaries of the marsh in 1870, 1944, 1964 and 2006. In negotiations with DOE, the extent of Edmonds Marsh as a shoreline was determined to be the 2006 boundary. Shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the Edmonds Marsh, into Harbor Square and the potential Edmonds Crossing site. Mr. Lien displayed another aerial view, a survey WSDOT did when considering Edmonds Crossing. A question that often arises is what happens when Willow Creek is day lighted and saltwater is allowed to intrude further into the Edmonds Marsh. He explained the Edmonds Marsh boundary will not expand; the salt aspect of the Marsh will expand. He identified the area that WSDOT believes will become a salt marsh (blue hatched on map) and the 10-foot elevation mark (mean high tide of Puget Sound is 10 feet depicted as red line on map). Mr. Lien explained it was near the end of the SMP update that DOE determined Edmonds Marsh would be a shoreline rather than an associated wetland. During the SMP update, consideration must be given to all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state. The SMP must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent with the SMP. When it was discovered Edmonds Marsh would be a shoreline, he was aware of the Port’s plans with regard to the Harbor Square Master Plan. When a new environment was created it was with that and the City’s Comprehensive Plan in mind. He referred to the Downtown Master Plan that states, this area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. Under the current SMP, there were two Urban Mixed Use zones: • Urban Mixed Use I Packet Page 349 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 11 o North of fishing pier to Brackett’s Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II o Ferry Terminal o Marina Beach to fishing pier With the language in the Downtown Master Plan and the knowledge of the Harbor Square Master Plan, a new shoreline environment was established: • Urban Mixed Use III o Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh o Commercial area north of ferry terminal Mr. Lien explained the Urban Mixed-Use III designation is appropriate for those areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for mixed-use development including high-intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development. (ECDC 24.30.070.B). The Planning Board delayed review of the SMP update until the Harbor Square Master Plan was submitted. Mr. Lien reviewed uses and bulk and dimensional standards in the SMP that apply to Harbor Square: • ECDC 24.40.80 – Permitted Use by Shoreline Designation o Multifamily Residential Development proposed as an allowed use • ECDC 24.40.090 – Bulk and Dimensional Standards o 50 foot setback from edge of Edmonds Marsh for most uses and development o 15 foot setback for recreational use o Allowed height 35 feet with footnote that height determined by underlying zoning The current contract rezone for Harbor Square property has a 35-foot height limit. The Port has requested taller building within the Harbor Square site. Mayor Earling reiterated there will be further meetings on the SMP update. He invited general, big picture questions from the Council. Councilmember Bloom commented when she reviewed the SMP, it is clear that wetland buffers need to be observed. It was her understanding the Marsh is a wetland and the standard buffer for a Category I wetland such as the Edmonds Marsh was 200 feet; the Harbor Square Master Plan has a 50-foot setback. She asked how that would be resolved. Mr. Lien answered critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the GMA. There have been a few court decisions that have addressed that and DOE has developed guidelines: areas 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark are ruled by the SMP and areas outside of shoreline jurisdictions are ruled by the GMA and the critical areas regulations. When the SMP update was being drafted, there were a few options: copy specific sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) into the SMP, reference the CAO and SMP, or include portions of the CAO in the appendix of the SMP. The City did a combination, adopting most of the CAO within the SMP but DOE felt the City’s wetland regulations did not meet their requirements and requested the City incorporate their Best Available Science for Small Jurisdictions. Title 24 contains a new section regarding wetlands and how wetland buffers will be applied within a shoreline jurisdiction area; the base buffer from DOE is 150 feet. Mr. Lien referred to allowed uses in critical areas, ECDC 23.40.220.C and ECDC 23.50.020, explaining Harbor Square is currently developed to approximately 25 feet of the Edmonds Marsh. Any redevelopment is an allowed activity per the City’s critical area regulations. The Port’s Master Plan references enhancing and increasing the buffer where possible but the critical area regulations would allow the site to be redeveloped within the critical area buffers because it already is a developed area. Packet Page 350 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2012 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that the City would grandfather in its current footprint. Mr. Lien answered the Port is grandfathered to the developed footprint which is within 25 feet in some places. The impervious footprint of Harbor Square can be redeveloped per the City’s critical area regulations. In addition to language in the Harbor Square Master Plan regarding enhancing and increasing the buffer where possible, there are other things that can be done to improve the Marsh and reduce existing impacts. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if she could add to the questions she previously asked of staff regarding Harbor Square. Mr. Lien advised another public hearing regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan is scheduled for December 18. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE PORT’S HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS A MIXED-USE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THE MIXED-USE NATURE OF THE MASTER PLAN WILL ALLOW FOR RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND PUBLIC USES, AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THE MASTER PLAN COULD PROVIDE 340 TO 358 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 50,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 9,784 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 123,410 SQUARE FEET OF RECREATIONAL HEALTH CLUB USES (INCLUDING TENNIS COURTS), 3.8 ACRES OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, AND 1,091 SPACES OF OFF-STREET PARKING. THE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS BUILDINGS OF VARYING HEIGHTS, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 55 FEET CONCEPTUALLY, BUILDINGS UP TO 35 FEET ARE PROPOSED FOR THE SR-104/DAYTON STREET INTERSECTION WHILE BUILDINGS OF 45 FEET ARE PROPOSED ALONG DAYTON STREET (WITH STEP-BACK PROVISIONS FOR PORTIONS ABOVE 35 FEET). FIVE STORY BUILDINGS (UP TO 55 FEET IN HEIGHT) COULD BE LOCATED TOWARD THE FAR SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE SITE. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City to incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Port envisions a mixed use development including retail, commercial, office, public uses, and residential development. He emphasized this is a non-project level plan review. The Port has not applied for a development permit or a rezone. However, incorporating the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezone and/or development agreement for the site. Mr. Lien reviewed steps in a timeline of the Comprehensive Plan/development review process for Harbor Square, 2004-2014 and beyond, identifying points where the City Council will be involved (shown in italics): • 2004-June 2012 o Port prepares and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan • July – October 2012 o City reviews and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment o City completes and adopts SMP • 2012-2013 o City and Port enact conceptual development agreement/MOU • Undetermined – depends on market conditions and other factors o The Port prepares and issues a developer RFP, review proposals and select developer o Developer refines analysis, secures financing and prepares proposal and permit application o Developer applies to City for final development agreement, City reviews and approves with conditions o Developer completes construction documents and prepares building permit application o City reviews building permit application o Construction begins Packet Page 351 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 8 add an additional 60 days to the timeframe to develop the work program. That amendment could be prepared and presented to Council next week. The Members Advisory Board will present the 2013 work program to the Council for approval. Once the members of the BID choose their own Members Advisory Board, they will prepare and submit a 2014 work program to the City Council before the end of September 2013. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Members Advisory Board will be selected. Mr. Clifton responded the ordinance calls for appointing members based on proportional representation based on the valuation of collections. It is approximately a 50/50 split now. The ordinance allows for appointment of an Interim Board of 7 to 11 members. Thus far, 14 individuals have expressed interest in serving on the Interim Members Advisory Board; a proportional representation would be 5 members from by appointment businesses and 5 members from open door businesses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the deadline for businesses to submit their name to participate on the Board. Mr. Clifton advised the letter requests names be submitted by March 8. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the 50/50 split of open door and by appointment businesses. Mr. Clifton responded the percentages based on the total assessment collected are 50.6% open door and 49.4% by appointment businesses. Councilmember Bloom pointed out if the percentage was based on the number of businesses, there would be more by appointment members of the Board. She asked whether the calculation method could be changed. Mr. Clifton answered it was in the ordinance and the only way to change it would be for the Council to revise the ordinance. 11. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE INTRODUCTION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the second introduction to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided a brief introduction at the December 4, 2012 Council meeting, primarily related to the Harbor Square property. A continued work session regarding the SMP is scheduled on March 26 and a decision will be made at that meeting whether to hold another work session. Mr. Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities • Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. Packet Page 352 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 9 In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their shoreline master programs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly significant update of its SMP in 2000; the prior SMP was adopted in the early 1970s. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations • Draft ECDC Title 24 • Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications • Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He reviewed components of the SMP update: • Technical Advisory Committee, convened in 2006 • Consultant Documents o Shoreline Inventory and Characterization o Restoration Plan • Development Regulations – ECDC Title 24 • Cumulative Impact Analysis • SMP must be approved by Ecology o Have tentative DOE approval of regulations Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (Edmonds has none) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien described the differences between jurisdiction, setback and buffers: • Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) • Setback – Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer – the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Buffer widths vary depending on the relative quality and sensitivity of the area being protected. Unlike zoning or shore setbacks, buffer areas are intended to be left undisturbed, or may need to be enhanced to support natural processes, functions and values. Mr. Lien explained often people think of an idealized natural concept of an undeveloped shoreline when thinking about buffers. The reality in Edmonds is a heavily developed shoreline with the Port, railroad tracks and other uses. Thus the naturalized concept for buffers does not apply in urban developed areas. As an example, he provided an image of Lake Ballinger, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction, shore setback prescribed by the SMP, and wetland setback. He provided an image of the bluff area in north Edmonds, identifying the railroad tracks, steep bluffs, bluff setback, and critical area building setback. Council President Petso asked if the appropriate setback and buffers are intended to be in Title 24 or will other critical area ordinances apply. Mr. Lien answered he would address that later in his presentation. Packet Page 353 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Lien explained a key aspect of the SMA and a key consideration in developing the SMP is the concept of no let loss: • RCW 90.58.620 – Updated SMP’s must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. • WAC 173-26-186 – Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. Achievement of no net loss is documented via the cumulative impacts analysis. • SMP Handbook – Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mr. Lien reviewed the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part I: Introduction ECDC 24.10.000 – 24.10.060 o 24.10.030 – Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC • Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP • SMP prevails where there are conflicts • Part II: Goals & Policies ECDC 24.20.000 – 24.20.110 o Goals and Policies reviewed by Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2006 o Largely unchanged from current SMP o Added policies on climate change, LID, and Edmonds Marsh • Part III: Shoreline Environments ECDC 24.30.000 – 24.30.080 o Intent is to encourage uses that will protect or enhance the current or desired character of a shoreline. o Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction o Environmental designations reviewed by TAC o Edmonds has 11 Shoreline Environments: Aquatic • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) – purpose is to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM. • Aquatic II (high intensity) – purpose is protect the unique characteristics and resources of the aquatic environment by managing water-dependent use activities to prioritize preservation and restoration of natural resources, navigation, recreation, and commerce, and by assuring compatibility between shoreland and aquatic uses. Natural – purpose is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low-intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. • The Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104. • The Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone Conservancy – purpose is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses • Bracket Landing South and North • Off-leash Dog Park • Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh Shoreline Residential – purpose is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with the SMP. • Shoreline Residential I Packet Page 354 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 11 – North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning • Shoreline Residential II – East of railroad, RS-6 zoning • Shoreline Residential III – Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the Marsh. In this update, DOE determined the Edmonds Marsh was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the Marsh. The portion of the Marsh that is shoreline jurisdiction is the portion that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. He identified an area where WSDOT estimated would turn into a salt marsh if Willows Creek were daylighted. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds’ 11 shoreline environments: Urban Mixed Use – the purpose is to provide for high-intensity, water-oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded • Urban Mixed Use I – North of fishing pier to Brackett’s Landing South • Urban Mixed Use II – Ferry Terminal – Marina Beach to fishing pier • Urban Mixed Use III – Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh – Commercial area north of ferry terminal Councilmember Buckshnis commented Urban Mixed Use III was the only classification that allows residential. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining the SMP update is to consider all plans made or being made. Staff was aware the Port was considering redevelopment of Harbor Square which included a residential component. He identified an area where the Urban Mixed Use III applies to a Master Plan II zone that also envisions mixed use development with residential and commercial. He advised the use tables consider residential development within Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if Urban Mixed Use II was an option for the south end of the Marsh as it was her understanding that was to be a transportation oriented use such as the ferry terminal relocation. Mr. Lien answered the south end of the Marsh allows for residential use. There is a MP 1 zone on the hill and MP 2 zone at the base of the hill. In the MP 1 zone, multi-family residential, offices, hotels/motels, restaurants, local public facilities and other uses are allowed. In the MP 2 zone, all uses permitted in the MP 1 zone are allowed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding the area on the map colored purple was intended to be used for the new ferry terminal, a transportation use. Mr. Lien responded it is the Edmonds Crossing site, but some commercial development was also envisioned in that area. Mr. Lien advised language describing the difference in the Urban Mixed Use environments is contained on page 30 of Title 24. Mr. Lien continued with the list of Edmonds’ 11 shoreline environments: Urban Railroad – purpose is to identify the 100-foot right-of-way for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad along the Edmonds shoreline. This designation will provide for high-intensity transportation uses while protecting ecological functions • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way Packet Page 355 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 12 Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090 o 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Table Allowed uses and required permits o 24.40.090 – Bulk and Dimensional Standards Setbacks and height limits Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is a jurisdiction of 150-200 feet from the OHWM, and a shore setback of 50 feet and asked whether the jurisdiction trumps the setback. Mr. Lien answered the jurisdiction is not a buffer or setback; 200 feet from the OHWM is the shoreline jurisdiction and is where the SMP applies. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example: a house could not be located in the dog park because it is not 200 feet from the OHWM. Mr. Lien answered a house could not be located in the dog park because it is a conservancy environment which does not allow residential development. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the shore setbacks in Urban Mixed Use III are 50 feet and 15 feet for Urban Mixed Use I and II. She asked if that could be changed, expressing her interest in having the correct setbacks to seek grant funds. Mr. Lien responded he has worked closely with Ecology drafting these regulations; Ecology submitted a letter to the Port, copied to the City, regarding the Mixed Use III environment, and it states Ecology supports the Edmonds draft Mixed Use III shoreline environment and the associated shoreline regulations for Harbor Square area. The proposed standards recognize the existing high intensity land use that is present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Standards allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. He explained although there are small setbacks, the setback is larger than currently exist and any redevelopment of the area provides an opportunity for enhancement. This also applied to critical area regulations that are outside the shoreline. Edmonds is 96% developed and many of the buffers encompass 2-3 parcels and the science the buffers are developed on areas that are undeveloped natural areas and do not apply to urbanized area. Councilmember Yamamoto asked how the OHWM is determined. Mr. Lien answered the OHWM on Puget Sound is the mean higher high tide. There are two high tides each day, one is always higher. The mean higher high tide for the Edmonds area is 10 feet. Around the Edmonds Marsh area, the OHWM is the edge of the wetland. Mr. Lien continued his review of the draft Shoreline regulations in ECDC Title 24. He explained a major change is proposed in the SMP update: • Part VIII: Administration – Shoreline Permits ECDC 24.80.000 – 24.80.170 o Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 o 24.80.100 – Public Hearing Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: • One or more persons request a hearing • A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued • Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use • The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • Part IV: General Policies & Regulations ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090 o 24.40.020 – critical areas o GMA vs. SMA o CAO Integration Options: 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP Packet Page 356 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 13 o Recommend City pursue options two and three Mr. Lien explained there are certain provisions within the CAO that had to be excepted out such as the reasonable use variance in the CAO. There is a shoreline variance process in the SMP that will need to be followed, not the CAO variance process. Councilmember Bloom asked what was meant by “except out.” Mr. Lien explained these are provisions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline jurisdiction. The entire CAO was adopted by reference. He referred to Section D, page 35 of the SMP which lists the provisions of the CAO that would not apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The remainder of the CAO would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the reasonable use variance in the CAO does not apply in shoreline jurisdictions; however, there is a variance process in the SMP for shorelines. He summarized he has worked closely with Ecology in developing the City’s SMP and these were items that Ecology said would need to be excepted out before they would approve the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified in this instance the SMP trumps GMA. Mr. Lien agreed. Mr. Lien explained another major change with regard to exceptions is there are certain provisions that are allowed in the City’s CAO that would require a shoreline variance. He provided an example in a bluff area in north Edmonds; the CAO requires a 50 foot setback from the top of the bluff and a 15 foot building setback for a standard setback of 65 feet. The CAO regulations allow construction close to the bluff with a geotech report that says it is safe. In the updated SMP, building closer to the standard setback would require a shoreline variance. The same is true with wetland buffer reductions, construction closer than the 50% reduction allowed by the CAO would require a shoreline variance. Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020.D – CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.C – CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance • Wetlands o 24.40.020.F – Wetlands o Wetland regulations based on Ecology’s Guidance for Small Cities: Publication No. 10-060- 002 o Wetland compensatory mitigation ratios according to Ecology’s Guidance for protecting and Managing Wetlands, Appendix 8-C, Table 8-C11: Publication No. 05-06-008 Mr. Lien asked what other details the Council would like to have provided at the March 26 work session. Council President Petso asked if the PowerPoint slides were available in the Council packet or on the City’s webpage. Mr. Lien answered he could make the slides available to the Council. Council President Petso requested the slides Mr. Lien presented tonight be posted on the City’s website. Mr. Lien advised he has created a webpage on the City’s website for the SMP update that contains all the details and links to Planning Board and City Council agenda items. He will add this PowerPoint to that webpage. Councilmember Buckshnis commented her primary concern is having the correct setbacks around the Marsh so if/when WRIA 8 funds are available, the setbacks are consistent with other cities’ setbacks. Mr. Lien commented every city is different; the SMP update is intended to fit Edmonds. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmembers forward any additional questions to Mr. Lien. Mr. Lien explained he plans to review the use tables and setbacks at the March 26 work session. He encouraged Packet Page 357 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2013 Page 14 Councilmembers to inform him if there were other elements of the SMP update they wanted him to provide further details on. 12. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/REWRITE Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a follow-up to a presentation made at the Council retreat. He reviewed the general approach for a code mapping project: • Technical exercise o Improve organization o User-friendly orientation o Web-based for online delivery o Identify and resolve conflicts • Identify policy issues o Policy issues will require a separate public process o Could be simultaneous or follow-on process • Problem: o Edmonds has standards that are specific to Edmonds and reflect community values and identity o No single template to adopt o No single consultant can provide a finished product • Intent is to maximize available recourses o Requires substantial staff commitment and time o Use Code Publishing for presentation and online format and delivery o Use AWC template/author to provide legally sound modules to help organize re-mapped code Mr. Chave described research done thus far: • January 2013 – met with Code Publishing to review existing and potential expansion of online formats and features • January 2013 – met with Carol Morris to review AWC templates and potential legal services • 2012 – completed digital mapping of existing code (displayed digital map of ECC and ECDC) Council President Petso asked how issues that are policy and/or legal issues will come back to Council. She assumed once they have been identified, they will need to be prioritized. Mr. Chave answered that will entail working with Carol Morris. For example, Ms. Morris has been working on a template that integrates a standard subdivision process that tracks with State law and the civil review. As civil review is not included in the City’s code, that will be a high priority. He anticipated a few high priorities will be identified early in the process and others will arise throughout the process. His plan is to provide an update to the Council every 1 to 2 months, identify policy issues that have arisen and determine whether the Council wants them pursued via a separate process or incorporated in the rewrite. Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Chave to provide further details regarding the overall civil review process that is not mentioned in the subdivision code. Mr. Chave explained there is a preliminary approval in the subdivision process where most details are worked out. Final approval occurs after the process of developing and having civil plans approved administratively by the City and showing that the requirements of the preliminary approval have been met. The subdivision code is essentially silent regarding the process for approving civil plans. Councilmember Bloom asked whether most other cities include the civil process in their code. Mr. Chave was uncertain, noting subdivision processes primarily come from State enabling legislation and do not include the civil process. Subdivision processes were developed primarily via zoning rules; whereas civil approvals are related to Public Works and Utilities. There are a number of potential issues that can arise Packet Page 358 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 10 Councilmember Peterson observed there may be some intangible savings such as the cost of parts to continually repair the boiler at Yost Pool. Mr. Williams noted a catastrophic failure of the Yost Pool boiler could have very negative impacts on the users. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ESCO PROJECT CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES TO AUTHORIZE A TOTAL MAXIMUM PROJECT COST OF $758,683, AND THE GRANT AGREEMENT THAT FORMS PART OF THIS CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR $187,556. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised this was the third time the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has been before the City Council. The intent of tonight’s presentation is to review: • Urban Mixed Use Shoreline Environments • ECDC 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation • ECDC 24.40.090 – Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Mr. Lien introduced David Pater, Department of Ecology, who was present to answer questions. Mr. Lien explained the Edmonds Marsh was designated as a shoreline. Under the previous SMP, there is no environment for the areas next to the marsh, which is the reason a new environment was developed for those areas. The marsh on the east side of the railroad tracks is a very different environment than the west side of the tracks, particularly because it does not front Puget Sound. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) talks about protection of navigable waters and priority uses that are tied to water-oriented type development. Harbor Square and other properties given the Urban Mixed Use III environment are not the same type of environment as property on the west side of the tracks. He provided language from RCW 90.58.020, Legislative findings: “It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.” Mr. Lien referred to language in WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)(ii), the guidelines used to develop the SMP: • Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent uses. • Prohibit nonwater-oriented develop unless WAC 173-26-241(3)(d)(ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. Mr. Lien referred to language in RCW 90.58.110(c): “consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state.” The Harbor Square Master Plan was considered in the SMP update. Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the current shoreline designations: Urban Mixed Use I for the Port, Urban Mixed Use II south of Brackett’s Landing and Haines Wharf. Under the proposed SMP, Haines Wharf is no longer considered and Urban Mixed Use area. He provided description criteria: Packet Page 359 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 11 • Urban Mixed Use I o Water-related and water-enjoyment commercial and recreational uses • Urban Mixed Use II o Planned for high-intensity, water-dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation • Urban Mixed Use III o Areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters o Planned for mixed-use development including high-intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development He displayed maps identifying the location of Urban Mixed Use I, II and III. He identified the Comprehensive Plan designations on the map and described each: • Urban Mixed Use I o Shoreline Commercial This area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water- oriented and water-dependent uses. (pg. 55) • Harbor Square o Downtown Master Plan This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. (pg. 55) • Port of Edmonds & Edmonds Crossing o Master Plan Development This area is governed by the master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in the FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. these areas are also developed consistent with the City’s Shoreline Master Program, as it applies.(pg. 55) He identified the location and described zoning within the environments: • CW – Commercial Waterfront o ECDC 16.55.000 Purposes A. To reserve areas for water-dependent and water-related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the waterfront; B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront; C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public. o ECDC 16.55.010.A Permitted Primary Uses 1. Marine-oriented services; 2. Retail uses which are either marine-oriented or pedestrian-oriented, excluding drive-in businesses; 3. Petroleum products storage and distribution; 4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics; 5. Local public facilities with marine-oriented services or recreation; 6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 • OR – Office Residential o ECDC 16.77.000 Purposes B. …provides for a mix of small-scale office and residential uses which provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset Avenue. o ECDC 16.77.010.A Permitted Primary Uses Packet Page 360 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 12 1. Single-family dwellings. 2. Office uses. 3. Multiple dwelling unit(s). 4. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. • Master Plan – Master Plan Hillside (MP 1: Pt. Edwards, MP 2: Edmonds Crossing) o ECDC 16.75.000 Purpose B. To reserve an area where a mix of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and waterviews. D. To promote a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan… E. To encourage visual access to the water for the public from public spaces within the development. o ECDC 16.75.010.B Permitted Primary Uses in MP2 1. All uses permitted in MP1 (multifamily residential; Office; Hotels/motels; Restaurants, excluding drive-in businesses; and Local public facilities), except that residential use is prohibited on the ground floor of any building; 2. Neighborhood-oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area, 3. Service uses as a primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area, 4. Multimodal transportation center; 5. Educational facilities. o Permitted Secondary Uses in MP1 and MP2 Off-street surface parking and structured parking to serve a permitted use • Harbor Square Zoning: Contract Rezone – General Commercial o All uses allowed in the CG zone except the following prohibited uses Automotive wrecking Automotive sales Car washes Drive-in restaurants Fuel storage yards Kennels Motels Mobile home parks Service stations Residences, except for caretaker and/or guard Mr. Lien provided a comparison of Mixed Use I and II to Urban Mixed Use III: Urban Mixed Use I & II Urban Mixed Use III Adjacent to Puget Sound No direct access to Puget Sound Comprehensive Plan – Master Plan and Shoreline Commercial • Generally encourages water oriented type development Comprehensive Plan – Master Plan and Residence- Office • Encourages mixed use development Zoning – Commercial Waterfront • Water-dependent and water-related uses Zoning – MP2, CG, OR • Zoning generally encourages mixed use development Commercial Development Commercial Development • Preference for water-oriented development • Nonwater-oriented development specifically permitted Specific view corridors pursuant to ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a More general view corridor pursuant to ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.b Packet Page 361 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 13 Setbacks 15 feet Setbacks 50 feet Parking setback 60 feet Parking setback 50 feet Residential development prohibited Multifamily residential development allowed Councilmember Bloom asked about setbacks. Mr. Lien advised the setbacks are from the ordinary high water mark. In the case of the marsh, it would be the edge of the wetland boundary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had been reading Anacortes’ SMP and it was phenomenal. She asked if the marsh could also be considered a wildlife sanctuary. Mr. Lien answered the shoreline designation for the marsh is Natural Environment. Councilmember Buckshnis noted Anacortes’ SMP refers to conservatory, natural, riparian, restoration, etc. and has a different setback for those reasons. She asked whether consideration was given to increasing the 50 foot setback in consideration of additional water flowing into the wetland area and more activity such as salmon recovery when Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the edge of the wetland marsh on the north and south is established by historic fill. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in either of those directions. The edge of the salt marsh boundary would move eastward toward SR104 if Willow Creek is daylighted and saltwater allowed to flow up the creek. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the existing viewing decks are quite high and she has been told that the water used to be up to the viewing decks. Mr. Lien answered viewing decks are also high to accommodate wetland plants and to provide a view down into the marsh. Mr. Lien reviewed tables in ECDC 24.40.070 (page 50 of the draft SMP) and Section 24.40.080, the Shoreline Development Table, that lists shoreline development permitted by Area designation. He highlighted shoreline area designations where residential use would be allowed in the draft SMP –Harbor Square, south of Harbor Square, and in Office-Residential areas north of Main. If the Council ultimately decides they want to prohibit residential development at Harbor Square, a new shoreline environment may need to be developed for Harbor Square. Council President Petso asked if the southern edge of the Harbor Square property could be designated Conservancy and if so, what effect would that have. Mr. Lien was uncertain that would fit with the Conservancy designation. He referred to Urban Conservancy Environment (page 27 of draft SMP), explaining the purpose of the Conservancy is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. The designation criteria include: 1. They are suitable for water-related or water-enjoyment uses; 2. They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively developed; 3. They have potential for ecological restoration; 4. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or 5. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. Mr. Lien explained that portion of Harbor Square is more intensely developed and he was doubtful it met the designation criteria. Council President Petso asked if the south edge of the marsh could be Urban Mixed Use II which focuses on transportation development. She observed the current plans indicate potential use of that site for a ferry terminal. Mr. Lien agreed that was the site of the ferry terminal but the underlying zoning, MP2, allows for mixed use development including multi-family residential within that area. Council President Petso asked whether there was space for those uses in addition to a ferry terminal. Mr. Lien answered there could be some retail with residential above. The zoning allows for residential development, similar to the area north of Main Street. Council President Petso asked if the zoning would need to be changed if the designation of either of those places was changed in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered his intent when developing the SMP regulations was Packet Page 362 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 14 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. Most of the setbacks in the table are from the SMP or zoning. He answered the zoning would not necessarily need to be changed but there would be a conflict if someone wanted to develop residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction as they would be unable to obtain a shoreline permit. Councilmember Bloom observed there is currently residential on the waterfront which is Urban Mixed Use I or II. Mr. Lien answered it is a non-conforming use. Councilmember Bloom asked if that residential use could be rebuilt if it was damaged. Mr. Lien referred to non-conforming regulations in the SMP, “If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not exceeding 75 percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size…” Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh and the wildlife preserve are a destination. Whatever buildings exist in 100 years, she wanted to have the marsh preserved. She asked whether incentive zoning that suggested residential would be consistent with Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien answered it would. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh/wetland was a wildlife habitat; Anacortes’ SMP talks about birds in their marsh and classifies habitat. She asked if consideration had been given to the possibility of salmon and increased bird and other wildlife with restoration of the marsh. She asked if the SMP looked into the future. Mr. Lien assured it did. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the SMP also consider what could happen with dredging, removing cattails, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. Mr. Lien advised the marsh has a Natural environment designation that significantly limits uses in that area. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not feel 50 foot setbacks were sufficient but she was continuing her research. Mr. Lien referred to 24.40.090, Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards (page 53 of draft SMP) that identifies setbacks within the shoreline environments. The majority of the setbacks are from the existing SMP or underlying zoning and some reference the Critical Areas Ordinance. He highlighted setbacks for parking in the Urban Mixed Use I and II compared to Urban Mixed Use III, advising parking is not a priority use within shoreline environments, which is why it has additional setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I and II. Structural setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I and II are 15 feet. The standard setback for parking is 60 feet but if walkways or boardwalks are provided, it can be reduced to 40 feet. If the desire is to have larger setbacks on Harbor Square, incentives could be provided to reduce setbacks. Mr. Lien displayed a map that identified the 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP Wetland Buffer, 50 foot Shore Setback and 200 foot CAO Wetland Buffer. He reiterated within shoreline jurisdictions the SMA rules and outside shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules; CAO buffers are part of GMA. Harbor Square is an intensely developed area. One of the main principals in developing the SMP is no net loss over current ecological functions. The restoration plan in the SMP talks about enhancement of the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. There are also vegetation requirements in the SMP. The 50- foot setback would establish a new buffer; if the Port redeveloped Harbor Square, that area could be improved and enhanced. Mr. Lien explained the studies that established these larger buffers were done in rural areas where buffers exist and there was no development. There is little Best Available Science (BAS) about buffers in urban environments. The BAS report done for the CAO update in 2004 recognized this is an urban area; the buffers can encompass several parcels and do not make sense in an urban environment. The SMP and COA envision protecting what exists and not correcting the harms of the past. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to comment on the 25 foot open space strip that was part of the contract rezone for Harbor Square versus the Planning Board’s recommendation to expand that to 50 feet. Mr. Lien explained the contract rezone for Harbor Square established a 25 foot wide band of open space from the edge of the marsh. That area is where the walkway is located that the City maintains. The marsh Packet Page 363 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 15 is currently zoned open space. When the SMP was first proposed to the Planning Board, there was a 25 foot setback from the edge of the marsh. The Planning Board increased that to 50 feet. One of the Planning Board’s recommendations regarding Harbor Square is that the 25 foot open space established via the contract rezone be protected. Councilmember Johnson observed there are two land use designations on the Harbor Square property, CG and open space. With the proposed change, there would continue to be two, Urban Mixed Use III and open space. She asked if the open space was anticipated to be expanded or only the setback expanded. Mr. Lien answered this was mixing zoning and the SMP. The zoning for the site establishes a 25-foot open space from the edge of the marsh on the Harbor Square property. If Harbor Square were rezoned in the future, that could be retained, changed, or expanded to 50 feet but that would occur via a rezone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she met with environmental specialists from Seattle at the marsh who indicated the marsh is a wetland. They felt the 25 foot setbacks were insufficient, that setbacks are typically a minimum of 50 feet and after watching the Council meeting, preferred a 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien answered the proposed SMP includes a 50 foot setback. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’s request, Mr. Lien identified a 50 foot setback and a 100 foot setback on the map. Councilmember Peterson asked if there was currently a significant amount of development or pavement within 50 or 100 feet. Mr. Lien identified parking and a dog run that is part of a business within the 50 foot setback and other areas of the 50 foot setback where there was no development. He concluded there is a pretty good established 50-foot buffer. Councilmember Peterson referred to the goal of the SMP to protect what exists, not correcting the harms of the past. He asked if Ecology was interested in the City creating incentive zoning to expand the buffer. Mr. Lien answered one problem with that is expanding shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA has language stating with restoration projects, the shoreline jurisdiction can remain where it previously existed. In areas where there is fill, it would be difficult and expensive to expand the buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her preference for larger buffers. She asked if consideration had been given to flows from Shellbarger Creek into the marsh/wetland once the culverts under SR 104 are expanded. Mr. Lien answered some dredging in the marsh would have to occur as part of that project to accommodate the flow. He referred to policies the Planning Board added to the SMP (page 14 of draft SMP) regarding climate change and associated flooding. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the marsh is a destination. If the area redevelops, she wanted sufficient setbacks to be retained to provide sufficient open space for people to enjoy the marsh. Her research indicates a 250 foot buffer for high level functioning habitat. Mr. Lien agreed adequate setbacks and buffers along the marsh were important but the intent of the SMA is no net loss over the current ecological function. The SMP handbook developed to assist planners states establishing setbacks alone meets the SMA. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Lien was aware of other wetlands of this size where the buffer width varied based on the need of the wetland. Mr. Lien answered he did not know of any specific areas, but he could envision that. There are four categories of wetlands and each have different buffer requirements; a large wetland could have various categories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the marsh was large enough to have different buffers. Mr. Lien answered the BAS report in 2004 determined the Edmonds Marsh was a Type 1 wetland; however, there are places along the ditch between Harbor Square and SR104 that likely do not meet the requirements of a Type 1 wetland. There is also the historic fragment of wetland on the east side of SR 104 which may not meet the Type 1 category. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien advised the purple line on the Setback, Buffer, Shoreline Jurisdiction map is the shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. It is not a Packet Page 364 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 16 buffer, anything that happens in that area must be compliant with the shoreline regulations. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules. There are specific wetland buffers within the SMP that apply within shoreline jurisdiction. He identified the red 150 SMP wetland buffer on the map. Outside shoreline jurisdiction, GMA rules which are the CAO buffers. He identified where the shoreline jurisdiction ends on the map and where the 200 foot CAO wetland buffer applies (depicted in green on the map). Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the shoreline jurisdiction would be the CAO buffer if it were not in the shoreline. Mr. Lien agreed. He explained the portion of the marsh that was designated as shoreline environment was only the salt influenced portion of the marsh; beyond that point, it is an associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction does not extend beyond the edge of an associated wetland. Councilmember Bloom asked about the wetland on the east side of the Harbor Square property. Mr. Lien answered it was formerly connected. The Edmonds Marsh is largely a wetland because it is an estuary wetland; estuary wetlands larger than an acre are automatically a Category 1 wetland. The wetland east of SR 104 is not an estuary wetland. Although he had not seen a wetland determination on that area, given its location, smaller size, disconnection from the larger marsh, it may not meet the Category 1 requirement. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, commented he has worked with a number of urbanized communities including Issaquah and Redmond. This is a common issue, for example in Redmond, the Sammamish River runs through downtown. Redmond struggled with delineating the shoreline environments and ultimately adopted parallel designations; the first 100 feet is Conservancy. The next 100 feet has a heavy development footprint that is unlikely to change. The overall guideline of the State SMP is no net loss from current conditions. The current conditions for Edmonds were established by the Shoreline Inventory and Categorization developed in 2007 and are used as a baseline for no net loss. Ecology would view a 50 foot buffer for Harbor Square as meeting the no net loss. He recognized it was a degraded buffer and if the buffer was restored to a quasi-natural state, it would provide a better buffer. Ecology requires the City to develop a restoration plan but implementation is voluntary under the guidelines. Ecology recognizes it is a challenge and a long term effort to restore buffers within built out environments. There are opportunities for restoration with the 50 foot buffer. He noted the stormwater controls within the Port’s Harbor Square proposal would be of great benefit to the marsh via better treatment of stormwater. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Department of Ecology website is great; Anacortes’ SMP is great with regard to restoration and classifications, and Redmond has issues similar to Edmonds. She hoped the marsh and the wildlife sanctuary, not the buildings, would be a destination in 100-200 years. When redevelopment occurs, she wanted to be eligible for as many grants and private-public partnerships as possible. She asked if there was a standard for grants with regard to buffers. Mr. Pater answered some grant programs such as the Salmon Recovery Board give more points to projects with larger buffers. He agreed a larger enhancement would increase the chances of receiving funds. In looking at the Port’s plans for mixed use residential development, from a SMA standpoint, it would increase public access to this special area that currently exists. That is a positive aspect that addresses improving access and water enjoyment in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was necessary to include restoration goals and objectives in the SMP. Mr. Pater answered Ecology does like to see restoration goals and policies in the SMP that mirror the goals in the Restoration Plan. He explained Ecology does not formally approve the Restoration Plan as they do with the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds SMP was not on the list of SMP on Ecology’s website. Mr. Pater answered because Edmonds SMP has not been locally adopted. After local adoption, Ecology runs its own public process, the City’s plan is provided its own web link and when Ecology approves it, a final copy is posted to Ecology’s website. Packet Page 365 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 26, 2013 Page 17 Council President Petso asked about making the nearest area one designation and the area further inland another designation; for example, in Edmonds’ case, Conservancy status for the first 25 feet and a different designation beyond. Mr. Pater answered there is already a parallel designation, the marsh setback buffer is designated Urban Mixed Use III. In Redmond, along the Sammamish River there is the established King County Conservation Easement of 100 feet; Redmond called that Conservancy. In downtown there is an urban designation for the upland 100 feet to make it 200 feet. In Edmonds the railroad and the residential areas are an example of a parallel designation. Councilmember Johnson referred to the DOE’s evaluation of no net loss of ecological function and asked whether environmental factors such as vibration, noise, glare, light, etc. are used to evaluate the impact of redevelopment on the ecological function of the marsh. Mr. Pater answered the State SMP guidelines do not address those issues. Mr. Lien referred to required mitigation measures to reduce impact to the marsh (page 38 of draft SMP). Mr. Lien asked whether the Council wanted to hold another work session to address other issues prior to the public hearing and if so, what issues he should focus on during that presentation. Councilmember Peterson suggested another work session to address Lake Ballinger and Haines Wharf. Council President Petso advised a work session regarding the SMP would be scheduled on April 23. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mayor Earling explained staff’s intent was for the Council to continue their review and commentary on Exhibit 3. He recalled the Council had reviewed and commented on the first two pages at a previous meeting. Special Districts or Incentive Zoning Council President Petso asked if a special district can be created without incentive zoning. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised incentive zoning is always optional. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained a special district such as a brewery/distillery/pub zone is related to uses. Special districts are about uses; incentive zoning can be about uses but provides a way of encouraging a set of uses. When referring to a general development area such as the CG zone, the general principle is there are a variety of uses in the zone and specific properties are not designated for certain uses. With incentive zoning, incentives can be provided that encourage each property owner to consider certain uses. Incentive zoning provides the best way to do that when the City does not have control of the property. Council President Petso asked what type of things can be offered via incentive zoning other than heights and expedited permitting. Mr. Chave answered forgiving parking, bulk requirements such as setbacks, or other bulk standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she raised the issue of incentive zoning and a brewery district, relaying it is a huge industry according to brewpub.com. She referred to a photograph of an old building where height was added to create an upstairs restaurant. She favored incentive zoning to create synergy from wineries, breweries, etc. Councilmember Peterson asked at what point the Council needed to narrow the special districts or incentive zoning, noting a brewery district or a tech campus could be great options. Mr. Chave answered if the Council liked all the concepts and any combination, they did not need to narrow the focus. If the Council identified some of these ideas in the Plan, the zoning needed to follow. At that point the focus Packet Page 366 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 17 Attorney about using the existing impact fee rates until a new study can be conducted. The other alternative would be a moratorium on building permits in the annexed area until a new study is conducted. Councilmember Johnson noted the Yost Pool project in the CFP has a range of $5 – 23 million and several other projects have ranges. There is also a $5 million placeholder in the CFP for an art museum. She asked how the lack of certainty in the CFP was considered. Mr. Young answered in the instances where there were ranges, he discussed with Ms. Hite whether to use the top or mid-point of the range. Councilmember Johnson suggested if the park impact fee is done concurrently with the PROS Plan, more certainty could be provided in those project estimates. Ms. Hite stated all the CFP projects will be reviewed including a public process to prioritize projects and to refine cost estimates. For example the aquatics study includes a range but the adopted preference is an $8 million project which was used in the park impact fee study. If the Council agreed a park impact fee had merit, Ms. Hite recommended scheduling a public hearing and she will prepare a draft ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a Council committee review it first to discuss the six options. Council President Petso requested Councilmembers submit comments to Ms. Hite via email. If a consensus emerges from the comments, it can be scheduled for full Council. If there are conflicts, she will schedule review for Council committee. Mayor Earling announced Item 13 would be deferred to the May 7 meeting. He declared a brief recess. 12. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained his presentation tonight will focus on how the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update affects single family development and the Meadowdale Marina. He described the SMP’s relationship to other plans and regulations: • 24.10.030 – Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations o SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan o SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP SMP prevails where there are conflicts He explained the draft SMP includes 11 shoreline environmental designations; of those 11, 3 are shoreline residential development: • Shoreline Residential I o North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning • Shoreline Residential II o East of railroad, RS-6 zoning • Shoreline Residential III o Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 The main permit for shoreline is Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. • Single family residences is a preferred shoreline use (RCW 58.17.020) • Most single family developments exempt for shoreline substantial development permit process; however, • Single family development must still comply with the regulations within the SMP Packet Page 367 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 18 He identified shoreline exemptions: • Single family residence and associate appurtenance • Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences • Construction of a dock o < $2,500 in salt water o < $10,000 in fresh water Mr. Lien reviewed the following: • Residential Development ECDC 24.60.070: o New residential development must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, zoning restrictions, and shoreline area designations o Public access must be considered with subdivision of four or more lots o Shared docks with subdivision of two or more lots • Docks ECDC 24.50.030: o Prohibited substances o Not more than five feet above water o Not to exceed 25% of lot width o Located 10 feet from side property line o Shared docks can be located on a property line o No more than 400 square feet • Shore Stabilization (Bulkheads) ECDC 24.50.020 o New development designed so bulkheads are not needed o Locate landward of ordinary high water mark o Soft methods preferred over hard methods Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020 – Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • City pursued options two and three • 24.40.020.D – CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.C – CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien displayed and reviewed an image of Lake Ballinger. He provided the following information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien noted in addition to the above buffers, there is a 15-foot building setback. Packet Page 368 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 19 Councilmember Buckshnis asked how habitat is scoring. Mr. Lien advised it is contained in 24.40.020.F. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ½ HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien commented on the bluff setback: • Standard setback is 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained for a Category III wetland, the buffer would be a 60 foot base, and a habitat score of 20-30 would add another 45 feet for a total of a 105 foot wetland buffer. Councilmember Bloom asked how the habitat was scored. Mr. Lien answered it is done by a wetland biologist. The wetland biologist considers the hydrology, soils, and plants as well as the size of the wetland and the quality of the plant community to develop a habitat score. Councilmember Bloom asked how an applicant seeks a variance. Mr. Lien answered shoreline variances are approved by the Department of Ecology (DOE). The City would hold its process including review and decision by the Hearing Examiner which would be forwarded to the DOE. Shoreline substantial development permits do not require approval by DOE. Councilmember Bloom asked if that applied to only new construction. Mr. Lien answered staff’s thinking was redevelopment within the developed footprint would be allowed such as in Harbor Square. If development is not allowed within the developed footprint and development must comply to adopted standards, that would apply to properties on Lake Ballinger as well as redevelopment at Harbor Square. When the SMP was drafted and staff consulted with DOE, the thought was and the way the SMP is drafted is redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Discussions with the City Attorney indicated the language in the SMP and COA may not be sufficient. Mr. Lien explained within the CAO, a buffer width reduction can be done without a variance process. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the CAO does not rule, the SMP rules. Therefore a reduction of the buffer below 25% would require a variance process. When the regulations were drafted and the CAO was updated in 2004/2005, the intent was redevelopment could occur as long as it was in the developed permit. Best Available Science (BAS) for the CAO addresses development and developed footprint. When that language was transferred to code from BAS to CAO, it states additions to structures. If the interpretation is development cannot occur within the developed footprint, demolition and rebuilding would be required to meet the buffer setback. Councilmember Bloom asked if this was different or the same as Harbor Square. Mr. Lien replied with regard to development in the developed footprint, what applies here would apply to Harbor Square and vice versa. He clarified the intent was redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Mr. Taraday explained this is a policy question; staff is proposing a policy whereby redevelopment would be allowed in an existing footprint. He was uncertain the proposed language actually effectuates that policy choice. If that is the Council’s policy choice, the language needs to be tightened. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the standard in drafting the SMP is no net loss of ecological functions over the current conditions. Redevelopment within the previously developed footprint meets the standards of the SMA and the CAO. The intent when the SMP regulations were drafted was to allow redevelopment in the developed footprint. Some jurisdictions have used a straight setback and no buffers and DOE has indicated that meets the requirements of the SMA. Packet Page 369 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 20 Mr. Lien explained there was a change in the Shoreline designations from the existing SMP to the proposed SMP for Meadowdale Marina. The current shoreline designation of the Meadowdale Marina is Urban Mixed Use, the Comprehensive Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial and the zoning is Commercial Waterfront, the same as the Port area. The proposed shoreline designation is Aquatic I. He provided the history of the shoreline designation: • Aquatic Environment – New environment consistent with SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26) • Shoreline designation reviewed by TAC • TAC notes mention designating upland area associated with Haines Wharf as Urban Mixed Use • There are no upland areas associate with the site He described the two aquatic designations and identified areas on the waterfront and Lake Ballinger: • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) • Aquatic II (High Intensity) Mr. Lien described Meadowdale Marina Permitting: • Shoreline substantial development permit issued in 2005 (SM-05-94) to reconstruct pier • Two years to start, five years to finish project • Time begins other permits have been obtained • Other required permits: HPA, Army Corps, Railroad Crossing, Building Permits • SM-05-94 still a valid permit • Proposed change to SMP: Applicants have 5 years to obtain other require permits Mr. Lien summarized he hoped tonight would be the last work session on the SMP and a public hearing could be scheduled. Hearing no further questions, Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien work with Council President Petso to schedule a public hearing. 13. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL’S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE This item was deferred to the May 7 meeting. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported members of the Lake Ballinger Forum had a successful trip to Washington DC with the lobbyist. They met with Senator Cantwell and Congressman Larsen regarding funding from the Water Resource Development Act to address flooding and water quality issues in Lake Ballinger. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the main topic of the recent South County Cities meeting was outdoor recreation area plans for Monroe, Sultan and Gold Bar. In Monroe their stormwater runoff flows into manmade lakes; this summer wakeboarding will begin on the stormwater lakes. The meeting also included discussion regarding economic development in an industrial area in Monroe. She noted none of the buildings were over 35 feet; Monroe’s City Manager indicated they did not find building heights over 35 feet necessary. Monroe’s proposed City Hall will be taller and will combine offices for the city and the school district. Monroe is also attracting businesses; an electronic assembly business opening this summer will employ 350 people. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow passed their GMA population targets for 2035. Woodway submitted a letter of objection because Pt. Wells which is within their MUGA was to provide a population of 1300. Packet Page 370 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 6 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the City Attorney to respond to Council President Petso’s question. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the City has the option to make local modifications to the State adopted building code. He asked if imposing D2 standards would require additional amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bjorback answered it was not a difficult language change; it is simply a designation within a table. Mr. Taraday stated he did not have any reason to think the City could not do that. If the City is in the D1 zone, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the designation would remain D2 and whether it was simply to be extra cautious and require higher standards in a development. Mr. Bjorback agreed that would be the reason, more stringent standards to build stronger, safer buildings. He highlighted one difference between the two zones: in D2 skipped sheeting on rooftops is not allowed but is allowed in D1. In a number of re-roof projects where the inspector determines a house has skipped sheeting, the house is required under the D2 zone to have solid sheeting. That has been met with quite a bit of resistance. In that situation in the D1 zone, the skipped sheeting could remain. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if a property owner was totally paranoid, they could require D2 construction. Mr. Bjorback agreed there was no reason a property owner could not overbuild a structure. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to questions about the history of the Board of Appeals, explaining in 2003 several local builders and developers strongly requested that the Hearing Examiner be removed from the process and they wanted a Board of Appeals. Issues of technical competence with the building code were raised and their concerns were documented in the City Council meeting minutes. That was passed and the Hearing Examiner was removed from the process. Several years passed with very little appeal activity, Ordinance No. 3740 was presented to the City Council under the representation there had been scrivener’s errors that left the Hearing Examiner out of the process as the backup when the Board of Appeals could not convene. He summarized there was a time when local builders and developers were strongly opposed to involving the Hearing Examiner in this process. He was instructed by City staff to pursue the Board of Appeals process on a code enforcement appeal; he paid the related $330 fee and subsequently realized he had been guided incorrectly and pulled his appeal. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING, FIRE AND SUPPLEMENTAL CODES BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the fifth meeting regarding the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA): • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: Packet Page 371 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 7 o Shoreline Uses The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..." against adverse effects. All allowed uses are required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent feasible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline. o Public Access Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities • Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. In 2003 the Department of Ecology (DOE) adopted SMP Guidelines that are contained in WAC 173-26. The SMP Guidelines are state standards which local governments must follow in drafting their SMPs. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the SMA (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. Edmonds did a fairly extensive update of its SMP in 2000; this update brings the SMP into compliance with WAC 173-26. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis Mr. Lien described the SMP’s relationship to other plans or regulations: • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan • SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien explained the SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained shoreline environments are established within shoreline jurisdictions. Environmental designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. Environmental designations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee that the City formed early in the Packet Page 372 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 8 process. He identified the location of Edmonds’ 11 shoreline environments (Aquatic I and II, Natural Environment, Urban Conservancy, Residential I, II and III, Urban Mixed Use I, II, and III, and Urban Railroad) on an aerial image. Mr. Lien explained one of the major changes between the current SMP and the updated SMP is the change in designation of the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland which meant shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. In this update, Ecology determined the portion of the Edmonds Marsh that is tidally influenced, the salt marsh area, was itself a shoreline and the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. He displayed an image identifying the historic boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh and the boundary set for the SMP. With the marsh determined to be a shoreline itself, the shoreline jurisdiction was extended and a new Urban Mixed Use III environment was established for the areas north and south of the marsh. The biggest change with the Urban Mixed Use III environment is it contains a residential element; Urban Mixed Use I and II do not. Under the current SMP Haines Wharf is an Urban Mixed Use II environment; under the updated SMP it is an aquatic environment. Aquatic is a new environment established in WAC 173-26. The TAC mentioned designating the upland area associated with Haines Wharf as an Urban Mixed Use environment; however there is no upland area associated with Haines Wharf. Mr. Lien explained another important part of the SMP is Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) integration. • 24.40.020 – Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA o SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, GMA rules outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP o City pursued options 2 and 3 • 24.40.020.D – CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.C – CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer Mr. Lien displayed an aerial image, identifying setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction. There has been discussion about what occurs in previously developed areas of the buffer. Staff’s intent when drafting the SMP was as long as development occurred within the previously development footprint, it would be an allowed activity. He relayed that some Councilmembers have expressed concern with that. Packet Page 373 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration – Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 – 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 – Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner: One or more persons request a hearing A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 – Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090) • 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 – Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien provided the definition of jurisdiction, setbacks, and buffers: • Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback - Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer - the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline, explaining the best available science for streams and wetlands buffers and shoreline areas is done in rural areas where there is still vegetation and wildlife along the shoreline and development is a considerable distance from the shoreline. He displayed an aerial image of the Edmonds shoreline, explaining in reality the shoreline area is developed. He displayed an aerial image identifying the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP wetland buffer, 50 foot shore setback and 200 foot CAO wetland buffer. He explained when the updated SMP was drafted consideration was given to no net loss: • RCW 90.58.620 – Updated SMP’s must ensure expansion, redevelopment and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline over current conditions. • SMP Handbook – Setbacks only, with vegetation conservation and enhancement with new development meet the requirements to protect ecological functions. Mayor Earling observed staff recommended the Council solicit comments from the public and consider comments/amendments at a future Council meeting. Mr. Lien answered part of the SMP update process is responding to public comments. He expected lengthy discussion in regard to buffers versus setbacks and noted there is still the issue of the Harbor Square Master Plan and Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she recently returned from Anacortes where they have cleaned up their shoreline. She referred to the building at Haines Wharf and asked if the City could require it to be cleaned up before it falls into the water. Mr. Lien answered they have valid shoreline permits. The City Packet Page 374 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 10 could add it to the Shoreline Restoration Plan as a potential restoration project. It would take a significant amount of funds to remove the structure and restore the area. There is currently nothing the City can require them to do. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in leaving the pilings in the water and removing the structure before it collapsed. Councilmember Peterson asked if the Building Department had any jurisdiction due to the safety of the structure. He recalled a couple of years ago some swimmers got stuck there. He noted if a building becomes uninhabitable, the Building Department can condemn it and force action. Mr. Lien explained after a storm in 2011, the structure collapsed further. One of the problems with permitting for Haines Wharf is it is a nonconforming structure and the conditions of the permit was it must come into compliance if it was moved at all. Nonconforming structures that are damaged more than 75% must be rebuilt according to code. After the collapse in 2011, the Building Official issued a determination that replacement costs exceeded the 75%. That decision was appealed to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner determined in considering the entire development, the wood structure was less than 75% so it still met the nonconforming requirements. Council President Petso referred to a restoration plan dated 2008 and asked whether any changes had been made to the restoration plan. Mr. Lien answered this SMP update began in 2006. The TAC was formed and reviewed policies and shoreline jurisdictions. A consulting firm drafted the shoreline inventory and characterization and the restoration plan. He picked up that work in late 2009 and spent over a year working with DOE on ECDC Title 24. There have been no changes to the restoration plan since 2008. Council President Petso referred to transportation facilities of statewide significance, observing transportation facilities would be allowed to expand. She presumed that included the ferry dock. She asked whether the Port was considered a transportation facility of statewide significance. Mr. Lien answered no. Regulations in the transportation section were the same as the current SMP (23.10). He did not provide Council a redline version of 23.10 versus Title 24 because it has been totally reformatted based on State guidelines. The redline version provided to the Council are changes the Planning Board made to the initial draft. Council President Petso inquired about language removed and replaced on page 118 of 159. Mr. Lien answered he would need to review the Planning Board’s notes. Council President Petso recalled the SMP would not allow construction between the marsh and Puget Sound, yet a presentation last week referred to a tide gate. She asked whether the SMP would prevent construction of a tide gate. Mr. Lien answered there should not be a conflict. Councilmember Bloom referred to protecting and enhancing natural systems on page 15, and said the tide gate would meet that SMP goal. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 14, number 13, and asked if this was the time to tighten the language, such as all use and development should use low impact development (LID) techniques where appropriate and feasible. She suggested using a stronger word such as “must use” and define what was appropriate and feasible. Mr. Lien envisioned changes would be discussed at a future meeting. He referred to page 146, the definition section, that defines must, should, shall and will; shall and will and must are mandatory, may is permissive, should means a particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policy of the SMA and SMP against taking action. With regard to LID, the stormwater regulations and stormwater manual spells out when LID is and is not feasible. The SMP works with all other City development regulations and the stormwater regulations address when LID is feasible. He said the use of “must” was not appropriate because there were some instances where LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom requested he provide an example when LID is not feasible. Councilmember Bloom referred to number 11, the City of Edmonds shall stay abreast of scientific information regarding climate change and sea level rise and reevaluate the SMP development standards as Packet Page 375 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 11 soon as adequate scientific information is available. She asked how that would be instituted. Mr. Lien advised the SMP is updated every 7 years. Much more information will be available for the next update once all the studies regarding the marsh, Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek and stormwater issues are complete. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a Wetland Category table on page 38 that identifies additional buffer width based on habitat points, explaining Anacortes’ plan has identified insects, fish, etc. Mr. Lien explained habitat points are part of the wetland delineation process. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the second table on page 38 of the SMP and disturbances such as toxic runoff. Mr. Lien explained the two tables are taken directly from DOE Guidance for Small Jurisdictions that DOE requested the City include in its SMP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, representing the Port of Edmonds, distributed copies of a letter. He explained the purpose of the letter was to support the staff proposed approach of allowing redevelopment of property within the shoreline buffers. He referred to Mr. Lien’s depiction of what would happen if a 150 foot buffer was imposed on already developed property. This issue applied not only to the Port property but other properties with developed buffers. He relayed two reasons for supporting staff’s approach, first, from a practical standpoint, drawing a 150 foot line will not improve conditions in the Edmonds Marsh. The buffer concept that works well in intact upland areas does not work once development has occurred. The Port is supportive of improving the condition of the marsh; the buffers will not do that. Second, the shoreline guidelines which were the product of extensive negotiations between the business community, the environmental community, and local governments, make a clear distinction between protection and no net loss. He referred to a Supreme Court case that illustrates that concept in the GMA context, local governments are not required to impose buffers in areas that have already been developed. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson referred to the Swinomish case and asked if development could be allowed in the expanded setback buffer if it achieved a LEED Gold or Platinum standard. Mr. Lien stated that could be an incentive. The SMP Guidelines and Handbook state a setback itself meets the requirements of the SMA. An incentive could be provided in the SMP to build closer than the base setback such as a LEED standard. Councilmember Buckshnis commented grandfathering and no net loss is one thing, but redevelopment from a CG zone to an Urban Village is not grandfathering. She understood the concept of no net loss but also understood points are awarded for federal grants for proper setbacks. In terms of grandfathering, she had no problem with no net loss, but an urban village would totally change the footprint. She did not understand no net loss without grandfathering. Mr. Lien explained the Best Available Science Report that was done with the CAO update addressed development within the developed footprint. With regard to grandfathering and no net loss, he considered the paved area of Harbor Square as the developed footprint. Under the contract review for Harbor Square, there is only a 25 foot setback from the Edmonds Marsh. The SMP update proposes a 50 foot setback. Grandfathering and development within the developed footprint is one aspect; redevelopment provides opportunity for enhancement within the 50 foot setback area that may not be provided if a 150 setback is required. Mr. Taraday responded he had not had an opportunity to research the points made in Mr. Laschever’s letter. He agreed in general with the notion that no net loss applies more appropriately to the impact of development occurring on virgin soil than the built out situation at Harbor Square. He was not certain he Packet Page 376 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 12 agreed that the City was prohibited from imposing larger buffers, notwithstanding the built environment. From a practical standpoint, the reality is if extremely large buffers are imposed in an area that is already developed, the end result will be a perpetuation of the existing use forever because it will be the most economic use of the property. No one will ever want to redevelop as redevelopment will not pencil out because it will result in the loss of currently usable property. It may be more effective to achieve restoration via an incentive program for redevelopment rather than imposing a huge buffer on the property that already includes a great deal of developed landscape. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impervious pavement at Harbor Square represented the footprint. Mr. Lien answered yes, for the most part. He identified areas that are within the setbacks and buffers on an aerial image. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Lien clarified the current footprint is all the impervious surface. Councilmember Johnson asked about the sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan update and the SMP as it relates to options for Harbor Square redevelopment. Mr. Lien answered there are two important issues with regard to how the SMP update relates to Harbor Square, 1) the buffer setback area, and 2) the Urban Mixed Use III environment. One of the reasons the Urban Mixed Use III environment was proposed rather than one of the existing Mixed Use environments was the Port’s consideration of residential development. It also addresses 4-5 other office/residential parcels north of Main Street. As the City considers moving forward with the Harbor Square Master Plan and has to move forward with the SMP, the biggest issue is residential development and whether to allow it long term on this site. The City must act on the SMP this year; Harbor Square may take longer. Mayor Earling summarized further discussion will be scheduled on a future agenda. 10. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained topics for the State special legislative session include balancing the operating budget and a statewide transportation funding package that will provide additional funding opportunities for the State, WSDOT and local governments. The package is evolving; there are currently a number of projects that would directly and indirectly benefit Edmonds. There are two specific capital projects for which bonding would be issued, 1) $700,000 for a walkway on Sunset Avenue, and 2) $10 million to begin the plan and fund the first phase of access, safety, and mobility improvements on Highway 99. Another key feature of the transportation package is a proposed increase in the State gas tax of $0.10 over a 4 year period, $0.05 the first year, $0.02 the second and third years, and $0.01 the fourth year. This would provide a substantial amount of funding for State and local projects. Edmonds would receive an additional approximately $140,000; the City currently receives approximately $900,000 from the State gas tax. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about BNSF with regard to the Sunset project. Mr. Williams answered he had not given up hope of additional help from BNSF as the project proceeds into detailed design. If nothing changes the walkway can be built within the existing footprint of Sunset Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1291, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this has been a long time coming, particularly for Highway 99. She observed there were limited sidewalks on Highway 99 and asked if the proposed project would include sidewalks. Mr. Williams answered the intent would be to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities and bring the existing amenities up to ADA standards as well as solve numerous safety problems that Packet Page 377 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 5 tree could be completed in about 1½ hours. If Councilmembers were interested in doing something with the near waterfront area and the Harbor Square area, he asked how that was going to take place. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the decision tree in the packet, commenting it was clear to her that consensus would never be reached within committee. Developing a decision tree that will result in the same issues was a considerable waste of Council and staff time. She looked forward to considering the near waterfront in the future, something this Council has not done before. She suggested a short cooling off period would be helpful. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has received so many controversial comments and emails and there is a lot of confusion in the public. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ suggestion for a cooling off period. She preferred to consider the entire waterfront area as the Group of 33 did. A vision for both large parcels needs to be developed that could include an emergency vehicle overpass. Councilmember Bloom commented five consultants worked with the Group of 33; the consultant’s plans included 8-10 story buildings. Nearly all the citizens who viewed the plans said they did not want the code changed. She will support the motion. The Council tried to integrate citizens’ input; the Port was very unreceptive to those changes. The Port’s withdrawal and the Council’s denial of the plan will allow a Council-driven process with citizens’ support and input to develop a plan for the waterfront and near waterfront that works for everyone. Councilmember Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday informed the Council they had several options, 1) deny the plan, 2) modify the plan, and 3) do a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday responded a fourth option was to terminate the review which had the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. To the extent there was any stigma attached to the Council denying the Port’s plan, the fourth option would acknowledge the application has been withdrawn and terminate the review. He reiterated that option would have the same procedural effect as a motion to deny. Councilmember Johnson was interested in pursuing the fourth option because the Council has not yet discussed all aspects of the plan. Most of the time has been spent discussing the process. The first motion considered, made by Council President Petso, was to deny the plan. If the Council approves this motion, that will also be the last action. Although some Councilmembers have been very forthright in stating their objections to the plan, there has not been a full discussion. The most important issues are those that have risen to the top via the decision tree. She acknowledged it was unlikely consensus would be reached on all issues. As it relates to the Shoreline Master Program, the Council should at least decide whether residential development is appropriate for the site. Until changes are made, the existing contract rezone remains in place. She did not support the motion as she objected to denying the plan without a full evaluation. She would support a motion acknowledging the Port’s withdrawal of the plan. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling said he found the Council’s action disappointing and he relayed several concerns. Staff estimates the cost to study the complete waterfront to be $150,000 - $200,000. In addition to the expense of a consultant, a massive staff effort will also be required. He did not anticipate the Port would be interested in participating or contributing financially to the study. 8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY Packet Page 378 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 6 AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this is the sixth time the SMP update has been before to the Council; the intent of tonight’s presentation is to solicit Council feedback on the proposed update. He explained the SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis He commented on 24.10.030 – Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan • SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts He reviewed Edmonds shoreline jurisdictions: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs • Lakes 20 acres or larger • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands Mr. Lien explained within the shoreline jurisdictions there are shoreline environments. Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction. Environmental designations were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. Edmonds has 11 shoreline environments: • Aquatic I • Aquatic II • Urban Conservancy • Natural • Shoreline Residential I • Shoreline Residential II • Shoreline Residential III • Urban Mixed Use I • Urban Mixed Use II • Urban Mixed Use III • Urban Railroad One of the largest changes over the current SMP and the updated SMP was the designation of the Edmonds Marsh as a Shoreline of the State. In the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh is an associated wetland which means shoreline jurisdiction ends at the edge of the wetland marsh. For the SMP update, Packet Page 379 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 7 the salt influence portion of the Edmonds Marsh is designated a Shoreline of the State which means shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet shoreward. He displayed aerials maps of the Edmonds Marsh and adjacent areas. With that change comes a new shoreline environment, Urban Mixed Use III, which applies to the area on the south side of the marsh, the Harbor Square property, and a few parcels north of Main Street. Another aspect of the SMP is integration of the City’s critical area regulations. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the GMA and ECDC Title 24 is the SMA. Within shoreline jurisdiction the SMP rules, outside of shoreline jurisdiction the GMA rules. Options for CAO integration include: • Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP • Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP • Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • The City is pursuing options two and three With integration of the CAO, there were certain provisions of the CAO that Department of Ecology (DOE) did not feel should be in the SMP. The SMP must be approved by the DOE; staff has worked closely with DOE over the past several years developing the draft regulations. • 24.40.020.D – CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.C – CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien advised the City was allowed to retain allowed uses within the critical area regulations; therefore, the provision for redevelopment within previous developed footprint would apply as the SMP and CAO are currently integrated. Another change in the updated SMP is related to administrative procedures – shoreline permits ECDC 24.80.000-24.80.170: • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 – Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits go to Hearing Examiner One or more persons request a hearing A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension He highlighted two tables in the SMP update: • 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 – Bulk and Dimensional Standards o Setbacks and height limits Mr. Lien highlighted the following definitions: • Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark of shorelines (OHWM) Packet Page 380 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 8 • Setback - Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer - the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline Questions Councilmembers raised in past meetings have related to: • CAO Allowed Activities • Setbacks and Buffers • Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III Transportation Facility Expansion Mayor Earling relayed his understanding of the intent of tonight’s presentation was question and answers and ultimately setting a public hearing date. Mr. Lien explained one public hearing has been held on the SMP; the Council has not yet proposed any changes. He suggested the Council identify any proposed changes; he would incorporate them into the SMP and hold another public hearing prior to submitting the SMP to DOE. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged moving the ferry to Pt. Edwards was not in WSDOT’s ferry system plans until at least 2030. She asked whether there would be another SMP update before 2030. Mr. Lien answered the SMP must be updated every 7-8 years; there will be at least two more updates before 2030. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Urban Mixed Use III, noting there are currently houses on the waterfront. Mr. Lien answered the homes are located in the Urban Mixed Use II zone. The Urban Mixed Use II does not include residential as preferred use, therefore, the two houses and the Ebbtide are nonconforming uses. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that area could be changed to Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien referred to the areas designed Urban Mixed Use III, explaining it is a different type of shoreline environment; it is separated from Puget Sound. Much of the SMA is geared toward navigable waters, water oriented uses, and water dependent uses which describes the area west of the railroad tracks. The Urban Mixed Use III east of the railroad tracks has no real connection to navigable waters, therefore he did not recommend changing the designation on the west side of the tracks to Urban Mixed Use III. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council needed to decide whether to include Urban Mixed Use III as a shoreline environment. Mr. Lien responded he did not want to eliminate it completely because residential development was allowed in the MP 2 zone on the south side of the marsh and in the Office Residential zone. Another option would be to develop a new environment that only applied to Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Harbor Square could remain Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien answered it could, the Comprehensive Plan designation for Harbor Square mentions mixed use; residential is often considered as part of mixed use. The SMP would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the zoning regulations do not allow residential. The SMP, like the Comprehensive Plan, is a visioning document. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested an incentive for incentive zoning could be residential such as live/work space. She asked whether a footnote stating something like future potential residential would be required if Harbor Square remained Urban Mixed Use III. Mr. Lien explained any development proposal would need to be consistent with the SMP and the zoning ordinance. If someone applied for residential development now, the zoning does not allow it. A footnote would not be necessary. When working with high level visioning documents, whether the Comprehensive Plan or the SMP, City Attorney Jeff Taraday encouraged the Council to figure out what they wanted and make the document say that. Where the Council got into trouble was when they tried to “keep kicking the can down the road” and say “we might maybe want residential.” He encouraged the Council to figure out whether they wanted residential and have the document state that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented incentive zoning was Packet Page 381 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 9 one of the main discussions in the PPP committee. Residential could be an incentive in incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday responded that at least that was a clear statement of policy; residential is allowed only in exchange for a public amenity. He recommended against an unclear policy statement. Council President Petso referred to the critical area allowed activities exception, recalling Mr. Lien’s statement that the railroad tracks would serve to physically separate and functionally isolate the entire City from Puget Sound. Mr. Lien responded the physically separated and functionally isolated portion of the CAO was not incorporated into the SMP. There is some physically separated and functionally isolated language on page 40 in the wetland section of the SMP. He referred to the 100-foot wide railroad right-of- way along Puget Sound as well as the bluff in the north part of the City. Council President Petso asked whether physically separated and functionally isolated applied near the marsh. Mr. Lien answered it did. What also applies to the marsh is development within the previously developed footprint. As the CAO is currently incorporated into the SMP, development within the previously developed footprint applies to the Harbor Square property. Council President Petso inquired about the property on the south end of the marsh. Mr. Lien identified the location of an old stormwater pond in relation to the marsh and Willow Creek. Council President Petso relayed she has been told that allowing building too close to the marsh impacts marsh quality and grant eligibility. She asked whether the physically separated and functionally isolated language would allow building closer to the marsh than the 100-200 foot buffer needed for grants. Mr. Lien identified the area where physically separated and functionally isolated does not apply. He displayed two aerial images, one a wetland delineation prepared by WSDOT. A 150-foot wetland buffer does not extend to the other side of the stormwater pond. He identified the area of the marsh that is an associated wetland where the critical area regulations apply. Council President Petso asked whether it was easier to just not bother with the physically separated and functionally isolated language in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered the idea of physically separated and functionally isolated is good to include in the SMP. That language and allowed activities were discussed with DOE, one of the criteria for development of the SMP is no net loss. Development in an area that is physically separated and functionally isolated results in no net loss; DOE agreed to that. Development in the previously developed footprint also meets the no net loss criteria. Council President Petso referred to the provision that would allow expansion of the ferry terminal. She asked whether that language would be removed and the City not allow expansion of the ferry terminal at the existing site. Mr. Lien answered the addition of the language on pages 118-119, Transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on the shoreline may be expanded or altered as a conditional use upon demonstration that alternatives to expanding in or alteration of the Aquatic I environment are not feasible, was prompted by DOE and is taken from WAC 173-26, the state guidelines for the SMP update. He referred to the table on page 52, Shoreline Area Designations, and the X for railroads which prohibits any fill in Aquatic I and II environments; however the asterisk relates to pages 118 and 119. If the railroad wanted to expand they can per State guidelines and State law. Ferry terminals are an allowed use in Aquatic I and II with a conditional use permit. The language was added because fill was prohibited for railroads within Aquatic I and II which was in conflict with the State guidelines and State law. Council President Petso asked whether they could be separated, allowing the railroad to do what State law required the City to allow but not allow expansion of the ferry dock at its current location. Mr. Lien answered State law applies to railroads as well as ferry terminals as they are both transportation facilities of statewide significance. He offered to forward his email with the RCW reference. Packet Page 382 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 10 Council President Petso observed there are references in the tables to 35 foot heights; it was her understanding the City’s zoning did not allow 35 foot heights. Mr. Lien referred to the table on page 53, explaining the zoning in Urban Mixed Use I and II is commercial waterfront which has a maximum height of 30 feet. Urban Mixed Use III, Harbor Square, has a maximum height of 35 feet. He referred to footnote 16 Urban Mixed Use III (The maximum height limit shall be determined by the underlying comprehensive planning document and zoning designation.) Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the height limits in the document were the existing height limits. Mr. Lien answered yes. The setbacks and height limits in 24.40.090 are from the zoning or the current SMP with the exception of Urban Mixed Use III which is a new environment. Councilmember Bloom referred to Urban Design Policy 24.20.100.C.1 (pages 19 and 20), The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett’s Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed-use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. She noted this addressed Mr. Hertrich’s concerns as well as Council President Petso’s concerns about expansion of the ferry. She asked whether expansion of the ferry at the current location could be excluded as it had been determined not to be the best option and the area is key to the public’s scenic enjoyment of the shoreline. She observed those two provisions seemed to be in direct conflict. Mr. Lien responded DOE indicated transportation facilities of statewide significance can expand. Mr. Taraday explained the ferry terminal is an essential public facility and local jurisdictions cannot use their land use regulatory power to preclude the existence or expansion of an essential public facility. He used the third runway at SeaTac as an example; although the surrounding jurisdictions fought it, they lost. Mayor Earling commented when he served on the Growth Management Hearings Board, when issues regarding this type of facility arose, the GMHB followed State law that allows essential transportation facilities to expand. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave recalled when the City tried to impose a condition on the duration of the overhead loading structure, the ferry system took the City to court and the City lost. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested retaining Urban Mixes Use III and indicate residential can only occur as an incentive in exchange for a public amenity. Mr. Lien pointed out that would also apply to the four parcels on Main Street. Councilmember Buckshnis observed it would apply from Main Street to the marsh. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use III from 50 feet to 150 feet. She commented on the OHWM for the marsh and dredging of channels as part of daylighting Willow Creek, relaying her understanding from WRIA 8 is that grant requests utilize a setback distance on a checklist. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the procedure for suggesting changes to the SMP. Mr. Taraday suggested the Council reach consensus on issues, acknowledging any votes tonight would be tentative until the actual SMP is adopted. Council President Petso suggested Councilmembers provide guidelines on changes, Mr. Lien could then determine what would be needed to implement those changes and the public would have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Lien suggested the Council reach consensus on issues so that he could make the changes to the SMP. Another method would be to include options related to Councilmembers suggestions for the public to comment on at the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom suggested Councilmembers propose changes based on the list Mr. Lien provided earlier (CAO Allowed Activities, Setbacks and Buffers, Residential Use in Urban Mixed Use III and Packet Page 383 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 11 Transportation Facility Expansion). Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien provide options to address Councilmembers’ concerns. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the transportation facility expansion issue has already been addressed; State law requires expansion be allowed. She agreed with retaining the physically separated and functionally isolated language. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis’ recommendation to expand the shore setback to 150 feet. With regard to residential uses in Urban Mixed Use III, she recalled there was not agreement on this at the PPP Committee. She was reluctant to allow the Urban Mixed Use III in the near waterfront area, noting there was little choice on the opposite side because there was already residential. She had many reasons including the Port’s proposal for Harbor Square that included 350 condominiums and the issues that would raise. She recalled Councilmembers’ indication they would support affordable housing or possibly artist live/work studios, but she did not think those were realistic or financially feasible. She stressed the need for further discussion regarding urban mixed use due to its relationship to the future of the entire waterfront and whether it will be used for private or public use. She did not support Urban Mixed Use III for the Harbor Square or Salish Crossing sites or any of the near waterfront areas. Mr. Lien requested the Council provide further direction regarding residential development. He recommended retaining Urban Mixed Use III environment for the areas south of the marsh and the parcels north of Main. He displayed a map identifying the location of the Urban Mixed Use III environment. If the Council does not want to allow residential on the Harbor Square site, he recommended developing a new shoreline environment that applies only to Harbor Square. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the area south of the marsh was part of Pt. Edwards master planned area. The upper yard was developed with condominiums and the south was to be the Edmonds Crossing. He identified the MP1 and MP2 zones, advising the MP2 zone allows for mixed use development including multi-family residential. He said developing a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square and integrating it into the SMP would be a significant amount of work. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien referred to the definition of Urban Mixed Use I and II on page 30, pointing out Urban Mixed Use I and II did not allow residential. Council President Petso asked whether a new definition was required for areas where residential was not desired or could they be designated Urban Mixed Use I or II. Mr. Lien explained Urban Mixed Use I and II have direct connection to navigable waters and uses should be marine oriented, water dependent. The shoreline environment on the east side of the railroad tracks is different and different uses would be expected that would not be water oriented/dependent. If the Council did not want residential, he suggested developing a new shoreline environment and appropriate uses. Council President Petso observed two of the Urban Mixed Use III designated parcels already have residential; the only one that does not is Harbor Square. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson commented it was important to retain the Urban Mixed Use III designation. Although the Council could not reach consensus regarding what they wanted at Harbor Square, everybody agrees an office park is probably not the best use. If the Council does not plan to allow residential, uses are limited to an office park or light industrial. He was uncertain what other development could occur unless someone purchased the entire site and turned it into a park. For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Lien identified the OHWM, the edge of the saltmarsh, the 10-foot elevation, and the historic fill on the 2008 wetland survey conducted by WSDOT. He explained if Willow Creek was daylighted and Puget Sound flowed up Willow Creek, the saltmarsh could be expected to Packet Page 384 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 12 expand. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in the direction of the historic fill; it will change the wetland environment, making it more salt-influenced. Councilmember Peterson asked if Councilmember Buckshnis’ concern was if the buffer did not change and Willow Creek was daylighted, the buffer would be in the middle of the wetland. Councilmember Buckshnis answered daylighting Willow Creek will include dredging two channels south toward the hatchery. Mr. Lien advised the boundaries of the marsh will not change with the daylighting of Willow Creek as they are established by historic fill; daylighting Willow Creek will change the nature of the marsh. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien advised the setback in the SMP is proposed to be 50 feet; the wetland buffer is 150 feet. The provisions in the CAO for development and redevelopment within previously developed footprint also apply to the SMP. When the SMP was drafted and in discussions with DOE, physically separated and functionally isolated was intended to allow redevelopment in Harbor Square within the previously developed footprint. DOE’s letter of support states, “Ecology supports Edmonds draft mixed use shoreline environment and associated shoreline recreation for Harbor Square area. These proposed standards recognize the exiting high intensity land uses present at Harbor Square and highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to Edmonds Marsh. The standards also allow for potential redevelopment in the same impervious footprint. The restoration plan and having a smaller setback, although greater than what currently exists, would allow for potential redevelopment and improvement of the buffer area. DOE noted redevelopment of Harbor Square could allow for improvement of stormwater facilities which would improve the marsh, provide opportunities for enhancement.” He referred to a letter from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh expressing their support for Urban Mixed Use III, recognizing redevelopment would provide opportunity for enhancement of the buffer. The contract rezone requires a 25-foot open space; the draft SMP proposes a 50-foot setback. He relayed a 150 foot buffer discourages any redevelopment. Council President Petso asked whether a 150 foot setback from the marsh in the SMP would conflict with the CAO allowed activities provision that allowed redevelopment in previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered the intent as the SMP is drafted and in discussions with DOE is to allow redevelopment within the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso summarized even if the Council wanted a 150 foot setback, it would not be provided because development would be allowed within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered potentially yes, it will depend on how the Planning Board’s recommended changes to the CAO. Council President Petso asked whether the CAO allowed uses must be incorporated into the SMP. Mr. Lien answered that could be an area that was excepted, meaning it would not apply. Currently allowed uses have not been excepted. For Council President Petso, Mr. Lien explained multi-family was the only residential use allowed in Urban Mixed Use III. Council President Petso asked whether it could be restricted as has been discussed in the Port Master Plan; for example not be a primary use on the property. Mr. Lien advised residential is a primary use on other properties where Urban Mixed Use III applies. Council President Petso suggested creating an Urban Mixed Use IV for Harbor Square. She asked whether residential development could be restricted in geologically hazardous areas. Mr. Lien answered that would be all the residential areas along the bluff in north Edmonds. Council President Petso asked whether residential development could be restricted in earthquake liquefaction areas. Mr. Lien answered if the Council does not allow residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction of Harbor Square it would push it away from the marsh. Packet Page 385 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 8, 2013 Page 13 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Lien could provide a matrix of the proposed changes. Mr. Lien suggested scheduling another workshop prior to a public hearing. He offered to develop options based on Council input before integrating the text into the SMP. Mayor Earling requested that information be provided to the Council a week before it is scheduled on the Council agenda. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that reflected the current development at Harbor Square and what the community wants to see there in the future. She was surprised by Councilmember Peterson’s characterization of Harbor Square as an office park, noting there is a nautical school, two breweries, the Harbor Square Athletic Club, Maverick Label, restaurants, etc. She envisioned uses at Harbor Square such as incubator spaces to foster high tech businesses, marine related businesses, art studios, a year-round market, etc. Councilmember Peterson was unclear how the 150 foot setback would affect the marsh. His understanding was the current OHWM would not change. Mr. Lien offered to invite DOE to the next meeting to discuss that issue. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the 150 foot setback is one of the items on a grant checklist. She was interested in environmental sustainability and addressing the sins of the past. The marsh is a unique wildlife habitat, one of few in the United States. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he spoke with Councilmember Yamamoto last weekend; he is doing well following major surgery and expects it will be a few more weeks before he returns. Mayor Earling reported a 37-member delegation from Hekinan will visit Edmonds in late October. He encouraged the public to attend events. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Shuster and Keely O’Connell received positive comments from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board review panel about the project to daylight Willow Creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are a number of scarecrows displayed throughout the City. She thanked everyone who has built and displayed a scarecrow. 11. ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to committee meetings at 7:55 p.m. Packet Page 386 of 676 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE 2013 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE. THE CITY IS REQUIRED BY THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (SMA) (RCW 90.58) TO UPDATE ITS SMP IN ORDER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE SMA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL SMPS. THE SMP APPLIES TO SHORELINES WITHIN THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHORELINE AREAS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS JURISDICTION INCLUDE PUGET SOUND, LAKE BALLINGER, AND THE TIDALLY INFLUENCED PORTIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH. SHORELINE JURISDICTION ALSO APPLIES TO UPLAND AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SHORELINE EDGE (ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK) AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the last time the Council discussed the SMP, the Council requested options. Tonight he is seeking guidance from the Council regarding the options before they are incorporated into the SMP. The goal is to incorporate the Council’s suggestions into the SMP and return to the Council for a public hearing and final approval to send the SMP to Department of Ecology (DOE). He reviewed a potential Urban Mixed Use IV (Exhibit 16, Attachment A): • Create a new shoreline environment for Harbor Square without residential uses. • Update 24.40.080 (Shoreline Development Table) and 24.40.090 (Bulk and Dimensional Standards) Mr. Lien reviewed potential incentives for residential development: • Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to City-wide bike and pedestrian routes. • Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh form SR 104. • Incorporate low impact development (LID) elements, such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce undesirable run-off. • Incorporate into individual building and overall site development both low energy and low water consumption techniques, as well as other strategies to minimize carbon footprint. • Contribute to day-lighting Willow Creek and improving the site’s ecological value. • Provide improved natural vegetated buffers to protect and enhance Edmonds Marsh He referred to the use table in 24.40.080, attachment A to the staff memo, and described how the residential incentives would be applied. For example, residential development would be allowed if some of the incentives were provided. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many incentives and the dollar amount. Mr. Lien answered the dollar amount would be subjective. There are six potential incentives; a requirement for three could be incorporated into the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the varied cost/complexity of the incentives, anticipating a developer would be choose the easiest. Councilmember Johnson recalled an earlier discussion that some LID techniques would not be feasible due to the high water table. Mr. Lien answered LID techniques such as imperious surface or rain gardens may be difficult at the Harbor Square site; studies have indicated the water table across the street is five feet below the surface. Other LID techniques such as green roofs may be feasible. Councilmember Johnson recalled previous discussions about appropriate types of residential uses such as live/work units. She asked whether that would be part of an incentive program. Mr. Lien answered it could be. Packet Page 387 of 676 Councilmember Buckshnis recall the Friends of Marsh supported residential due to stormwater issues. She suggested including stormwater incentives. Mr. Lien responded any new development must comply with the City’s stormwater regulations; that was not an incentive. His approach to incentives was tying them to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and SMP as well as the Council’s interest in environmental stewardship of the marsh. Council President Petso was not interested in residential incentives and preferred the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. Mr. Lien advised the residential incentives could be applied to Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether these could be requirements instead of incentives. Mr. Lien answered they are termed incentives but they actually are requirements for residential development. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there should be a nexus between a development condition and the impact the development has; that is what distinguishes incentive zoning from a typical development regulation. In many development regulations, there is a direct nexus between the impact and the requirement; those withstand constitutional scrutiny and there is no tradeoff like in incentive zoning. In incentive zoning, for example no incentives would be required for commercial; residential development would require incentives. Mr. Lien explained the SMP as recommended by the Planning Board includes a 50-foot setback from the edge of the marsh. Council requested staff provide options for setbacks and buffers. He reviewed three potential options: • Option 1: 50 foot setback as recommended by the Planning Board with a 45% maximum structural coverage Mr. Lien explained the City’s multi-family zones have a 45% maximum coverage. Council President Petso observed the building would have a 45% maximum coverage; the remainder of the site could be paved for parking. Mr. Lien agreed there was no limitation proposed on imperious surface. • Option 2: 100 foot setback, 50 foot vegetative buffer with redevelopment For Councilmember Bloom Mr. Lien explained in this option the 100 feet is a structural setback; the 50 foot vegetative buffer is within the 100 foot setback. Different setbacks can be established for different uses; buildings could have a 100 foot setback, roads and parking could have a 50-foot setback. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Option 3: 150 foot setback Mr. Lien explained the buffer from a Category 1 wetland, such as the Edmonds Marsh, is 150 feet. Establishing a 150 setback did not establish a 150 buffer because the area is developed. A 50 foot setback requirement with a coverage limitation would allow some development which may result in some enhancement to the marsh. He was concerned a 150 setback would result in continuation of the existing conditions and no improvements to the marsh. Councilmember Bloom suggested a 50 foot buffer enhancement along with the 150 foot setback. Mr. Lien agreed any combination of the options was possible. He pointed out a 150 foot setback did not provide any incentive for redevelopment or establishment of a 50 foot buffer. He noted this would only apply to the shoreline jurisdiction; the regulations do not apply outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Packet Page 388 of 676 Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated in 100 years citizens would be more interested in the marsh, not development. She referred to WRIA8 funding opportunities, expressing concern with the implication that restoration will only occur with redevelopment. She referred to a project on the lower Cedar River that included removal of 30 mobile homes and relocation of the residents to restore the area. She wanted to be known for restoring the marsh, not for development. When WRIA8 allocates funds, they look at the buffers. She concluded there was a lot of funding available for salmon recovery. Mr. Lien relayed another option proposed by DOE: • Establish an interim designation for Harbor Square • Allow the City more time without holding up finalization of the SMP update • Would require an SMP amendment in the future David Pater, Shoreline Planner, DOE, explained Everett did something similar with their marshland area in the southeastern portion of the city ten years ago as part of a legal settlement agreement. Everett developed a subarea plan about four years ago including a restoration plan and a permanent environment designation. Establishing an interim designation for Harbor Square would allow the SMP to proceed and provide time to address issues in Harbor Square. Everett’s designation was Urban Conservancy Agricultural Interim; existing uses were allowed to continue. Edmonds may be able to take a similar approach to Harbor Square. Councilmember Bloom asked what the zoning for Harbor Square would be in the interim. Mr. Pater answered it could be Mixed Use IV to reflect existing uses or one of the options could be incorporated into the interim designation. The goal is to develop a permanent designation within a few years. An interim designation would allow the City and Port time to agree on a plan for redevelopment, reestablish a functioning buffer, improve water quality via incentives, etc. rather than being rushed by the SMP process. Councilmember Bloom asked whether buffers could be established and no residential allowed as an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered yes. Councilmember Bloom asked how long the interim designation could be in place. Mr. Pater answered Everett’s was in place longer than hoped. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it would be preferable for the interim regulations to be more restrictive. Mr. Pater answered not necessarily; he suggested the interim designation reflect ongoing uses and what the City perceives will happen in the interim. Council President Petso was unclear why an interim designation was needed and asked if the SMP could be amended in the future if a plan were developed for Harbor Square. Mr. Pater agreed that could be done. Council President Petso asked the purpose of an interim designation. Mr. Pater answered it recognized the separate process for this part of the shoreline that could not be resolved in a reasonable time and to allow the SMP to be adopted by the Council and approved by DOE. Mr. Lien explained an interim designation was simply an option. If the Council wanted to proceed with one of the other options, an interim designation was not necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the only reason she will support an interim designation is she anticipates WRIA 8’s plans and funding will gel within five years. Councilmember Peterson referenced the progress WRIA 8 has made in securing funding and moving the marsh up in priority. The exercise with the Port provided direction regarding what the Council did not want but not what they wanted. Most everyone agrees the existing development is not desirable in the long run. He liked the interim designation option, anticipating there will be future opportunities such as new building techniques, understanding the impacts and how to improve impacts on a sensitive area such Packet Page 389 of 676 as the marsh. He anticipated working together DOE, the Port, WRIA 8, Friends of the Marsh, and the City could develop a plan and establish the marsh as a world class waterway. He also anticipated more creativity in the future with regard to stormwater such as funding resources, treatment techniques, etc.; pausing the process will allow the City to take advantage of changes that will occur in the next few years. Councilmember Johnson commented the northern edge of the marsh is contained by a dike. She asked whether changes to the dike were anticipated that could change or improve the northern edge of the marsh. Mr. Lien answered that could be part of the discussion in the future with an interim designation. He described the historic boundaries of the marsh, explaining it was filled over the years; the edge of the marsh is marked by the edge of the fill. Enhancements to the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek and removing the tide gate will return the marsh to an estuary rather than a freshwater marsh. The marsh’s shoreline of the state designation ends at the saltwater boundary. The boundaries established by historic fill will not change; all the historic fill would need to be removed for those boundaries to change. He did not anticipate any changes would occur on the Unocal side of the marsh. Councilmember Johnson observed setbacks referred to the built environment. Mr. Lien agreed, setbacks, buffers and shoreline jurisdiction are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Enhancement will not change the edge of the marsh, only the makeup of the marsh. Mr. Lien asked for Council guidance/consensus to direct final changes to the SMP regarding: • Buffers/setbacks • Interim Shoreline Designation • Urban Mixed Use IV Councilmember Bloom expressed support for a 150 feet setback with a 50 foot vegetative buffer and the Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that does not include residential. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES A NEW URBAN MIXED USE IV WITH NO RESIDENTIAL, A 150 FOOT SETBACK AND A 50 VEGETATED BUFFER. Councilmember Peterson asked if this was on an interim basis. Council President Petso answered that was not her intent. Councilmember Peterson said he would not support the motion because it was too restrictive, would not result in needed improvements and would stifle any creative thinking. He agreed a 50 foot vegetative setback was fantastic if it was not already on top of an asphalt parking lot. Councilmember Bloom pointed out when staff returned with the final language, the Council could decide whether to make it interim or permanent. Mr. Lien requested the Council indicate whether this was intended to be an interim designation because that needed to be described in the SMP. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THIS BE AN INTERIM ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson did not support the main motion as he felt the very restrictive standard would defeat the purpose. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Packet Page 390 of 676 Mr. Lien summarized the Council’s direction: a new, interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment that applies to Harbor Square. He will incorporate the changes into the SMP document and bring the SMP to the City Council for a public hearing and approval to submit to Ecology. Council President Petso asked what would be done on the other side of the marsh, whether this environment applied to that area as well. Mr. Lien answered no. On the assumption that funding opportunities would require 150 feet on both sides of the marsh, Council President Petso asked what should be done on the other side. Mr. Lien advised both sides of the marsh could be included in the new, interim designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO INCLUDE BOTH SIDES OF THE MARSH IN THE NEW, INTERIM DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. 15. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 10, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported most of the items discussed by the committee items were either approved on the Consent Agenda or on tonight’s agenda. The only outstanding item is the Interlocal Agreement clarification between the City and EPFD. Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed rezone for Unocal lower yard – no action • Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreements with KPG for the 15th St. SW Walkway, 236th St. SW Walkway, and 238th St. SW Walkway projects – schedule on a future agenda for discussion • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Storm Drainage Easement Transfer and Access Easement Grant Agreement for 1142 Vista Place –Consent Agenda • Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of an Asset Transfer Agreement for 645 9th Avenue North – scheduled for further discussion at the January PPP Committee meeting. Public Safety & Personnel Committee Councilmember Peterson reported on items discussed by the committee: • Renewal of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District for football game security – Consent Agenda • Supplemental Agreement (2) to the Services Agreement with Cellmark Forensics, Inc. for DNA Testing – Consent Agenda • Human Resources Assistant (part-time) Job Description – Consent Agenda 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling expressed to Councilmember Yamamoto how much he enjoyed having the opportunity to work with him during the last two years including his no nonsense, business, let’s get something done approach. Mayor Earling referred to a letter from Eric Laschever, K&L Gates regarding the Port’s position on setbacks. Mayor Earling wished the Council and citizens a happy and joyous holiday. Packet Page 391 of 676 30-foot wide lots; they are lots of record and can apply for a building permit but still have to comply with City’s regulations including critical area regulations. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to a property that was purchased that was a stormwater repository and asked whether that would be considered an innocent purchaser. Mr. Taraday that property was part of a legal subdivision; there was no issue with the property being properly subdivided. The issue in that case was language on the face of plat that dedicated a lot for stormwater purposes. Having been through the subdivisions process, that lot would be considered lot of record. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to a house on Sunset that is set back and does not have frontage on the street. Mr. Lien advised that house has an access easement to the street. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing has been noticed September 16. 9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken during Agenda Item 3. 10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM WITH FOCUS ON INTERIM URBAN MIXED USE IV SHORELINE DESIGNATION Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses  The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public access opportunities. o Environmental Protection  The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic resources. One of the requirements of the SMP update is the regulations provide for no net loss of ecological functions. o Public Access  Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities • Shoreline Master Program o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system. The Department of Ecology updated their SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26) and all jurisdictions in the State are required to update their SMP. Most jurisdictions’ SMP were from the early 1970s and only being updated now. Edmonds had a comprehensive update of its SMP in 2000 which has been incorporated into this update. The SMP is comprised of several documents: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Packet Page 392 of 676 • Shoreline Restoration Plan • Development Regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative Impact Analysis Mr. Lien explained a comprehensive code rewrite/reorganization is also underway. The new Development Services Director Shane Hope was not when the City when Title 24 was originally drafted and has some ideas regarding how it could be organized. He provided a summary of the draft Shoreline Regulations ECDC Title 24: • Part I – Introduction • Part II – Master Program Elements: Goals and Policies • Part III – Shoreline Environments • Part IV – General Policies & Regulations • Part V – Specific Modification Policies & Regulations • Part VI – Specific Use Policies & Regulations • Part VII – Nonconforming Development • Part VIII – Administration – Shoreline Permits • Part IX – Definitions • Part X - Appendices Mr. Lien described the SMP’s relationship to other plans or regulations: • SMP is adopted element in Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan • SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP o SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien provided definitions for jurisdiction, setbacks and buffers: • Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback – Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer – the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline with buffers and setbacks and an aerial image of the Edmonds shoreline which is quite developed. The SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger (Lake Ballinger) • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet • Associated wetlands He described shoreline environments identified in the SMP (ECDC 24.30.000 – 24.30.080) • Environment designations are analogous t zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction • 12 proposed shoreline environmental designations o Aquatic I – low density o Aquatic II – high density Packet Page 393 of 676 o Natural– protect shoreline areas relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions  Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104.  Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone o Conservancy  Brackett Landing South and North  Off-leash Dog Park  Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh o Shoreline Residential I  North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning o Shoreline Residential II  East of railroad, RS-6 zoning o Shoreline Residential III  Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 o Urban Railroad  Burling Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of-way Mr. Lien explained one of big changes with the SMP update is related to Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. During the process, Ecology determined the marsh was a shoreline of the state which meant its jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM. He provided aerial images of the historic extent of the marsh. He displayed an aerial image as part of a survey done by WSDOT for the Edmonds Crossing project that identified the saltwater portion of the marsh. It was decided to use a 2006 survey as the boundary of the salt marsh, 200 feet on either side is shoreline jurisdiction. Under the current SMP the marsh was an associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction did not extend, there was no shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square or the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. He described the following shoreline environments: o Urban Mixed Use I  North of fishing pier to Brackett’s landing South o Urban Mixed Use II  Ferry terminal  Marina Beach to fishing pier o Urban Mixed Use III  Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh  Commercial area north of ferry terminal  No access to navigable waters  Multi-family residential uses allowed  50-foot setback The SMP update requires jurisdictions consider all plans or all plans being made. At the time, the Port was considering a new Master Plan for Harbor Square and the SMP was delayed to allow the Port an opportunity to apply the Harbor Square Master Plan. City Council ultimately did not adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan. When considering the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Council discussed whether residential uses should be allowed. During the last review of the update, the Council discussed developing a new mixed use environment that prohibited residential uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. A new environment was required because the Urban Mixed Use III was necessary for the office/residential properties north of Main Street. The direction from Council was to establish an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that would apply to the Harbor Square property and the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh was no residential, 150 setback and 50-foot vegetative buffer. That has been incorporated into Title 24. He reviewed changes required to incorporate the Urban Mixed Use IV environment: Packet Page 394 of 676 • 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use o Designation criteria • 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Table o Allowed uses and required permits • 24.40.090 – bulk and dimensional standards o Setbacks and height limits He reviewed staff’s recommendation with regard to Urban Mixed Use IV: • 50-foot setback • Consistent with no net loss criteria • Ecology support • Opportunities for enhancement • Interim designation (suggested by Ecology) • Concern with 150-foot setback: o Creates nonconforming situation  Makes minor expansions difficult  Difficulty obtaining financing or refinancing  Difficulty obtaining insurance  Difficulty obtaining tenants for long term leases (if building damaged beyond 75%, reconstruction would be required to meet setbacks) o Discourages redevelopment which would provide opportunity for enhancement Mr. Lien expressed concern with the interim designation that Title 24 suggests be in place for two years. This assumes the Council will review the issue during the next two years and make it permanent. When Ecology suggested the interim designation, they assumed the City and Port were working together to develop uses for the area which may not be on the Council or Port’s agenda. The two year timeframe was included to ensure the interim designation be reviewed within two years and not wait until the next SMP update. An option is to have the consultant hired for the CAO update to also consider this issue. Otherwise, a consultant will need to be budgeted specifically to review this issue. Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090) • 24.40.020 – Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • CAO Integration options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific AO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an apprencix to CAO • City pursued options 1 and 2 • 24.40.020.D – CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands  At Ecology’s suggestion, the Small Jurisdictions Guidance for Wetlands have been incorporated into the SMP wetlands section replacing the CAO wetland section. • 24.40.020.C – CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) Packet Page 395 of 676 o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration – Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 – 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 – Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner:  One or more persons request a hearing  A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued  Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use  The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits • 24.80.140 – Time requirements o Two years to start project o Five years to complete project o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and federal) are being pursued o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension Mr. Lien reviewed the City’s approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He reviewed Ecology’s approval process: • Approval process generally takes six months to complete • Process for minor amendment is the same as full blown update • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment • Minimum 30 day comment period • Send comments to local government within 15 days • Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments • Prepare decision packet o 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet • Ecology may: o Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is o Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes o Deny the SMP amendment • Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled there were issues raised in the Shoreline Restoration Plan regarding whether the eel grass in the Brown’s Bay area was properly mapped. She asked whether there Packet Page 396 of 676 was a plan for enhancing the eel grass in the Brown’s Bay area. She referred to a statement in the Shoreline Restoration Plan regarding relocation of the South County Senior Center to restore beach habitat, commenting this may raise issue related to their redevelopment. At the time the Planning Board reviewed the SMP there was an expectation that more Best Available Science regarding sea level rise would become available. Mr. Lien responded when sea level was discussed at the Planning Board, a document had recently been released; that is still the latest information regarding sea level rise. The Planning Board inserted policies into the SMP regarding sea level rise. He anticipated more information may be available at the time of the next update. Councilmember Petso noted the delineation of the shoreline area of the marsh was from 2006; she asked why that was not updated. Mr. Lien answered the survey that identified the boundary of the saltmarsh was conducted in 2008; it closely resembles the 2006 extent of the Edmonds Marsh. The aerial photos illustrate a clear distinction in the vegetation between salt and fresh water vegetation. Ecology’s wetland biologist surveyed the marsh and felt the 2006 delineation accurately represented the edge of the saltwater marsh. Another question is what affect the daylighting of Willow Creek and more free flow from Puget Sound will have on the marsh. He referred to the blue hatched area on the aerial photograph, explaining within Edmonds the OHWM is the average high high tide or 10 feet above sea level. He identified the 10 foot elevation; if/when Willow Creek is daylighted and that flow is allowed to happen, the makeup of the marsh will change. He identified the area of the marsh that would become a salt marsh. The 2006 boundary was verified by Ecology and generally matches the survey done in 2008; there has not been any change in how the water is allowed to flow between Puget Sound and the marsh since that time. Councilmember Petso asked whether the boundaries will be re-delineated after the project is completed and the boundary changes. Mr. Lien answered maybe, maybe not; the SMP does not want to discourage restoration projects. The SMA allows restoration projects to occur that would normally extend shoreline jurisdiction and still retain the shoreline jurisdiction. There are three options, 1) identify in the SMP that if that project is completed, the shoreline jurisdiction established now will remain, 2) do it in the permitting process for the restoration project, and 3) a third option. Councilmember Petso noted when this was reviewed previously, the Edmonds Crossing project was taken into account in the designations. New ideas have been raised since then such as the train trench, the wayside horns; she asked whether the designations have enough flexibility to allow those projects to proceed under the SMP. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Lien saying smaller setbacks could offer an opportunity for enhancement through redevelopment, noting enhancement could occur independent of redevelopment such as funded by a grant. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Lien’s statement that retaining the 150-foot setback in the Harbor Square area would be problematic because the structures would be nonconforming. She asked which buildings would be affected and what was in the buildings. Mr. Lien identified the tennis courts, the Harbor Square Athletic Court, Blue Kennel Dogs, and American Brewery. From the audience, Port Executive Director Bob McChesney advised another building is a combination of warehouses and professional office spaces. Councilmember Bloom asked about the difficulty obtaining insurance. Community Services/Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty explained nonconforming status creates a clouded title for property owners and tenants. As users, tenants and/or owners change during the time a property is nonconforming, things may arise that are problematic. For example, if a change in insurance is desired, the new insurance company may inquire about the nonconforming status. Some insurance companies will deny coverage if a building is nonconforming, others require an explanation regarding reconstruction. Similar problems may arise if refinancing is sought. The Port owns those building now but they could sell Packet Page 397 of 676 properties if they wish and a future purchaser may be concerned about the nonconforming status. He summarized insurance is the most common issue because insurance coverage changes a lot. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the percentage a building can be damaged and still reconstructed. Mr. Doherty answered 75% of the value of a building; if a small percentage of a building were damaged, it could be rebuilt. There are two issues, 1) the actual physical issue of what can be rebuilt, and 2) the difficulties that can arise when an insurance company will not provide coverage because they do not want to deal with the nonconforming status. Councilmember Bloom understood the difficulty with obtaining financing or refinancing. She questioned why it would be difficult to obtain tenants for long term leases. Mr. Doherty answered a tenants would have the same issue obtaining insurance or financing for a tenant improvement. Observing the Harbor Square Athletic Club has a 29-year lease, Councilmember Bloom asked whether a long term lease protected a tenant. Mr. Doherty said Mr. Lien’s point was in regard to re-leasing a space that becomes vacant. A cloud on the title due to nonconformity may not be an issue depending on the broker, the insurance company and the financing. He agreed long term leases were the safest for the Port. Councilmember Bloom inquired about minor expansions. Mr. Lien explained the setback is the distance that a use or a structure from the OHWM. If there is a 150 setback and a tenant wanted to do minor expansion, it would be within the setback and expanding the nonconformity would not be allowed. Any minor additions would need to be outside the 150-foot setback. With a 50-foot setback there would be some opportunity for minor improvements to the building on the marsh side. With a 150-foot setback there no minor expansion would be allowed without going through the process which is very difficult and highly unlikely. Councilmember Bloom asked whether any of the tenants have suggested improvements. Mr. Lien said he was not he was aware of any current proposals; two that happened in the last few years were American Brewery’s silo which was in the setback and would not have been allowed and the life raft practice area. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked whether the purpose of the interim designation was the daylighting of Willow Creek. Mr. Lien explained at the time Ecology proposed the interim designation, the Council was reviewing uses in that area, the Port had submitted the Harbor Square Master Plan and removal of residential zoning was being considered. The shoreline environment is in regard to the type of uses the City wants to have in the shoreline jurisdiction. Daylighting Willow Creek will not change the uses within shoreline jurisdictions around the marsh. Dayligthting Willow Creek will not change the boundaries of the marsh; the saltwater portion of the marsh will expand. The boundaries of Willow Creek are established by the historic fill and the only way it will expand is if the fill is removed. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented WRIA8 considers buffers in grants requests and 150 feet is a standard buffer. She referred to language in Ecology’s letter that states within this designation the Council also approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Given that the Harbor Square Plan is in flux, Ecology has no problem with the City not finalizing specific buffers and setback for the marsh. Her concern was someone needs to “beat the drum for the environment;” the marsh is a gem that needs to be protected and it will not restore itself. Councilmember Mesaros asked Ecology’s stance on the 50-foot setback versus a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered the same letter Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referenced states Ecology has previously indicated to the City and the Port that a 50-foot enhanced buffer would be adequate under the Port’s initial Harbor Square redevelopment plan. He noted an enhanced buffer is establishing a vegetated buffer that is currently lacking in some places around the marsh. It is not the daylighting of Willow Creek that Ecology Packet Page 398 of 676 is considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow the City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment. The Port has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology’s letter recommends the Council consider changing the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add additional language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor Square redevelopment process. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board was considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback originally came from Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the Edmonds Marsh have a 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone without a buffer requirement would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider than the current 25-foot open space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out this proposal doubles the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the redevelopment that is occurring at the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any stormwater mitigation in the Antique Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that would be considered a restoration project and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson commented if a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be advantageous. He asked whether a deck could be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr. Lien answered not within the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback and asked whether a roof penetration could be done to install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements can be made within the existing building footprint but the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding anything in the setback area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the letter from Ecology that states within this designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Ecology is available to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien responded that was the reason for his concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the interim designation assuming the City and the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the City and Port have not been working together. Ecology’s offer to help reach an agreement is an important step in determining the best setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the next two years. Council President Pro Tem Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at the Planning Board; an area of the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has been graveled and used for temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that to open space and remove the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the gravel parking next to Harbor Square Athletic Club. Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the decision on the Port plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the end of 2013; he acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT Packet Page 399 of 676 Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58 • Adopted in 1971 • Policies address: o Shoreline Uses o Environmental Protection o Public Access • Shoreline Master Program The SMP update is to bring the City’s SMP into compliance with Department of Ecology Guidelines – WAC 173-26, the standards for regulation of shoreline uses. The SMP contains a number of elements: • Shoreline Inventory and Characterization • Shoreline restoration plan • Development regulations o Draft ECDC Title 24 o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications o Administrative provisions • Cumulative impact analysis Mr. Lien described the SMP’s relationship to other plans or regulations: • 24.10.030 – Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations o SMP is adopted element in Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan o SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC  Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP  SMP prevails where there are conflicts Mr. Lien provided definitions for jurisdiction, setbacks and buffers: • Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines • Setback – Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM • Buffer – the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline. The SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include: • All marine waters • Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds) • Lakes 20 acres or larger (Lake Ballinger) • Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet of the OHWM • Associated wetlands (Edmonds Marsh east of SR-104 and the mouth of Shell Creek) He described shoreline environments identified in the SMP (ECDC 24.30.000 – 24.30.080) • Environment designations are analogous to zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction • 12 proposed shoreline environmental designations: o Aquatic I and II o Natural Environment o Urban Conservancy o Shoreline Residential I, II and III Packet Page 400 of 676 o Urban Mixed Use I, II, III o Urban Mixed Use IV (proposed interim) o Urban Railroad Mr. Lien explained one of biggest changes with the SMP update is related to the Edmonds Marsh. Under the current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the edge of the marsh. With the SMP update, the Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state which means shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond the wetland boundary. The shoreline of the state area was established as the salt influence portion of the marsh. Under the current SMP the marsh was an associated wetland, no shoreline designation was established for the areas on either side of the marsh, Harbor Square and the old Unocal site. The Planning Board’s recommendation was Urban Mixed Use III: • Multi-family residential uses allowed • 50-foot setback (measured from OHWM) The City Council’s discussion included: • No residential allowed • 150-foot setback (measured from OHWM) • 50-foot vegetative buffer Department of Ecology proposed the Urban Mixed Use IV be an interim designation to allow the City and the property owners on both sides of the marsh to work together. He relayed staff’s recommendation regarding Urban Mixed use IV: • 50-foot setback o Consistent with BAS and no net loss criteria o Department of Ecology supports o Opportunities for enhancement • 150-foot setback creates nonconforming situation • Interim designation Mr. Lien explained another important aspect of the SMP update is the CAO integration. He highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090) • 24.40.020 – Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • CAO Integration options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific AO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to CAO • City pursued options 1 and 2 • 24.40.020.D – CAO exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands  At Ecology’s suggestion, the Small Jurisdictions Guidance for Wetlands have been incorporated into the SMP wetlands section replacing the CAO wetland section. • 24.40.020.C – CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet Packet Page 401 of 676 • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks: • 50-foot setback plus 15 feet building setback • A shoreline variance would be required to build closer Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration – Shoreline Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 – 24.80.170): • Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27 • 24.80.100 – Public Hearing o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner:  One or more persons request a hearing  A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued  Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use  The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits He responded to questions raised by Councilmember Johnson’s at the previous meeting: • Eelgrass, specifically in Brown’s Bay: o Eelgrass distribution discussed in shoreline inventory and characterization, no specific mention of Brown’s Bay o Reviewed most recent data from WDNR Near Shore Habitat Inventory, no specific information regarding Brown’s Bay o Restoration Plan addresses opportunity for restoration throughout Edmonds marine shoreline • Projected Sea Level Rise o UW Climate Impacts Group and the Washington Department of Ecology: Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State (January 2008) Year Projected Puget Sound Sea Level Rise* 2050 Low 3” Medium 6” High 22” 2100 Low 6” Medium 13” High 50” *Numbers are for advisory purposes, not actual predictions o Sea level rise tied to climate change. Considerations include:  Location  Time horizon  Risk tolerance He identified SMP policies related to sea level rise: • Shoreline Use Goal ECDC 24.20.050.B.10 - Develop adaptive management strategies to increase capacity to respond to future possible impacts on the Edmonds shoreline from climate change in the Puget Sound region. • EDCD24.20.050.C.11- C.13 (new policies recommended by Planning Board) o Stay abreast of scientific information o Prioritize Edmonds Marsh studies o Development should use LID techniques where appropriate Packet Page 402 of 676 He identified regulations in the draft SMP that although they do not specifically mention sea level rise, they imply it be taken into consideration: ECDC 24.40.030 – Flood Hazard Reduction ECDC 24.50.010 – General Modification and Policies Regulations ECDC 24.50.020 – Shoreline stabilization ECDC 24.60.070 - Residential development Mr. Lien reviewed the City’s approval process: • Assemble complete draft SMP • Complete SEPA review and documentation • Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt • Hold public hearing • Prepare a responsiveness summary • Approve SMP and submit to Ecology • Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines He reviewed Ecology’s approval process: • Approval process generally takes six months to complete • Process for minor amendment is the same as full blown update • Provide public notice and opportunity for comment • Minimum 30 day comment period • Send comments to local government within 15 days • Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments o Prepare decision packet 30 days after receiving response to comments o Ecology may:  Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is  Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes  Deny the SMP amendment • Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval Mr. Lien commented due to the Comprehensive Plan code update/reorganization, the code may be organized differently and the SMP may not be in Title 24. Mayor Earling advised the Council will hold a public hearing but not make a decision regarding the specific outcome. Mr. Lien sought guidance with regard to the Urban Mixed Use IV setback. Council President Buckshnis relayed Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Peterson did not object to the Council discussion during their absence but felt it best to have the full Council present for a decision. With regard to buildings in Harbor Square becoming nonconforming with a 150-foot setback, she observed 2 of the buildings would be nonconforming with a 50-foot setback including the bubble, a portion of the tennis court and near Blue Collar Dog House. Mr. Lien displayed an image of the 50-foot setback from the edge of the marsh, identifying the shoreline jurisdiction and the 50-foot setback from the march, advising the tennis bubble and the other three buildings at Harbor Square do not appear to be within the 50-foot setback. The tennis court would be but it depends on where the 50-foot setback is measured from. Council President Buckshnis noted the 150-foot setback is standard for most grant programs. Councilmember Bloom observed the Planning Board added development should use LID techniques where appropriate and feasible. She suggested replacing “where appropriate and feasible” with “to the maximum extent feasible.” Mr. Lien responded he did not recall discussion regarding the maximum Packet Page 403 of 676 extend but there was discussion regarding should versus shall versus may. A definition of should was added to the definitions section, the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policies of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program against taking the action. The stormwater update will include criteria for appropriate and feasible LID development. “Shall” was not used because LID techniques are not feasible in all areas. The feasibility aspect of LID is spelled out in the stormwater update; adding “to the maximum extent feasible” does not add to the language. Councilmember Petso recalled at one point she wanted to delete the physically separate and functional isolated language and recalled Mr. Lien recommended it be retained. Mr. Lien recalled the discussion regarding physically separate and functional isolated was related to an interim CAO regulation. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council’s preference for Urban Mixed Use IV was no residential. Yet the table on packet page 305 indicates Urban Mixed Use IV contemplates residential. Mr. Lien referred to the Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation, explaining the X under Urban Mixed Use IV for detached residential and attached or stacked residential means it is not a permitted use. The Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table indicates residential is not allow in Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Johnson asked when the last OHWM was done, when the flooding study will be done and when it will be measured after Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the OHWM for Puget the Sound shoreline along Edmonds is the average higher high tide which in this area is 10 feet above mean sea level elevation. The OHWM for Edmonds Marsh is the wetland boundary. To be a wetland, a site must meet three criteria, 1) predominantly wetland vegetation, 2) wetland hydrology saturated for 12.5% of the growing season, and 3) have hydric soils. While the overall boundaries of the marsh are not likely to change, the boundary is set by the historic fill. Daylighting and sea level rise could change the makeup of the marsh. He displayed a 2008 aerial image of the marsh from a survey done by WSDOT during planning for Edmonds Crossing and the salt marsh boundary. He identified the 10-foot elevation mark; if Willow Creek is daylighted and more free flow is allowed between Puget Sound, the marsh boundaries will not change but the marsh makeup will change. Councilmember Johnson concluded from that explanation that the artificial dikes around Harbor Square are not likely to be affected by the OHWM. Mr. Lien agreed that boundary would not change. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, commented the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre remnant of barrier estuary, a uniquely rich Puget Sound habitat that is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands of Puget Sound remain intact. Improving the function of estuaries like the Edmonds Marsh is an essential step to Puget Sound recovery. Since the founding of Edmonds, the marsh has lost over 50% of its original size. Reestablishment of proper hydrology in the remaining remnant would improve stormwater management, help the community adapt to sea rise, and establishing a more direct connection between the marsh and Puget Sound through Willow Creek would allow juvenile salmonid and spawning Coho to access the marsh. The marsh is of interest to many entities including the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, Native American Tribes and local citizen groups. The purpose of buffers is to protect aquatic ecosystems such as the Edmonds Marsh from the negative impacts of industrial, commercial and residential land uses. Buffers are transitional areas and should be populated by native vegetation. A recent study by the Economic Development Commission recommended the City continue to improve annual festivals. While at Bird Fest, she met people from Colorado and New England; restoration of the marsh represents a unique opportunity for creating a wildlife recreation area that attracts people to the City. Packet Page 404 of 676 Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commission President, commented the process has been long and complicated, and the Port appreciates the efforts of staff, the Council, Ecology and the public to create a shoreline plan that represents the best interests of the Edmonds community. The Port has serious concern with the proposed expansion of setbacks from the Edmonds Marsh to 150 feet. The current 25-foot buffer at Harbor Square have worked well for over 30 years, demonstrating that structures and activities at Harbor Square are compatible with a function marsh. Establishing setbacks of 150 feet will have a serious, adverse effect on Harbor Square, drawing the setback line into existing structures and regulating them to nonconforming use. This will severely impact the Port’s and Harbor Square tenants’ ability to upgrade existing building as well as eliminate the opportunity for creative redevelopment, ensuring the buildings within the 150 setback remain as they are indefinitely. A 150 setback means these buildings cannot be modified to be more compatible with the marsh. Both DOE and staff have stated the existing buffer meets the no net loss criteria specified in the shoreline regulations. There is no scientific basis to support the expanded setback. Council action to expand existing buffers by imposing a 150-foot setback is an arbitrary taking of property rights for two reasons, 1) it is not supported by the required scientific evidence, and 2) it will not have the desired effect of improving the marsh. The action establishing a 150- foot setback is proposed as an interim solution to permit the parties to discuss a final solution. In the Port’s opinion, those discussions have been held and the Port views the proposed interim solution as simply a mean to avoid making a decision. He requested the Council reconsider this important issue and served notice if the revised SMP is approve as presented with a 150-foot setback, the Port Commission will, in the interest of its constituents, appeal directly to the Department of Ecology and the Shoreline Hearings Board. Evan Zhao, Students Saving Salmon Club, Edmonds-Woodway High School, commented growing up he passed the Edmonds Marsh many times but did not know its function, thinking it was bare land waiting for development. After joining this club, he recognized the marsh’s true importance. Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of conservation and preservation of the nation’s resources. He had the foresight to set aside 800,000 acres to create the Grand Canyon National Park and 600,000 acres to create Olympic National Parking. This is an opportunity to follow Roosevelt’s example and create the City’s own gem. There is grant funding available to restore the functions of the marsh, making it a center for natural life in Edmonds, a breeding ground for salmon and to purify water runoff. He asked the Council to realize the potential of the marsh and hoped it will one day become a gem of the City. Patrick Madvlka, Edmonds-Woodway High School Student, explained restoration of the Edmonds Marsh represents a large step to make Edmonds more environmental friendly and efficiently coexist with nature. His generation is cognizant of environmental issues and will facilitate change in the future for the good of the environment. He suggested starting now to make Edmonds a pristine example of environmental progress, starting with the restoration of the marsh. Val Stewart. Edmonds, speaking as an individual and not as a Planning Board Member, commented the interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation allows two years to work out details regarding buffers, setbacks and allowed uses on property adjacent to and including the marsh. After the SMA was passed in 1971, a high school teacher in the community, John Cook, took 30 students into the marsh to do a field study where they found evidence of saltwater influence. The students ultimately testified at a Snohomish County hearing that resulted in saving the marsh from fill. Now that a portion of the marsh has been reclassified as a shoreline, it will be subject to stricter standards of the SMP. This bodes well for the future of salmon populations and upstream where spawning occurs. Salmon are important to the health of the ecosystem. No net loss is not good enough. Before the marsh was diked and filled, it was a rare habitat and the remaining remnant is even rarer. Since the early 1900 approximately 90% of backshore tidal marshes in Puget Sound have been filled for agriculture and development. The City is at a crossroads; allowing more time to explore the possibilities for salmon recovery with available grant money through collaborative work the Tribes, government agencies and nonprofits. She relayed the words Packet Page 405 of 676 of the late Billy Frank Jr., a tribal elder and a long time champion of tribal rights, salmon recovery and the environment. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he came by his environmental concerns firsthand as a sportsman, diver and swimmer and was aware and concerned about preserving the environment. This morning he and his wife caught four silver salmon in Edmonds. In two weeks, silver salmon will be seen butting their heads on the seawall, trying to return to the stream where they were born but they cannot because the hatchery is behind the marsh. He was excited to learn about efforts to save the marsh, daylight Willow Creek and allow the salmon to incubate in the marsh. A 150-foot setback would make the marsh eligible for millions in grant funds for recovery. However, as a protector of private property rights, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states if life, liberty or property is taken for public use, it has to be paid for; this is a clear taking. He suggested an interim 150-foot buffer for a couple years. If he was a Port Commission, he would advocate for a lawsuit against the City if the 150-foot setback was approved. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing and remand to Council for comments. Councilmember Petso suggested deleting physically separate and functionally isolated provision, Item G on page 291 of the Council packet. Council President Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, believed cleaning up the marsh would improve the surrounding property values. She agreed with an interim solution, noting there are millions available in salmon recovery grants. A 100-150 foot setback is standard. Councilmember Johnson announced Val Stewart has arranged a tour of the Edmonds Marsh on October 4 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the Mayor, City Council Planning Board, the Climate Protection Committee and the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students for Salmon. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS With regard to Westgate, Mayor Earling commented there has been a mischaracterization that staff is the reason the Westgate Plan is what is which he said is not true. It has also been characterized as the Mayor’s plan which is also not true. There have been several comments from the public saying the Westgate Plan feels rushed. He understood those comments, recognizing people often come late to a process. In fact the Westgate Plan is not rushed; it has been worked on for 4-5 years. It has been before the City Council, a group of UW students who helped shape some of the recommendations, the Economic Development Commission, the Planning Board and now it is back to the City Council. There has been a thorough vetting of the plan including Councilmember Bloom’s Town Hall meeting yesterday. Sometimes in the heat of changes, people jump to assumptions. This plan has been underway at several levels for a number of years. Mayor Earling referred to today’s press release regarding a $1.67 million bill from Fire District 1 as a result of union negotiations over the last few years. The City knew FD1 would retroactively bill the City for 2013 and 2014, but the size of the bill was a surprise. Mountlake Terrace. Brier and Edmonds were taken aback that no preview of the amount was provided. The contract agreement with FD1 was approved in November 2009, under a different Council and administration. He has asked FD1 for full accounting and is working with FD1 and City Attorney to ensure all the costs they are billing are justified. FD1 Chief Ed Widdis will provide further information regarding the process and the amount at the October 14 study Packet Page 406 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 1. David Pater, Department of Ecology, Shoreline Planner Ecology expressed support for the Urban Mixed Use III shoreline environment and the associated shoreline regulations. The proposed standards recognize the existing high intensity land uses present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. The shoreline environment for the Harbor Square property has been changed to the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, currently proposed as an interim designation to 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. 2. Friends of Edmonds Marsh Friend of Edmonds Marsh submitted a letter in general support of the new Urban Mixed Use III shoreline environment. FOEM summarized their comments as: FOEM believes that assigning a shoreline classification of UMU 3 to the newly designated Edmonds Marsh shoreline, and subsequent redevelopment of Harbor Square would have a number of significant and positive outcomes for the marsh: 1. Improved management of stormwater and improved quality of water entering the marsh. 2. Improved buffers and buffer function. 3. Increased Port and resident stewardship of the marsh. 4. Port’s support for daylighting the marsh to Puget Sound. See response to Comment No. 1. Packet Page 407 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 3. Robert Bernhoft, Citizen Mr. Bernhoft expressed concerns that the SMP would prohibit aquaculture and how that would impact existing aquaculture activities. The draft SMP contains regulations regarding existing nonconforming uses in Chapter 24.70 ECDC. Nonconforming uses are allowed to continue but not expand after the adoption of the SMP. ECDC 23.70.010.B provides: 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. However, if the use is abandoned, future uses must be compliant with the SMP in accordance with ECDC 23.70.010.D.1 which provides: 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 vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use. 4. Robert Bernhoft, Citizen (Letter and Comments at Planning Board Public Hearing) Mr. Bernhoft submitted a letter with three comments: 1. The eel grass maps included in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization are out of date. 2. Perrinville Creek Stormwater Project #15 should be included in the SMP. 3. The Talbot Road Storm Drain Improvement Project should be added to the SMP. 1. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization was prepared in 2007. Staff reviewed the most recent data from the WDNR Near Shore Habitat Inventory and found that the maps in the 2007 Inventory and Characterization still reasonably reflect the distribution of eel grass along the Edmonds Shoreline. Furthermore, the Restoration Plan identifies the establishment/expansion of eel grass as a restoration goal. 2. While a small portion of Perrinville Creek is located within shoreline jurisdiction, Perrinville Creek itself does not meet the definition of a shoreline as it does not flow at 20 cfs or greater. Any projects on Perrinville Creek within shoreline jurisdiction will be required to comply with the SMP goals, policies and regulations. 3. Talbot Road is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. Packet Page 408 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 5. Roger Hertrich, Citizen (Planning Board Public Hearing) 1. The SMP does not adequately address how the boundaries of the marsh may change when Willow Creek is day-lighted. 2. Expressed concerns regarding the Urban Mixed Use III environment, specifically the inclusion of residential uses and developing the UMU III environment for future development at Harbor Square. 1. The boundary of Edmonds Marsh will not change with the day-lighting of Willow Creek. What would change with the day-lighting of Willow Creek and a more natural hydrologic connection between the marsh and Puget Sound is the marsh’s ecosystem. Only a portion of the Edmonds Marsh is currently tidally influenced, and that is further restricted during the winter months with a tide gate. When Willow Creek is day-lighted and a natural hydrologic connection with the Puget Sound established, more of the marsh will become a salt marsh. 2. See response to comment No. 1. 6. Bob Shepherd (Planning Board Public Hearing) Concerns the Perrinville Creek has been excluded from the SMP. While a small portion of Perrinville Creek is located within shoreline jurisdiction, Perrinville Creek itself does not meet the definition of a shoreline as it does not flow at 20 cfs or greater. Any projects on Perrinville Creek within shoreline jurisdiction will be required to comply with the SMP goals, policies and regulations. 7. Ken Reidy, Citizen (Planning Board Public Hearing) Urged the Planning Board to gain a clear understanding of the role of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology in regulating shorelines, wetlands and streams within the City of Edmonds. Any project within the City of Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction must comply with all State and Federal regulations as well as the City’s SMP and other related development regulations. 8. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, on behalf of the Port of Edmonds (Letter and testimony at June 4, 2014 City Council Public Hearing). 1. Imposing additional buffers on developed property will impede improvements to Edmonds Marsh. 2. Imposing buffers on developed property is inconsistent with the Shoreline Guidelines. 1. The buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment are being established as interim buffers and setbacks in an effort to give the City and adjacent property owners more time to evaluate development around the marsh and the ecological values of the marsh. See response to Comment No. 1. 2. City staff previously concluded that a 50-foot setback would meet the requirement of no net loss. An interim 150-foot setback also meets the requirement of no net loss. Staff recognizes the concerne that establishing larger buffers than required by the no net loss requirement could ultimately prove to be a disincentive for enhancement and restoration projects since the expanded buffers would be likely to perpetuate the existing use. This is one reason the proposed buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV are established as an interim standard to allow further study (see response to Comment No. 1). Packet Page 409 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 9. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, on behalf of the Port of Edmonds 1. The Port of Edmonds and City Staff appear to agree that the practical effect of an expanded buffer would be negative. 2. Imposing broader buffers beyond that needed to achieve no- net-loss would be inconsistent with the SMA and subject to appeal a. The Shoreline Management Act requires the Council to base its buffers on good science. b. The science before the Council supports the staff proposal. c. Imposing an expanded buffer does not meet the definition of Incentive Zoning and would have the opposite effect. 1. See response to Comment No. 8. 2. See response to Comment No. 8. 10. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, on behalf of the Port of Edmonds Letter providing two economic studies to the Harbor Square property and restating establishing 150 setbacks would be a disincentive for marsh improvement. See response to Comment No. 8. 11. Brian Kelly, Property Manager, Chevron Corporation Letter addressing concerns about “down zoning” of Chevron property on the south side of the Edmonds Marsh and concerns how expanded buffers could impact a future ferry terminal at the location. The SMP would not change the zoning of the Chevron property located on the south side of the marsh. While the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment does not allow residential development within shoreline jurisdiction, development of the property outside of shoreline jurisdiction could include residential development consistent with the MP2 zone of the Chevron property. The Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment does allow for a ferry terminal to be constructed within that shoreline environment, although 150- foot setbacks may impact the proposed design of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal as depicted in the 2004 FEIS. 12. Timothy Smith, Washington State Ferries Expressed concerns that an increase in setbacks would jeopardize Washington State Ferries ability to develop a new ferry terminal at the Chevron property. The increased buffers may require a re- evaluation of the Edmonds Crossing project under the National Environmental Policy Act and a possible supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and have further permitting implications. If the Edmonds Crossing project could not be located at the Chevron property, the mitigation and restoration projects for Edmonds Marsh identified in the FEIS would not happen. The Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment does allow for a ferry terminal to be constructed within that shoreline environment, although 150- foot setbacks may impact the proposed design of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal as depicted in the 2004 FEIS. Packet Page 410 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 13. Erik Stockdale, Department of Ecology, Shorelands Section Manager Ecology recognizes under current conditions the ecological functions of the marsh are impaired by untreated stormwater, lack of adequate buffers, and indicated the most significant stressor on the system is the highly altered hydrologic connection to Puget Sound. Opportunities for improving ecological functions are limited to redevelopment actions on adjacent properties, and securing grant funding to restore the marsh. Ecology advises the City to not finalize a specific buffer and setback width on the marsh at this time. Ecology recommends that the City Council consider changing the proposed marsh buffer to 50-foot minimum width within an interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV, and add some additional language that recognizes any final buffer and setback with will be determined within the redevelopment process between the City and the Port. City staff concurs with Ecology’s assessment of the Edmonds Marsh conditions and recommendation. The currently proposed Urban Mixed Use IV buffer/setback is proposed as an interim standard. 14. Brian Kelly, Property Manager, Chevron Corporation Letter re-iterating concerns with regard to expanded buffers and potential impact on the Edmonds Crossing project. See response to Comment No. 11. 15. Barbara Tipton, Citizen (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) Expressed support of buffers to protect Edmonds Marsh. Reestablishment of property hydrology in the remaining Edmonds Marsh remnant would improve stormwater management, help the community adapt to sea rise, and establishing a more direct connection between the marsh and Puget Sound through Willow Creek would allow juvenile salmonid and spawning Coho to access the marsh. The Shoreline Management Act standards for buffers are that the established buffers (and other regulations within shoreline jurisdiction) “achieve no net loss of functions and values.” WAC 173-26-186(8)(b). As noted in response to Comment No. 8, a 50-foot buffer would achieve the no net loss standard as would an interim 150-foot setback. The SMP supports the Edmonds Marsh on-going studies with a specific policy in ECDC 24.20.050.C.12 and the daylighting of Willow Creek is included in the Restoration Plan. 16. Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commission President (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) The Port expressed concerns with 150-foot setback from the Edmonds Marsh. Establishing setbacks of 150 feet will have serious, adverse effect on Harbor Square making several buildings nonconforming. As well as eliminating the opportunities for creative redevelopment, ensuring existing conditions will remain. The Port will appeal if the SMP is approved with 150-foot setbacks. See response to Comment No. 8. Packet Page 411 of 676 Responses to Comments Received during the City of Edmonds SMP Update Process No. Commenter Comment Response 17. Evan Zhao, Edmonds Woodway High School Student (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) Expressed support for the Edmonds Marsh, noting grant funding is available to restore the functions of the mash, making it a center for natural life in Edmonds, a breeding ground for salmon and to purify water runoff. The SMP supports the Edmonds Marsh on-going studies with a specific policy in ECDC 24.20.050.C.12 and the daylighting of Willow Creek is included in the Restoration Plan. 18. Patrick Madvlka, Edmonds Woodway High School Student (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) Explained restoration of the Edmonds Marsh represents a large step to make Edmonds more environmentally friendly and efficiently coexist with nature. He suggested starting now to make Edmonds a pristine example of environmental progress, starting with restoration of the marsh. See response to Comment 17. 19. Val Stewart, Citizen (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) Expressed support for the Edmonds Marsh, no net loss is not good enough. Before the marsh was diked and filled, it was a rare habitat and the remaining remnant is even rarer. The City is at a crossroads; allowing more time to explore the possibilities for salmon recovery with available grant money through collaborative work with the Tribes, government agencies and nonprofits. See response to Comment 15. 20. Dave Page, Citizen (September 16, 2014 Council Public Hearing) Expressed excitement about efforts to save the marsh, daylight Willow Creek and allow salmon access to the marsh. While a 150- foot setback would make the marsh eligible for grant funds to restore the marsh, he also expressed concerns that the 150-foot setback is a taking. Expressed support for an interim 150-foot setback, but also support a Port appeal if 150-foot setback is approved. See responses to Comment No. 8 and Comment No. 15. Packet Page 412 of 676 P a c k e t P a g e 4 1 3 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 1 4 o f 6 7 6 Packet Page 415 of 676 Packet Page 416 of 676 Packet Page 417 of 676 Packet Page 418 of 676 Packet Page 419 of 676 P a c k e t P a g e 4 2 0 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 2 1 o f 6 7 6 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2012 Page 7  Part IX – Definitions. The definitions in this section are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26), and the DOE’s Shoreline Administrative Procedures (WAC 173-27).  Part X – Appendices. This section contains maps of the shoreline environments and jurisdictions, as well as the SMP Critical Areas Ordinance with the exceptions removed. Chair Lovell opened the public hearing. Robert Bernhoft, Edmonds, said he was present to speak on behalf of the Browns Bay Perrinville Creek Foundation. He submitted written comments to the Board, and noted that the Foundation has submitted written comments related to the SMP on previous occasions, as well. He asked that the Board consider the following in their review of the SMP:  The SMP maps for eel grass are out of date. There is current information from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and additional testing is being done at this time.  The Perrinville Creek Stormwater District Project #15 should be added to the SMP because the terminus of it is within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction.  The Talbot Road Storm Drain Improvement Project should be added to the SMP for the reasons suggested in his written comments. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, noted that the eastern boundary of the marsh has been determined by the salinity of the water. However, the SMP does not adequately address how the boundaries of the marsh may change when Willow Creek is daylighted, allowing the marsh to be influenced to a greater degree by tidal waters. He asked if the eastern boundaries of the marsh would expand as the salinity line changes. The anticipated rise in sea level could also have an impact on the eastern boundary of the marsh. Mr. Hertrich said there has always been a strong argument and the SMP has stated that water-dependent uses are preferred in the shoreline area. In addition, the City’s economic developme nt policies state that mixed-use commercial and light industrial uses should be permitted in the area that is currently proposed as Urban Mixed Use III Environment. He questioned if the definition for mixed-use commercial would include residential uses. He expressed concern that the proposed Urban Mixed Use III Environment was designed to specifically accommodate the Port’s needs for redevelopment at Harbor Square. Rather than basing the SMP on a proposed development that has not happened yet, he suggested they should have started by making an SMP determination about what is important for this area of the shoreline. Bob Shepherd, Teacher, Seaview School, reiterated Mr. Bernhoft’s comments. He said that, in his view, Perrinville Creek has been neglected not only in the SMP, but also by the City of Edmonds in general. He commented that it is inaccurate to categorize the creek as only a drainage pond for stormwater. They should consider it as a reasonable creek for salmon. He said he has planted over 1,000 salmon into the creek over the past several years. Neither the current SMP nor the proposed SMP adequately address the ecological functions and benefits of this creek. This information is important to include in the plan. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, urged the Planning Board to gain a clear understanding of the role of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology in regulating shorelines, wetlands and streams within the City of Edmonds. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to participate, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lien referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about how the boundaries of the Edmonds Marsh would be impacted if Willow Creek is daylighted at some point in the future. Once again, he referred to a map that was prepared by WSDOT as part of the Edmonds Crossing planning process. WSDOT surveyed the Edmonds Marsh and identified the current boundaries of the salt water marsh and how the boundaries could change if Willow Creek is daylighted. He emphasized that the marsh would not expand towards Harbor Square because that area has been filled. However, the southern boundary could expand into an area that is largely buffer area now. This would change the shoreline jurisdiction boundaries, as well. A Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study would be done when the SMP is updated again in 8 years, and the boundaries of the marsh would be adjusted accordingly. Packet Page 422 of 676 Packet Page 423 of 676 Packet Page 424 of 676 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 11 soon as adequate scientific information is available. She asked how that would be instituted. Mr. Lien advised the SMP is updated every 7 years. Much more information will be available for the next update once all the studies regarding the marsh, Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek and stormwater issues are complete. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a Wetland Category table on page 38 that identifies additional buffer width based on habitat points, explaining Anacortes’ plan has identified insects, fish, etc. Mr. Lien explained habitat points are part of the wetland delineation process. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the second table on page 38 of the SMP and disturbances such as toxic runoff. Mr. Lien explained the two tables are taken directly from DOE Guidance for Small Jurisdictions that DOE requested the City include in its SMP. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Eric Laschever, K&L Gates, representing the Port of Edmonds, distributed copies of a letter. He explained the purpose of the letter was to support the staff proposed approach of allowing redevelopment of property within the shoreline buffers. He referred to Mr. Lien’s depiction of what would happen if a 150 foot buffer was imposed on already developed property. This issue applied not only to the Port property but other properties with developed buffers. He relayed two reasons for supporting staff’s approach, first, from a practical standpoint, drawing a 150 foot line will not improve conditions in the Edmonds Marsh. The buffer concept that works well in intact upland areas does not work once development has occurred. The Port is supportive of improving the condition of the marsh; the buffers will not do that. Second, the shoreline guidelines which were the product of extensive negotiations between the business community, the environmental community, and local governments, make a clear distinction between protection and no net loss. He referred to a Supreme Court case that illustrates that concept in the GMA context, local governments are not required to impose buffers in areas that have already been developed. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson referred to the Swinomish case and asked if development could be allowed in the expanded setback buffer if it achieved a LEED Gold or Platinum standard. Mr. Lien stated that could be an incentive. The SMP Guidelines and Handbook state a setback itself meets the requirements of the SMA. An incentive could be provided in the SMP to build closer than the base setback such as a LEED standard. Councilmember Buckshnis commented grandfathering and no net loss is one thing, but redevelopment from a CG zone to an Urban Village is not grandfathering. She understood the concept of no net loss but also understood points are awarded for federal grants for proper setbacks. In terms of grandfathering, she had no problem with no net loss, but an urban village would totally change the footprint. She did not understand no net loss without grandfathering. Mr. Lien explained the Best Available Science Report that was done with the CAO update addressed development within the developed footprint. With regard to grandfathering and no net loss, he considered the paved area of Harbor Square as the developed footprint. Under the contract review for Harbor Square, there is only a 25 foot setback from the Edmonds Marsh. The SMP update proposes a 50 foot setback. Grandfathering and development within the developed footprint is one aspect; redevelopment provides opportunity for enhancement within the 50 foot setback area that may not be provided if a 150 setback is required. Mr. Taraday responded he had not had an opportunity to research the points made in Mr. Laschever’s letter. He agreed in general with the notion that no net loss applies more appropriately to the impact of development occurring on virgin soil than the built out situation at Harbor Square. He was not certain he Packet Page 425 of 676 Packet Page 426 of 676 Packet Page 427 of 676 Packet Page 428 of 676 Packet Page 429 of 676 Packet Page 430 of 676 Packet Page 431 of 676 Packet Page 432 of 676 Packet Page 433 of 676 Packet Page 434 of 676 Packet Page 435 of 676 Packet Page 436 of 676 Packet Page 437 of 676 P a c k e t P a g e 4 3 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 43 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 4 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 5 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 5 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 5 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 5 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 5 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 46 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 47 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 48 9 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 0 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 1 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 2 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 3 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 4 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 5 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 6 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 7 of 67 6 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 8 o f 6 7 6 Pa c k e t Pa g e 49 9 of 67 6 Packet Page 500 of 676 Packet Page 501 of 676 Packet Page 502 of 676 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 3 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 4 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 5 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 6 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 7 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 8 o f 6 7 6 extend but there was discussion regarding should versus shall versus may. A definition of should was added to the definitions section, the particular action is required unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policies of the Shoreline Management Act and this Master Program against taking the action. The stormwater update will include criteria for appropriate and feasible LID development. “Shall” was not used because LID techniques are not feasible in all areas. The feasibility aspect of LID is spelled out in the stormwater update; adding “to the maximum extent feasible” does not add to the language. Councilmember Petso recalled at one point she wanted to delete the physically separate and functional isolated language and recalled Mr. Lien recommended it be retained. Mr. Lien recalled the discussion regarding physically separate and functional isolated was related to an interim CAO regulation. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council’s preference for Urban Mixed Use IV was no residential. Yet the table on packet page 305 indicates Urban Mixed Use IV contemplates residential. Mr. Lien referred to the Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation, explaining the X under Urban Mixed Use IV for detached residential and attached or stacked residential means it is not a permitted use. The Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table indicates residential is not allow in Urban Mixed Use IV. Councilmember Johnson asked when the last OHWM was done, when the flooding study will be done and when it will be measured after Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the OHWM for Puget the Sound shoreline along Edmonds is the average higher high tide which in this area is 10 feet above mean sea level elevation. The OHWM for Edmonds Marsh is the wetland boundary. To be a wetland, a site must meet three criteria, 1) predominantly wetland vegetation, 2) wetland hydrology saturated for 12.5% of the growing season, and 3) have hydric soils. While the overall boundaries of the marsh are not likely to change, the boundary is set by the historic fill. Daylighting and sea level rise could change the makeup of the marsh. He displayed a 2008 aerial image of the marsh from a survey done by WSDOT during planning for Edmonds Crossing and the salt marsh boundary. He identified the 10-foot elevation mark; if Willow Creek is daylighted and more free flow is allowed between Puget Sound, the marsh boundaries will not change but the marsh makeup will change. Councilmember Johnson concluded from that explanation that the artificial dikes around Harbor Square are not likely to be affected by the OHWM. Mr. Lien agreed that boundary would not change. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, commented the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre remnant of barrier estuary, a uniquely rich Puget Sound habitat that is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands of Puget Sound remain intact. Improving the function of estuaries like the Edmonds Marsh is an essential step to Puget Sound recovery. Since the founding of Edmonds, the marsh has lost over 50% of its original size. Reestablishment of proper hydrology in the remaining remnant would improve stormwater management, help the community adapt to sea rise, and establishing a more direct connection between the marsh and Puget Sound through Willow Creek would allow juvenile salmonid and spawning Coho to access the marsh. The marsh is of interest to many entities including the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, Native American Tribes and local citizen groups. The purpose of buffers is to protect aquatic ecosystems such as the Edmonds Marsh from the negative impacts of industrial, commercial and residential land uses. Buffers are transitional areas and should be populated by native vegetation. A recent study by the Economic Development Commission recommended the City continue to improve annual festivals. While at Bird Fest, she met people from Colorado and New England; restoration of the marsh represents a unique opportunity for creating a wildlife recreation area that attracts people to the City. Packet Page 509 of 676 Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commission President, commented the process has been long and complicated, and the Port appreciates the efforts of staff, the Council, Ecology and the public to create a shoreline plan that represents the best interests of the Edmonds community. The Port has serious concern with the proposed expansion of setbacks from the Edmonds Marsh to 150 feet. The current 25-foot buffer at Harbor Square have worked well for over 30 years, demonstrating that structures and activities at Harbor Square are compatible with a function marsh. Establishing setbacks of 150 feet will have a serious, adverse effect on Harbor Square, drawing the setback line into existing structures and regulating them to nonconforming use. This will severely impact the Port’s and Harbor Square tenants’ ability to upgrade existing building as well as eliminate the opportunity for creative redevelopment, ensuring the buildings within the 150 setback remain as they are indefinitely. A 150 setback means these buildings cannot be modified to be more compatible with the marsh. Both DOE and staff have stated the existing buffer meets the no net loss criteria specified in the shoreline regulations. There is no scientific basis to support the expanded setback. Council action to expand existing buffers by imposing a 150-foot setback is an arbitrary taking of property rights for two reasons, 1) it is not supported by the required scientific evidence, and 2) it will not have the desired effect of improving the marsh. The action establishing a 150- foot setback is proposed as an interim solution to permit the parties to discuss a final solution. In the Port’s opinion, those discussions have been held and the Port views the proposed interim solution as simply a mean to avoid making a decision. He requested the Council reconsider this important issue and served notice if the revised SMP is approve as presented with a 150-foot setback, the Port Commission will, in the interest of its constituents, appeal directly to the Department of Ecology and the Shoreline Hearings Board. Evan Zhao, Students Saving Salmon Club, Edmonds-Woodway High School, commented growing up he passed the Edmonds Marsh many times but did not know its function, thinking it was bare land waiting for development. After joining this club, he recognized the marsh’s true importance. Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of conservation and preservation of the nation’s resources. He had the foresight to set aside 800,000 acres to create the Grand Canyon National Park and 600,000 acres to create Olympic National Parking. This is an opportunity to follow Roosevelt’s example and create the City’s own gem. There is grant funding available to restore the functions of the marsh, making it a center for natural life in Edmonds, a breeding ground for salmon and to purify water runoff. He asked the Council to realize the potential of the marsh and hoped it will one day become a gem of the City. Patrick Madvlka, Edmonds-Woodway High School Student, explained restoration of the Edmonds Marsh represents a large step to make Edmonds more environmental friendly and efficiently coexist with nature. His generation is cognizant of environmental issues and will facilitate change in the future for the good of the environment. He suggested starting now to make Edmonds a pristine example of environmental progress, starting with the restoration of the marsh. Val Stewart. Edmonds, speaking as an individual and not as a Planning Board Member, commented the interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation allows two years to work out details regarding buffers, setbacks and allowed uses on property adjacent to and including the marsh. After the SMA was passed in 1971, a high school teacher in the community, John Cook, took 30 students into the marsh to do a field study where they found evidence of saltwater influence. The students ultimately testified at a Snohomish County hearing that resulted in saving the marsh from fill. Now that a portion of the marsh has been reclassified as a shoreline, it will be subject to stricter standards of the SMP. This bodes well for the future of salmon populations and upstream where spawning occurs. Salmon are important to the health of the ecosystem. No net loss is not good enough. Before the marsh was diked and filled, it was a rare habitat and the remaining remnant is even rarer. Since the early 1900 approximately 90% of backshore tidal marshes in Puget Sound have been filled for agriculture and development. The City is at a crossroads; allowing more time to explore the possibilities for salmon recovery with available grant money through collaborative work the Tribes, government agencies and nonprofits. She relayed the words Packet Page 510 of 676 of the late Billy Frank Jr., a tribal elder and a long time champion of tribal rights, salmon recovery and the environment. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he came by his environmental concerns firsthand as a sportsman, diver and swimmer and was aware and concerned about preserving the environment. This morning he and his wife caught four silver salmon in Edmonds. In two weeks, silver salmon will be seen butting their heads on the seawall, trying to return to the stream where they were born but they cannot because the hatchery is behind the marsh. He was excited to learn about efforts to save the marsh, daylight Willow Creek and allow the salmon to incubate in the marsh. A 150-foot setback would make the marsh eligible for millions in grant funds for recovery. However, as a protector of private property rights, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states if life, liberty or property is taken for public use, it has to be paid for; this is a clear taking. He suggested an interim 150-foot buffer for a couple years. If he was a Port Commission, he would advocate for a lawsuit against the City if the 150-foot setback was approved. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing and remand to Council for comments. Councilmember Petso suggested deleting physically separate and functionally isolated provision, Item G on page 291 of the Council packet. Council President Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, believed cleaning up the marsh would improve the surrounding property values. She agreed with an interim solution, noting there are millions available in salmon recovery grants. A 100-150 foot setback is standard. Councilmember Johnson announced Val Stewart has arranged a tour of the Edmonds Marsh on October 4 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the Mayor, City Council Planning Board, the Climate Protection Committee and the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students for Salmon. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS With regard to Westgate, Mayor Earling commented there has been a mischaracterization that staff is the reason the Westgate Plan is what is which he said is not true. It has also been characterized as the Mayor’s plan which is also not true. There have been several comments from the public saying the Westgate Plan feels rushed. He understood those comments, recognizing people often come late to a process. In fact the Westgate Plan is not rushed; it has been worked on for 4-5 years. It has been before the City Council, a group of UW students who helped shape some of the recommendations, the Economic Development Commission, the Planning Board and now it is back to the City Council. There has been a thorough vetting of the plan including Councilmember Bloom’s Town Hall meeting yesterday. Sometimes in the heat of changes, people jump to assumptions. This plan has been underway at several levels for a number of years. Mayor Earling referred to today’s press release regarding a $1.67 million bill from Fire District 1 as a result of union negotiations over the last few years. The City knew FD1 would retroactively bill the City for 2013 and 2014, but the size of the bill was a surprise. Mountlake Terrace. Brier and Edmonds were taken aback that no preview of the amount was provided. The contract agreement with FD1 was approved in November 2009, under a different Council and administration. He has asked FD1 for full accounting and is working with FD1 and City Attorney to ensure all the costs they are billing are justified. FD1 Chief Ed Widdis will provide further information regarding the process and the amount at the October 14 study Packet Page 511 of 676 Meeting Date: September 2, 2014 Agenda Subject: Shoreline Master Program – Interim Urban Mixed-Use IV Staff Lead / Author: Kernen Lien Senior Planner Initiated By:  City Council  Planning Board  City Staff Citizen Request  Other: Shoreline Management Act Background With the designation of Edmonds Marsh as a Shoreline of the State, areas previously considered to be outside of shoreline jurisdiction are now within shoreline jurisdiction. This impacts two areas in particular, Harbor Square on the north side of the marsh and the Unocal/Chevron property on the south side of the marsh. When considering a new shoreline environment designation for the Harbor Square and Unocal/Chevron properties, staff took a number items into consideration. The Shoreline Management Act requires jurisdictions to “Consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state.” Aware that the Port of Edmonds was developing an updated master plan for the Harbor Square property, which potentially would include residential development, the SMP update was delayed to enable the City to be able to review both the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan concurrently. Additionally, staff considered the differences between the shoreline environments west of the railroad tracks and east of the railroad tracks. Staff also considered the underlying Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning classification. Taking all of this into consideration a new Urban Mixed Use III shoreline designation was proposed. A summary of the three Urban Mixed Use designations proposed by staff follows. Edmonds City Council Agenda Memo Packet Page 512 of 676 Urban Mixed Use Environments Two very distinct areas make up the three Urban Mixed-Use environments in the draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The Edmonds waterfront area west of the railroad tracks has the ability to provide direct access to the navigable waters of the Puget Sound. The near waterfront area east of the railroad tracks has 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 designations and zoning encourage master planned or mixed-use types of development. The draft SMP describes the three Urban Mixed Use environments as follows: Urban Mixed-Use I: This designation is appropriate to water-related and water- enjoyment commercial and recreational uses. 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. 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. The location of the Urban Mixed use environments are: 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. 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. Urban Mixed-Use III: a. 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. Packet Page 513 of 676 b. The six parcels near the existing ferry terminal bounded by the railroad right-of- way to the west, Main Street, Sunset Avenue North, and Bell Street. New Urban Mixed Use IV Ultimately, the Port of Edmonds’ Harbor Square Master Plan was not adopted by the City of Edmonds, but the City still needs to establish a shoreline designation that will apply to the Harbor Square property as well as the Unocal/Chevron property. The Edmonds’ City Council had two main concerns related to the proposed Urban Mixed Use III designation, one was whether residential uses should be allowed and the second was with the proposed setback/buffers around the Edmonds Marsh. As noted above, the Urban Mixed Use III designation also applied to a few properties north of Main Street that are zoned Office Residential (OR). If the Council wished to prohibit residential development within shoreline jurisdiction around the Edmonds Marsh, a new shoreline designation would have to be developed that still reflects the different nature of the shoreline environment around the Edmonds Marsh and retain the Urban Mixed Use III designation for the properties north of Main Street. Council directed staff to establish a new Urban Mixed Use IV designation that did not allow for residential development. The new Urban Mixed Use IV designation has been established and incorporated into the draft SMP; uses allowed for the Urban Mixed Use IV designation are outlined in the table established in ECDC 24.40.080 (pg. 51) of the draft SMP. The Urban Mixed Use IV designation has also been incorporated into the specific Modification and Use Regulations in Part V and Part VI of the SMP. This new Urban Mixed Use IV designation applies to the Harbor Square property as well as the Unocal/Chevron property on the south side of the marsh. The buffer and setback issue is discussed below. Urban Mixed Use IV Setback\Buffer Shoreline Jurisdiction, Buffers, and Setbacks The terms Shoreline Jurisdiction, buffers and setbacks are sometimes used interchangeably (particularly buffers and setbacks) but each term has a specific meaning in the SMP context. Shoreline Jurisdiction is the area where the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City’s Shoreline Master Program applies. The SMA applies to the following shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030: • All marine waters (Puget Sound in Edmonds). • Segments of streams where the mean annual flow is more than 20 cubic feet per second (No water bodies in the City of Edmonds meet this definition). • Lakes and reservoirs 20 acres and greater in area (Lake Ballinger). • Associated wetlands (Portions of the Edmonds Marsh, and wetlands near the mouth of Shell Creek) Packet Page 514 of 676 • Shorelands adjacent to these water bodies. This is typically the land area with 200 feet of the water body. Any area within the City of Edmonds that falls into one of these areas is subject to requirements of the City’s Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline setbacks and buffers are some of the development regulations that apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. Shoreline buffers typically are established naturally vegetated areas adjacent to water bodies that protect the ecological functions of the shoreline and help to reduce the impacts of land uses on the water body. Ideally, shoreline buffers are relatively undisturbed areas where uses are limited and there are no substantial structures. In the draft SMP buffers are defined as: “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. Setbacks are the distances separating two features such as a structure from a body of water, or a structure from the edge of a buffer. Natural native vegetation may or may not exist within a setback. Setbacks also help to assure that development is located a safe distance from bluffs or other natural features. The draft SMP defines setbacks as: “Shore setback” means the minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline ordinary high water mark. The SMP Handbook published by the Department of Ecology notes that some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the ordinary high water mark. 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. Ecology notes these measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as do buffers. Planning Board Recommended Urban Mixed Use III Setback-Buffers The proposed shore setback for the Urban Mixed-Use III designation consists of new setbacks that go beyond those established by the underlying zoning or the current SMP. When considering setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use III designation, a number of factors were taken under consideration by staff and the Planning Board. First, the type of shoreline itself was taken into account. As discussed above, the Edmonds Marsh is a different type of shoreline environment than Puget Sound. It is a non-navigable water and is considered a shoreline because it is tidally influence by Puget Sound. The Shoreline Management Act differentiates between the types of uses that should be allowed near navigable waters. Specifically, water oriented development should be Packet Page 515 of 676 preferred near navigable waters and non-water oriented development may be allowed were navigability is limited. However, it is also recognized that the Edmonds Marsh is a critical environment that provides habitat and critical ecological functions. Second, the shore setbacks for the other designations and potential uses were considered for comparison purposes. The shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use I and II designations is established at 15 feet in the current SMP and in this proposed SMP, while the shore setback in the Shoreline Residential III (around Lake Ballinger) is established at 35 feet in the current SMP, as well as the proposed SMP. The Urban Mixed Use III designation is an intensely developed area that current zoning allows for a variety of uses, and was developed as a variant of the other mixed use shoreline environments, but without the water-dependent requirements of the Puget-Sound-oriented environments. The uses within this zone are more similar to the uses allowed within the Urban Mixed Use I and II zones than the Shoreline Residential III zone. Additionally, the standard of no net loss was taken under consideration. As mentioned above this area is currently intensely developed with the Harbor Square parking lot being as close as twenty feet to the marsh boundary and existing walkway and boardwalk along the marsh being even closer. Staff felt the shore setback in the Urban Mixed-Use III designation should fall somewhere between the shore setback in the Shoreline Residential III designation and the Urban Mixed-Use I and II designations and initially proposed a 25-foot shore setback. The residential environment is a lighter intensity type development with existing development occurring further away from Lake Ballinger. The Urban Mixed-Use I and II designations have similar types and intensities of uses, but these environments are largely built up to the edge of the shoreline now with the existence of the sea wall along this portion of the Edmonds shoreline. The Urban Mixed Use III designation around Edmonds Marsh is intensely developed essentially up to the edge of the marsh. Taking all of this into consideration, the Planning Board recommended a 50-foot shore setback for the Urban Mixed Use III designation. Urban Mixed Use IV Setback-Buffers One of the concerns expressed by the City Council was with regards to the setbacks of around the Edmonds Marsh. Council was concerned that the 50-foot setback would not adequately protect the marsh, and also expressed concerns particularly with future marsh enhancements such as the daylighting of Willow Creek and how establishing the 50-oot setback may impact the City’s chances of securing future grants for marsh enhancement projects. Staff present Council a number options for establishing buffers-setbacks around the marsh including varying widths of setback, limiting coverage within the shoreline environment, and requiring the enhancement/establishment of vegetative buffers adjacent to the marsh with any proposed development with shoreline jurisdiction. Council directed staff to include draft the new Urban Mixed Use IV designation with 150-foot setbacks and a requirement for the establishment of a 50-foot vegetative buffer around Packet Page 516 of 676 the marsh. These setbacks and buffers have been incorporated into ECDC 24.40.090 of the draft SMP (pg. 54). Interim Designation The Department of Ecology must approve the City’s Shoreline Master Program before it become effective. Staff has been working closely with Ecology staff in developing the SMP and Ecology was aware of struggles in establishing the new shoreline designation around the marsh area. As a way to move the SMP forward, Ecology suggested establishing the new shoreline designation around the marsh as an interim shoreline designation. By establishing the new designation as an interim shoreline designation, this gives the City time to work with surrounding property owners to further evaluate the use, buffer, and setback issues and still pass the majority of the SMP so the City will be up to date with the latest SMP guidelines. As part of the direction to staff in establishing the new Urban Mixed Use IV designation, Council directed that the Urban Mixed Use IV be drafted as an interim shoreline designation. The following language has been added to the draft SMP establishing the new Urban Mixed Use IV designation: 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 Packet Page 517 of 676 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. The interim designation implies the City is working towards a final designation for the shoreline jurisdiction around the marsh. Shoreline Master Programs are required to be updated every eight years. For this to be truly an interim designation, the shoreline designation should be finalized prior to the next update. As such, staff has included language that the issues related to the shoreline jurisdiction around the Edmonds Marsh and the new Mixed Use IV designation will be studied over the next two years after which time the City will adopt the final shoreline designation for the jurisdiction around the marsh. Staff Recommendation With regard to the buffer/setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, staff recommends that the 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board for the Urban Mixed Use III environment be retained for the Urban Mixed Use IV interim designation. As noted above in the Setback\Buffer section the recommended 50-foot setback is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act requirement of no net loss. Ecology expressed support for the new Urban Mixed Use III environment (which at the time was proposed with a 25-foot setback) in a letter from November 4, 2011 and again suggests the City establish an interim designation with a 50-foot setback back in a letter from March 11, 2014. Ecology’s support of the 50-foot setback recognizes the existing high intensity land uses present at Harbor Square and the highly modified upland shoreline environment adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Establishing a wider setback may actually act as a disincentive to improving buffer conditions around the marsh. With expanded development or redevelopment beyond a 50-foot setback, there is an opportunity to improve stormwater controls and require enhancement of existing buffers around the marsh. With the wider 150-foot setback, the likelihood of any development or redevelopment decreases along with opportunities for enhancement. Finally, the establishment of 150-foot setbacks would create nonconforming situations at Harbor Square with development that currently exists within the proposed 150-foot setback. When a structure is nonconforming, there are limitations on modification, additions and reconstruction in case of destruction by fire, earthquake, etc. Nonconforming status can result in the following issues for the Port, tenants or future owners: • Difficulty in obtaining insurance • Difficulty in obtaining financing or refinancing (especially for private-sector owners or tenants) Packet Page 518 of 676 • Difficulty in obtaining tenants for long-term leases • Difficulty in selling the buildings to private-sector owners or developers • Inability to make even minor expansions within the required 150-foot setback (such as awnings for covered seating) For these reasons, staff recommends that the new Urban Mixed Use IV environment retain the 50-foot setback recommended by the Planning Board for the Urban Mixed Use III environment. Staff also has some concerns regarding an “interim” designation. If the Urban Mixed Use IV designation is established as “interim,” the City must study the issues related to Edmonds Marsh and its associated shoreline areas and desired uses within the shoreline around the marsh. To fully and effectively study the issues may require the City to budget this specific issue. Staff has proposed a two-year time frame for the interim designation. The interim designation needs to be resolved well before the next SMP update cycle which will be in eight years. Packet Page 519 of 676 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS ATTACHED HERTO. WHEREAS, the City Council heard a brief introduction to the Shoreline Master Program at the December 4, 2012 council meeting; and WHEREAS, the December 4, 2012 introduction focused on how the Shoreline Master Program applied to the Harbor Square property; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued review of the SMP at the February 26, 2013 meeting with a broader overview of the SMP update; and WHEREAS, at the March 26, 2013 meeting, staff provided an in depth review of the three Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments (ECDC 24.30.070) as well as brief discussion of the allowed uses in the different shoreline environments and setbacks for various uses and shoreline environments; and WHEREAS, at the April 23, 2013 Council meeting, staff reviewed how proposed changes to the City's SMP may impact property owners around Lake Ballinger as well as other single family property owners within the City's shoreline jurisdiction as well as changes to the Meadowdale Marina area; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the SMP update on June 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued discussion at the October 8, 2013 Council meeting and directed staff to bring back options for a new shoreline environment and setbacks/buffers for the Harbor Square property; and WHEREAS, at the December 17, 2013 Council meeting, Council directed staff to draft an Urban Mixed Use IV interim shoreline designation for Harbor Square and the Unocal/Chevron property on the south side of Edmonds marsh; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a briefing on the SMP update at the September 2, 2014 Council meeting, including discussion of the new Interim Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the attached proposed update to the Shoreline Master Program on September 16, 2014; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.090 requires that proposed Shoreline Master Programs be reviewed and approved by the state prior to taking effect, now therefore, Packet Page 520 of 676 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. INTENT TO ADOPT NEW SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. The city council hereby expresses intent to adopt the following attached documents: 1. A new Shoreline Master Program to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Updated Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designation Maps, to read as shown in Attachment B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 3. An updated Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, to read as shown in Attachment C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 4. An updated Shoreline Restoration Plan, to read as shown in Attachment D, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. 5. A cumulative Impacts Analysis, to read as shown in Attachment E, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. RESOLVED this _____ day of October, 2014. CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________ MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ____ 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Page 521 of 676 AM-7222 14. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:10/21/2014 Time:45 Minutes Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Cancel Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation and Discussion of the Proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation Review the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program and provide comments and feedback. Previous Council Action On September 23, 2014, Council reviewed the process to approve the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2015-2020 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2015-2020 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. Packet Page 522 of 676 The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on September 24, 2014. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council for approval. The draft minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. A public hearing is scheduled for the November 3, 2014 City Council meeting. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP 2015-2020 Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP 2015-2020 Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison (2014 to 2015) Exhibit 4 - Draft Planning Board Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/16/2014 03:32 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/16/2014 03:37 PM City Clerk Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 03:38 PM Mayor Dave Earling 10/16/2014 04:09 PM Finalize for Agenda Linda Hynd 10/16/2014 05:10 PM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 10/16/2014 01:31 PM Final Approval Date: 10/16/2014 Packet Page 523 of 676 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 524 of 676 Packet Page 525 of 676 CFP GENERAL Packet Page 526 of 676 Packet Page 527 of 676 $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5-$23 M $0 Community Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships $0 REET $0 Total $5 M $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $5 M $0 Public Vote RCO Land Acquisitio Conceptual $2,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 G.O. Bonds $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,100,000 Total $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 Unknown $0 Library / Unknown Conceptual $0 City G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total Unknown $0 Capital Campaign Unknown Conceptual $1,330,000 REET 2 $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $1,000,000 School District $500,000 $500,000 $5,800,000 Foundation $2,500,000 $1,750,000 $1,550,000 $2,750,000 Grants $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $10,880,000 Total $3,750,000 $40,000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 10-12M $0 Public Vote Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3 - $4M $0 Public Vote / Grants Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 Private Partnership $0 Total $4 - 10M EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) US DOT Completed $0 State Funds $0 Total Unknown Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $0 Total $0 $300,000 Total CFP $16,980,000 Annual CFP Totals $6,750,000 $140,000 $6,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $0 PurposeProject Name Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics Center (Feasibility study complete August 2009). Establish a new center for the Art's Community. Edmonds School District (City has lease until 2021). Replace / Renovate (Currently subleased on Civic Playfield until 2021). Boys & Girls Club Building Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development 2021-20252020201920182017 Art Center / Art Museum 20162015Revenue Source (2015-2020) Total Cost Current Project Phase Grant Opportunity Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a public restroom downtown. Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library Expand building for additional programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Plan). Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex. Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Facility Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach. Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Senior Center Building Replace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront. P a c k e t P a g e 5 2 8 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 2 9 o f 6 7 6 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 530 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 531 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 532 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.3M 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 533 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 534 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000 Engineering & Administration 175,000 150,000 175,000 Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000 1% for Art 125,000 TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m - $12m * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 535 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 536 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil. * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building complex on the City waterfront. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The floors are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other sources. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $4m -$10m Packet Page 537 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Engineering & Administration Right of Way Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 538 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 539 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and maintain a downtown public restroom. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability of funds. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 300,000 Packet Page 540 of 676 Packet Page 541 of 676 CFP TRANSPORTATION Packet Page 542 of 676 Packet Page 543 of 676 Safety / Capacity Analysis $251,046 (Federal or State secured)$251,046 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $43,954 (Local Funds)$43,954 $295,000 Total $295,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,115,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,115,000 Total $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 Total $10,000 $3,588,077 (Federal or State secured)$481,447 $3,106,630 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Possible Grant Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $2,134,510 (Local Funds)$230,140 $1,904,370 $5,722,587 Total $711,587 $5,011,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $4,964,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $4,964,000 Total $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $5,375,000 (Federal or State secured)$3,431,500 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design / ROW $0 (Unsecured) $518,500 (Local Funds)$518,500 $5,893,500 Total $3,950,000 $1,943,500 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible $10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) Appropriation $0 (Local Funds) $10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,431,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,431,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$10,211,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $10,211,000 Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service (LOS). Installation of a traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service (LOS). Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor. 2021-2025 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 212th St SW @ 84th Ave W (5corners) Intersection Improvements 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Reduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements. SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection Improvements Main St. and 9th Ave S (Interim Solution) 2018 2019 2020 Improve safety at the intersection by stop controller intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project Phase Realign highly skewed intersection to address safety and improve operations; create new east-west corridor between SR-99 and I-5. 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Reconfigure EB lane and add protected/permissive for the NB and SB LT to improve the intersection delay. 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) Project Name 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements Intersection improvements to decrease intersection delay and improve level of service. Install two-way left turn lanes to improve capacity and install sidewalk along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Snohomish County; total cost: ~20 Million). Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 4 o f 6 7 6 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,722,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $3,722,000 Total $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,046,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,046,000 Total $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $5,235,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $5,235,000 Total $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$906,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $906,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,093,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,093,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). Install traffic signal to improve the Level of Service (LOS) and reduce intersection delay. Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection Improvements Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvement Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized intersection. Widen 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound lanes. P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 5 o f 6 7 6 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $1,520,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,520,000 Total $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $392,109 (Federal or State secured)$392,109 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $392,109 Total $392,109 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $65,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $65,000 Total $65,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $82,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$82,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $82,000 Total $82,000 $8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650 Possible $1,816,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,816,000 RCO / TIB Grant Design $283,000 (Unsecured)$283,000 $1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $2,109,000 Total $10,000 $2,099,000 Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide sidewalk on west side of the street, facing waterfront. 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- 104) to Madrona Elementary Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection between SR- 104 and Madrona Elementary Provide safe and desirable route to Seview Elementary and nearby parks. 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr Walkway and sight distance improvements Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link. P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 6 o f 6 7 6 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) Grant for Design $2,306,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$349,000 $1,957,000 funding currently Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) under review $0 (Local Funds) $2,306,000 Total $349,000 $1,957,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $189,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$189,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $29,000 (Local Funds)$29,000 $218,000 Total $218,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $325,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$325,000 $760,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$0 $0 (Local Funds) $325,000 Total $325,000 $760,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $190,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$190,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $190,000 Total $190,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $380,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$380,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $380,000 Total $380,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $3,900,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,000,000 $2,900,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $425,000 (Local Funds)$425,000 $4,325,000 Total $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $519,041 (Federal or State secured)$519,041 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design $0 (Unsecured) $1,038,893 (Local Funds)$1,038,893 $1,557,934 Total $1,557,934 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,249,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,249,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$189,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $189,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W Provide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link) Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway Provide safe sidewalk along missing link. Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW (Maplewood Elementary School). Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway Provide short missing link. 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway Provide short missing link. Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway Reconstruct sidewalk (ex. conditions: rolled curb / unsafe conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary school. 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 7 o f 6 7 6 2021-2025201820192020 Grant Opportunity (2015-2020) Total CostPurpose 201720152016Funding Source Project PhaseProject Name $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$175,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $175,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,050,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,050,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $60,000 (Local Funds)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 (Federal or State secured)$6,000 $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $6,000 Total $6,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $350,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Total $50,000 $300,000 Total CFP $50,749,130 Annual CFP Totals $6,976,630 $7,274,500 $10,000 $6,418,000 $11,942,000 $18,128,000 $18,157,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2025 $10,133,923 Total Federal & State (Secured)$5,083,793 $5,050,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,920,000 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $6,308,000 $12,669,000 $21,943,000 $760,000 $283,000 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $283,000 $0 $0 $17,397,000 $4,582,207 Local Funds $1,892,837 $2,224,370 $10,000 $435,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 Revenue Summary by Year 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway Provide safe walking route between those (2) local streets. 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway Provide safe walking route between principal arterial and minor arterial. Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming To assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut- through traffic and safety. Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Crossings Install Trackside Warning System and Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings in order to reduce noise level within Downtown Edmonds. 15th St SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S Provide safe walking route between minor arterial and collector. P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 8 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 9 o f 6 7 6 PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches. A roundabout would be constructed. The project also includes various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $295,000 1% for Art TOTAL $295,000 Packet Page 550 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $341,000 $686,000 Construction $2,695,000 1% for Art TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Packet Page 551 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve existing intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $484,000 $737,000 Construction $3,825,000 1% for Art TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 Packet Page 552 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $502,000 $765,000 Construction $3,968,000 1% for Art TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Packet Page 553 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $180,000 Construction $726,000 1% for Art TOTAL $906,000 Packet Page 554 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #2) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 555 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #7). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 Packet Page 556 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct ~ 3,000’ sidewalk on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). 80th Ave. W will be re-graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 $125,000 Construction $1,270,000 1% for Art TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 Packet Page 557 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $392,109 1% for Art TOTAL $392,109 Packet Page 558 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2018 (Unsecured Funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $65,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 559 of 676 PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #8). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $100,000 $163,000 Construction $852,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Packet Page 560 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $65,000 1% for Art TOTAL $65,000 Packet Page 561 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $82,000 1% for Art TOTAL $82,000 Packet Page 562 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $10,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $2,099,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000 Packet Page 563 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (grant application recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $349,000 Construction $1,957,000 1% for Art TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000 Packet Page 564 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $218,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $41,000 Construction $177,000 1% for Art TOTAL $218,000 Packet Page 565 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,085,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a sidewalk on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between 2021 and 2026. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $325,000 $760,000 1% for Art TOTAL $325,000 $760,000 Packet Page 566 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $190,000 1% for Art TOTAL $190,000 Packet Page 567 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 700’) on Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $380,000 1% for Art TOTAL $380,000 Packet Page 568 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled for 2018 and 2019 (pending additional grant funding and local match). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 Packet Page 569 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be incorporated into the project (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,557,934 1% for Art TOTAL $1,557,934 Packet Page 570 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. Ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb (~ 0.75 mile / ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 Packet Page 571 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S (interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th Ave. with the removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan project priority chart) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The re- striping of 9th Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the installation of a mini-roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,000 Construction $9,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 Packet Page 572 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $154,000 1% for Art TOTAL $189,000 Packet Page 573 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street (approximately 750’). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. Packet Page 574 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW (approximately ½ mile). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 Packet Page 575 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and safety. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Packet Page 576 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 600’) on 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $6,000 1% for Art TOTAL $6,000 Packet Page 577 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration 50,000 Construction $300,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $300,000 Packet Page 578 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right- turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $711,587 Construction $5,011,000 1% for Art TOTAL $711,587 $5,011,000 Packet Page 579 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,964,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding). * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $500,000 $836,000 Construction $3,628,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 Packet Page 580 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east- west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500 1% for Art TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 581 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $500,000 Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 Packet Page 582 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 Packet Page 583 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $2,042,000 Construction $8,169,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 Packet Page 584 of 676 Packet Page 585 of 676 CFP STORMWATER Packet Page 586 of 676 Packet Page 587 of 676 $0 (Federal or State secured) Design $465,318 (Federal or State unsecured)$125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $1,495,954 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$100,000 $375,000 $983,454 $37,500 $1,961,272 Total $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Study $5,312,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 $1,920,500 (Debt/Stormwater)$203,000 $187,500 $275,000 $600,000 $650,000 $5,000 $7,233,000 Total $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $0 (Federal or State secured) Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,672,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 $597,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$85,000 $125,000 $125,000 $212,500 $37,500 $12,500 $2,270,000 Total $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Total CFP $11,464,272 Annual CFP Totals $683,000 $1,750,000 $2,911,272 $3,300,000 $2,750,000 $70,000 Totals Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 Total Federal & State (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,450,318 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$295,000 $1,062,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 $4,013,954 Debt / Stormwater Fees $388,000 $687,500 $1,383,454 $850,000 $687,500 $17,500 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding. Revenue Summary by Year Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Creek/Day lighting/Restoration Daylight channel and remove sediment to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2015-2020) Total Cost 2020Revenue Source 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 P a c k e t P a g e 5 8 8 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 5 8 9 o f 6 7 6 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr – Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000 Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 1% for Art TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 Packet Page 590 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000 Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the 2013-2014 Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000 Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000 1% for Art TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 Perrinville Creek Packet Page 591 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000 Construction $1,311,272 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 Packet Page 592 of 676 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 DRAFT Packet Page 593 of 676 Packet Page 594 of 676 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2015-2020) Table of Contents FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE GENERAL 112 Transportation Public Works 7 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 10 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 11 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 13 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 15 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 17 421 Water Projects Public Works 18 422 Storm Projects Public Works 19 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 21 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 23 PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 27 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 54 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57 Packet Page 595 of 676 Packet Page 596 of 676 CIP GENERAL Packet Page 597 of 676 Packet Page 598 of 676 Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 - Transportation Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Preservation / Maintenance Projects Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$940,000 $1,300,000 $1,650,000 $2,500,000 $2,800,000 $2,900,000 $3,000,000 $14,150,000 5th Ave S Overlay from Elm Way to Walnut St $15,799 $0 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,040,000 $1,040,000 Citywide - Signal Improvements $258,000 $3,000 $325,000 $325,000 $653,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000 Safety / Capacity Analysis 212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $3,426,637 $295,000 $295,000 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $308,501 $3,950,400 $1,943,500 $5,893,900 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $146,125 $711,587 $5,011,000 $5,722,587 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Guardrail $50,000 $50,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 $1,115,000 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Main St. @ 9th Ave. S (Interim solution)X $10,000 $10,000 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements X $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 $4,964,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 $5,235,000 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 $3,722,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 $5,046,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Non-motorized transportation projects Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $40,203 $10,000 $2,099,000 $2,109,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $99,747 $1,557,934 $1,557,934 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $323,196 $6,000 $6,000 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $27,931 $392,109 $392,109 Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $29,407 $305,000 $349,593 $654,593 ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $128,222 $10,000 $10,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 80th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway Sight Distance Improvements X $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 $1,520,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $349,000 $1,957,000 $2,306,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X $325,000 $325,000 Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $190,000 $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th Ave. to 7th Ave. Walkway X $380,000 $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $65,000 $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $82,000 $82,000 216th ST. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $218,000 $218,000 Re-Striping of 76th Ave W from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 $790,000 Citywide Bicycle Connections (additional bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 $240,000 Traffic Calming Projects Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming (Sunset Ave, other stretches)X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 5 9 9 o f 6 7 6 Traffic Planning Projects Transportation Plan Update $40,000 $140,000 $140,000 SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 $106,000 Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $350,000 Alternatives Analysis to Study, 1) Waterfront Access Issues Emphasizing and Prioritizing Near Term Solutions to Providing Emergency Access, Also Including, But Not Limited to, 2) At Grade Conflicts Where Main and Dayton Streets Intersection BNSF Rail Lines, 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Total Projects $5,837,768 $10,147,030 $10,044,093 $2,510,000 $9,875,000 $14,529,000 $26,403,000 $73,508,123 Transfers Transfer to Fund 117 (212th St SW / 84th Ave W (Five Corners) Roundabout)$2,122 Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,959 $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415 Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,341 $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706 Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $35,018 $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032 Total Debt & Transfers $78,440 $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance $481,154 $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Transfer in - Fund 125 - REET 2 - Annual Street Preservation Program $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Transfer in - Fund 126 - REET 1 - Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $319,000 $550,000 $1,050,000 $650,000 $2,200,000 $850,000 $2,400,000 Transfer in - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000 $300,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $665,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $762,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $200,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $250,000 Transfer in - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$4,000 Transfer in - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $645,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $15,000 $106,000 Transfer in - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $30,000 $70,000 $774,000 Transfer in - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $29,909 $1,038,893 Transfer in - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $44,000 $106,000 Transfer in- Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 Traffic Impact Fees $100,000 $74,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Revenues $3,340,063 $4,045,625 $4,060,479 $1,635,919 $3,450,684 $2,058,810 $3,883,297 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 0 o f 6 7 6 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (Federal) for 5th Ave S Overlay $13,667 (Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $780,000 (Federal) - for Citywide - Cabinet Improvements / Ped. Countdown Display $258,000 $3,000 (Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $1,674,451 $251,046 (Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $286,588 $3,431,900 $1,943,500 (Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $61,523 $467,096 $3,106,630 (Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$34,776 $8,650 (State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $69,838 $519,041 (State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $323,196 $6,000 (Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $27,931 $392,109 (Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$29,407 $305,000 $279,000 (Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$90,000 (Verdantl) for Re-striping of 76th Ave from 220th St. SW to OVD $140,000 $650,000 (Verdant) for Citywide Bicycle Connections (bike lanes, sharrows & signage)$120,000 $120,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured) Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$1,250,000 $1,450,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000 76th @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Guardrail $50,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W Intersection Improvements $500,000 $836,000 $3,625,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,816,000 ADA Curb Ramps Improvements (as part of Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 80th Ave / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway & Sight Distance Improvements $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 2nd Ave From Main St to James St $65,000 Maplewood Dr. Walkway $349,000 $1,957,000 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway $325,000 Walnut from 3rd to 4th Ave. Walkway $190,000 Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Ave. Walkway $380,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 Maple St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $65,000 Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Ave. Walkway $82,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $189,000 Alternatives Study to Resolve Conflicts at Dayton St/Main St RR Crossings $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,869,377 $6,423,842 $6,099,130 $1,250,000 $6,753,000 $13,069,000 $23,390,000 Total Revenues & Grants $6,209,440 $10,469,467 $10,159,609 $2,885,919 $10,203,684 $15,127,810 $27,273,297 Total Projects ($5,837,768)($10,147,030)($10,044,093)($2,510,000)($9,875,000)($14,529,000)($26,403,000) Total Debt ($78,440)($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153) Ending Cash Balance $293,232 $246,479 $39,919 $300,684 $253,810 $523,297 $796,144 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 1 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 State Transportation Appropriations - Current Law -Local Matching $ Federal Funding (Unsecured) ST2 Interest Earnings Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Revenue $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 2 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 116 - Building Maintenance PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Accessibility $17,874 $50,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000 Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Blinds $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement $300,000 $25,000 $325,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $10,000 $10,000 City Hall Carpet Replacement $50,000 $50,000 City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000 City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $25,000 $20,000 $45,000 City Hall Security Measures $25,000 $25,000 City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000 ESCO III Project $367,600 $0 ESCO IV Project $300,000 $300,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $190,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000 Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000 Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000 Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $35,000 $50,000 $85,000 Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000 Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000 Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $20,000 $20,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $20,000 $10,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0 Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0 Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000 Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000 Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000 Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $43,000 $0 Public Works Decant Improvements $60,000 $0 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0 Total Projects $678,474 $1,755,000 $294,000 $215,000 $310,000 $232,000 $265,000 $3,071,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 3 o f 6 7 6 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)-$96,490 $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749 Interest Earnings $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Gen Fund #001 and other $421,047 $591,600 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Commerce Grants $187,566 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Secured)$190,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$12,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749 Total Revenue $774,623 $1,827,749 $322,749 $278,749 $313,749 $253,749 $271,749 Total Project ($678,474)($1,755,000)($294,000)($215,000)($310,000)($232,000)($265,000) Ending Cash Balance $96,149 $72,749 $28,749 $63,749 $3,749 $21,749 $6,749 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 4 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Park Development Projects* Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 Brackett's Landing Improvements $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $125,000 City Park Revitalization $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $175,000 Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 Sunset Avenue Walkway $200,000 $200,000 Fishing Pier & Restrooms $10,000 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $150,000 Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 $0 $1,330,000 Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Marina Beach Park Improvements $0 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000 Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $0 $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $90,000 Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Seaview Park Improvements $0 $20,000 $5,000 $10,000 $35,000 Sierra Park Improvements $40,000 $70,000 $110,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 $485,000 Citywide Park Improvements* Citywide Beautification $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible Not Eligible N/A $43,000 Misc Paving $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $360,000 Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000 Specialized Projects* Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0 Trail Development* Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Planning Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0 Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 $235,000 Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000 Civic Center Master Plan $100,000 Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000 Total Project $323,000 $1,056,000 $842,000 $750,000 $945,000 $750,000 $255,000 $4,598,000 Transfers Transfer to Park Fund 132 (4th Ave Cultural Corridor)$25,000 Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Cultural Heritage Tour) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (City Park Revitalization) Transfer to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $655,000 Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Transfers $325,000 $1,405,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Project &Transfers $648,000 $2,461,000 $992,000 $900,000 $1,095,000 $900,000 $405,000 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 5 o f 6 7 6 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,508,584 $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Donations (Milltown, unsecured) Interest Earnings $4,600 $4,000 Total Revenues $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Revenue $2,513,184 $2,769,184 $1,208,184 $1,116,184 $1,116,184 $921,184 $921,184 Total Project & Transfers ($648,000)($2,461,000)($992,000)($900,000)($1,095,000)($900,000)($405,000) Ending Cash Balance $1,865,184 $308,184 $216,184 $216,184 $21,184 $21,184 $516,184 *Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 6 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Debt Service on City Hall $300,003 $0 Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $80,528 $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $493,568 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,998 $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $333,788 Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,763 $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $178,703 Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0 $100,000 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $153,750 $868,750 Total Debt $468,292 $271,400 $323,133 $325,697 $318,516 $316,406 $319,657 $1,874,809 Project Name Acquistion of Civic Field Misc. Open Space/Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 Transfers Transfer to 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $321,000 $260,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,510,000 Total Project & Transfers $521,000 $460,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $3,710,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$464,855 $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,000,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Interest Earnings $2,330 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Total Revenues $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $1,467,185 $1,379,893 $1,550,493 $1,479,360 $1,405,663 $1,339,147 $1,274,741 Total Debt ($468,292)($271,400)($323,133)($325,697)($318,516)($316,406)($319,657) Total Project & Transfers ($521,000)($460,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000)($650,000) Ending Cash Balance $477,893 $648,493 $577,360 $503,663 $437,147 $372,741 $305,084 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 7 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 129 - Special Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) State Route (SR) 99 International District Enhancements $13,653 $0 Total Projects $13,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st)$6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Investment Interest Total Revenues $6,894 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2106 2017 2018 2019 2020 PSRC Transportation Enhancement Grant (Secured) $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Grants $22,681 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Grants $29,575 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Total Construction Projects ($13,653)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance $15,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 8 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 132 - Parks Construction PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000 Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $7,015 $0 Dayton Street Plaza $60,000 $108,000 $108,000 Civic Center Acquisition $3,000,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $6,100,000 Senior Center Parking Lot / Drainage $0 City Park Revitalization $372,100 $854,900 $854,900 Former Woodway HS Improvements $0 $655,000 $655,000 Waterfront Acquisition, demo, rehab $900,000 $0 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $1,300,000 Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0 Total Projects $1,351,632 $6,117,900 $100,000 $3,000,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $13,542,900 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$823,000 $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 Beginning Cash Balance Milltown Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour Transfer in from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour $2,500 Transfer in from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match Transfer in from Fund 125 for 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement Transfer in from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza Transfer in from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization Transfer in from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Senior Center Parking Lot Transfer in from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition $200,000 $200,000 Transfer in from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000 Transfer in from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000 Total Revenues $1,728,000 $1,696,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 Grants 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grants/ Loans (Secured) 4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)$2,500 Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom) Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ) Interurban Trail (State RCO) City Park Snohomish County Grant $80,000 City Park Spray Park (donations)$270,000 RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $155,517 $313,009 Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000 Wetland Mitigation $12,517 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $1,020,534 $313,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000 RCO land acquisition grant $1,000,000 Bond funding $2,000,000 Grants/RCO Fishing Pier $1,200,000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $4,200,000 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Grants Subtotal $1,020,534 $4,513,009 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,748,534 $6,209,911 $92,011 -$7,989 -$1,582,989 -$107,989 $282,912 Total Construction Projects (1,351,632.00)($6,117,900)(100,000)(3,000,000)($1,425,000)(2,900,000)$0 Ending Cash Balance $1,396,902 $92,011 -$7,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 -$3,007,989 $282,912 *Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 9 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 421 - Water Projects PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 Total (2015-2020) 2013 Replacement Program $53,000 $0 2014 Replacement Program $1,860,784 $45,000 $45,000 2014 Waterline Overlays $190,000 $0 2015 Replacement Program $175,541 $2,737,151 $2,737,151 2015 Waterline Overlays $124,000 $124,000 2016 Replacement Program $391,788 $2,044,722 $2,436,510 2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947 2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159 2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605 2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150 2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $449,946 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $110,000 $1,090,100 $1,200,100 76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)$87,870 $2,000 $2,000 Telemetry System Improvements $20,000 $71,100 $11,900 $12,400 $12,900 $13,400 $13,900 $135,600 2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $89,500 $175,600 Total Projects $2,387,195 $3,567,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,233,768 Transfers & Reinbursements Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph1 SS Repl.)$380,000 $0 Reinbursement to Sewer Utility Fund 423 (Ph2 SS Repl.)$325,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (Five Corners)$665,000 $0 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$200,000 $200,000 Reinbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2014 Watermain)$833 $0 Transfer to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$2,000 $2,000 Total Transfers $1,400,833 $272,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $272,000 Total Water Projects $3,788,028 $3,839,139 $3,539,170 $3,091,399 $3,215,059 $3,343,645 $3,477,356 $20,505,768 Revenues & Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Connection Fee Proceeds $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Interfund Transfer in from Fund 411 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements 2013 Watermain Fund 423 Reinbursement for 2014 WL Overlay $50,000 General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $180,000 $150,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 2013 Bond Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $255,000 $175,000 $139,600 $144,184 $148,900 $153,856 $159,010 Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $5,400,000 $1,200,000 Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $5,400,000 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Projects for 2015-2020 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 0 o f 6 7 6 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W. (See Note 1)X $369,614 $2,000 $2,000 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. (See Note 2)$73,000 $517,255 $517,255 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements X $17,500 $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 $1,961,272 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $550,607 $10,000 $560,607 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Dr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Marsh Restoration (See Note 2 & 4)X $274,000 $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $7,233,000 Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization $28,000 $433,356 $433,356 Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction and Retrofit Study (See Note 2) $300,809 $1,000 $1,000 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2)X $50,000 $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 $2,270,000 Vactor Waste handling (Decant) facility upgrade (See Note 2)$152,681 $2,000 $2,000 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $25,000 $253,400 $253,400 Improvements Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th $0 $108,809 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $2,308,809 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $236,000 $224,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $5,724,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $20,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $398,000 Storm System Video Assessment $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,100,000 Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)$128,750 $132,613 $261,363 $1,546,604 $2,586,820 $4,368,357 $5,469,885 $4,818,000 $4,168,000 $1,690,000 $23,101,062 Perrinville Creek Basin Projects Total Project Capital Improvements Program PROJECT NAME SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects Edmonds Marsh Related Projects Projects for 2015-2020Fund 422 Storm Northstream Projects Annually Funded Projects 5 Year Cycle Projects Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrades Storm Drainage Improvement Projects P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 1 o f 6 7 6 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System)$25,909 $709,180 $709,180 Five Corners Roundabout $762,000 $100,000 $100,000 228th SW Corridor Improvements $0 $68,500 $68,500 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $30,000 $30,000 Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $585,000 Total Transfer to 112 Fund $905,909 $913,680 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,492,680 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace infiltration pipe (near 107th Pl W) + infiltration system for 102nd Ave W.$3,546 $0 SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltration system)$0 $5,904 $5,904 Five Corners Roundabout $7,620 $0 228th SW Corridor improvements $0 $685 $685 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0 Total Transfer to 117 Fund $11,166 $6,589 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,589 $917,075 $920,269 $109,000 $212,000 $116,000 $19,000 $123,000 $1,499,269 $2,463,679 $3,507,089 $4,477,357 $5,681,885 $4,934,000 $4,187,000 $1,813,000 $24,600,331 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 $70,000 $168,852 X $50,000 $115,000 $623,852 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $3,500,000 $258,628 X $160,000 $562,500 $825,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000 X $135,000 $375,000 $375,000 $637,500 $112,500 $37,500 X $0 $125,000 $327,818 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $553,628 $4,562,500 $1,527,818 $2,450,000 $2,062,500 $52,500 1. 238th St SW drainage project has been merged with sidewalk project and is now under "Transfers to 112- Street Fund." 2. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details. 3. Assumed 50% grant funded in 2015 4. Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 5. Assumes grant funding is 25% of total project costs per year beginning 2016 Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 4) Total Secured Revenues Total Project & Transfers Ending Cash Balance Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Total Unsecured Revenues Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 3 & 4) Notes: Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge) Beginning Balance (January 1st) Total Revenue Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction & Retrofit Study Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects Grants (Secured) - Waste handling facility upgrade Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 4) Grant (Secured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project Grant (Unsecured) - 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project (Seet Note 3) Projects for 2014-2019 Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Total Project & Transfers Total Transfers To 117 - Arts Transfers To 112 - Street Fund P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 2 o f 6 7 6 CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $245,000 $3,000 $3,000 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $1,530,799 $22,500 $22,500 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $2,149,970 $55,000 $55,000 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $184,961 $2,051,073 $2,051,073 2015 Sewerline Overlays $117,600 $117,600 2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $411,622 $1,506,704 $1,918,326 2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655 2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575 2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142 2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406 2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $313,736 2013 CIPP Rehabilitation $58,706 $0 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $5,000 $524,600 $400,000 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $2,648,254 224th Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project $30,895 $0 Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $100,000 $100,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $100,000 $100,000 $4,205,331 $3,385,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $14,988,267 Reinbursement to Fund 421 (2014 WL Overlay)$50,000 $0 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$250,000 $250,000 Reinbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $80,000 $320,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 $4,285,331 $3,705,395 $2,185,454 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $15,308,267 Capital Improvements Program Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects Total Projects, Transfers & Reinbursements Transfers & Reinbursements Total Transfers Projects for 2015-2020 PROJECT NAME Fund 423 - Sewer Projects Total Projects P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 3 o f 6 7 6 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $380,000 $325,000 $733,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,800,000 $0 $900,000 $0 $0 Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 2 Sewer Replacement) Reinbursement in Fund 421 (Phase 1 Sewer Replacement) Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Sewer Connection Fees Ending Cash Balance Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) Unsecured Revenue 2014-2020 New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers Total Unsecured Revenue Total Revenues Total Projects & Transfers P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 4 o f 6 7 6 Capital Improvements Program Fund 423.76 - WWTP PROJECT NAME CFP 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total (2015-2020) Repair and Replacement $18,000 $200,000 $300,000 $100,000 $125,000 $725,000 Construction Projects - In House $133,000 $20,000 $50,000 $70,000 Construction Projects Contracted $955,728 $1,482,247 $2,691,424 $2,000,000 $5,350,000 $875,000 $875,000 $13,273,671 Debt Service - Principle and Interest $255,385 $256,166 $256,296 $255,117 $254,499 $255,231 $255,848 $1,533,157 Total Project $1,362,113 $1,758,413 $2,997,720 $2,455,117 $5,904,499 $1,230,231 $1,255,848 Projects less revenue from outside partnership $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Revenues and Cash Balances 2014-2020 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Intergovernmental $1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Interest Earnings $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $58,000 $285,500 Subtotal $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Revenue $1,562,113 $1,958,413 $3,197,720 $2,655,117 $6,104,499 $1,430,231 $1,455,848 Total Project ($1,362,113)($1,758,413)($2,997,720)($2,455,117)($5,904,499)($1,230,231)($1,255,848) Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year Contribution breakdown by agency 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Edmonds 50.79%$655,616 $741,344 $1,515,748 $1,240,176 $2,992,014 $618,094 $637,808 Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$299,156 $338,274 $691,633 $565,890 $1,365,250 $282,035 $291,030 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$213,659 $241,597 $493,968 $404,162 $975,069 $201,431 $207,855 Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$122,482 $138,498 $283,171 $231,689 $558,966 $115,472 $119,155 TOTALS 100.00%$1,290,913 $1,459,713 $2,984,520 $2,441,917 $5,891,299 $1,217,031 $1,255,848 Projects for 2014-2019 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 5 o f 6 7 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 6 o f 6 7 6 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Packet Page 617 of 676 Packet Page 618 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center Field/Court/Stage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with improved courtyard area and drainage. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 619 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom repairs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 620 of 676 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,530,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 621 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 622 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This sidewalk has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 Packet Page 623 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,350,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations. Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 624 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,830,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 1% for Art TOTAL $500,000 $ $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 625 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 626 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $130,000 South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 627 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and improve picnic area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 628 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds ESTIMATED COST: $90,000 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 629 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for Edmonds citizens. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction 250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 Packet Page 630 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements Packet Page 631 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $35,000 80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed- Of-Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 632 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 $70,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $70,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 633 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $605,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 1% for Art TOTAL $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 634 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $73,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 After 2016, this expense will no longer be eligible out of REET. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Packet Page 635 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $31,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway improvements citywide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 636 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Misc Small Projects ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 70000 Packet Page 637 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground Partnerships ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 1% for Art TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 Packet Page 638 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center at Yost Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 639 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path/Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 640 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 641 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $295,000 South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020 Planning/Study 35,000 $45,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 Packet Page 642 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery Mapping ESTIMATED COST:$ 100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982. The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively manage the plots. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and accurate stewardship. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 643 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 644 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management practices in Pine Ridge Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 Packet Page 645 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital Projects and Acquisitions ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $592,564 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 165,907 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 646 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open Space/Land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 200,000 200,000 Packet Page 647 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Packet Page 648 of 676 PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 649 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7015 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station, shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront activity center. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $7015 1% for Art TOTAL $7015 Packet Page 650 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $60,000 $108,000 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 $108,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 651 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1M 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $3M Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $3M 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 652 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking Lot/Drainage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. This project is grant dependent. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 653 of 676 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,335,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $372,100 $854,900 1% for Art TOTAL $372,100 $854,900 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts Packet Page 654 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Planning/Study $655,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $655,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts Packet Page 655 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation of land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcel, demolish existing structure, and restore beachfront to its natural state. This has been a priority in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound, restoration of natural habitat. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL 900,000 Packet Page 656 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,517 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $12,517 1% for Art TOTAL $12,517 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 657 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. Packet Page 658 of 676 PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL Packet Page 659 of 676 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave.2" pavement grind and overlay with ADA curb ramp upgrades 112 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Provide protective / permissive left turn phasing for both movements. 112 Re-striping of 76th Ave. W from 220th to OVD Re-striping of 76th with addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street 112 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W X Installation of 150' of sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW. 112 Trackside Warning System / Quiet Zone (Dayton and Main RR crossings)X Installation of trackside warning system or Quiet Zone system at (2) railroad crossings (Main St. and Dayton St.) 116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2015 funding 116 Anderson Center Accessibility CDBG Grant application coming in 2014 for wheelchair lift. 116 City Hall Security Measures Subject of a DP for 2015 funding. 116 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs If deemed necessary per on-going investigation. 125 Sunset Avenue Walkway X Alignment with Fund 112 CIP. 125 Fishing Pier Rehab In partnership with WDFW, contingent upon grant funds. 125 Pavement Preservation Program 125 REET Parks and 125 REET Transportation combined into one spreadsheet titled 125 Capital Projects Fund. Added transfer to the 112 Street Fund. 125 Meadowdale Playfields Intalling turf fields, in partnership with Lynnwood and Edmonds School District, and contingent upon grant funds. 132 Civic Center Acquisitoin X Purchase of Civic Center from the School District 421 2021 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 105th/106 Ave SW Drianage Improvements This project was in 2012-2017 CIP but removed the following year. Advanced maintenance by the Public Worls Crews worked for a few years, but now the system needs to be replaced. 423 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Imprvmnts Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Estimated cost for Study to determine how to replace/rehab/improve trunk sewerline located directly west of Lake Ballinger. Preliminary costs for this project will be generated under this task. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) ADDED PROJECTS Packet Page 660 of 676 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers Project removed from list to accommodate higher priorities. 112 Main St. from 5th to 6th X Completed in 2013. 112 School zone flashing beacons Completed in 2013. 116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed until 2016. 116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed until 2017. 116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year. 116 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Delayed another year. 116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Delayed another year. 125 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway Project Completed in 2013. 421 2011 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2013. 421 224th Waterline Replacement Completed in 2013. 422 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Lane X Project not needed at this point due to upstream improvements by Public Works Crews. 422 Goodhope Pond Basin Study/Projects New system with detention installed as part of 5 Corners Roundabout project. Future need for this project will be assessed. 423 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize metering needs. It was determined that the metering in the Lift Station 1 zone and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. 423 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize smoke testing. It was determined that the Lift Station 1 study and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) DELETED PROJECTS Packet Page 661 of 676 FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE 112 Citywide - Signal Improvements Combined w/ Citywide Safety Impr.- Signal Cabinet / Ped. Countdown Displ. 112 Citywide Bicycle Connections Combined with Bicycle Route Signing 116 ESCO IV To be done in 2015. No streetlights. FAC steam system component. 421 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 421 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 422 Storm Drainage Improvement Project: Dayton St. Between 6th & 8th Now called: Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th. More extensive improvements are needed to reduce the frequency of flooding. 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects X Removed from CFP. Culvert/Bridge projects constructed by City of Mountlake Terrace. No additional capital projects currently planned. Project will remain in the CIP to work with neighboring jursidictions on policy and other issues. 423 2012 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 2013 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 Meter Installation Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study 423 Smoke Test Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study CHANGED PROJECTS CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) Packet Page 662 of 676 423.76 Repair and Replacement Repairs to the Pagoda, Secondary Clarifier #3 and coating projects will be focussed on in late 2014 anf early 2015. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. One station was completed in 2014, the remaininig station will be completed in 2015. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. In 2014 PLC 100 will be replaced. In 2015 PLC 500 and PLC 300 will be replaced. This project will be completed in 2016. SSI rpoject: In late 2014 we will purchaes the mercury absortion modules and install them late 2015 or early 2016. Phase 4 energy improvements: in late 2014 we will replace the plant air compressors and in 2015 we will retrofit A basin 2 with fine bubble diffusers and install a new blower. 423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for solids sytem enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and focuss on energy improvements. Packet Page 663 of 676 DRAFT Subject to October 8th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 24, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Philip Lovell Daniel Robles Careen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ellis (excused) STAFF PRESENT Shane Holt, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written Director’s Report. In addition to the items outlined on the report, she announced that the public has invited to a free program that asks the question, “What Does a Vibrant City of the Future Look Like?” The event is being sponsored by Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and 8-80 Cities and will take place on September 25th at the Lynnwood Convention Center starting at 6:30 p.m. Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of the Canadian non-profit organization 8-80 Cities will speak about how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for everyone. She encouraged Board Member to attend. Board Member Lovell requested a status report on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He recalled that the Council is currently considering a modification to the Board’s recommendation that would increase the setback area for development to 150 feet and the buffer area to 50 feet. Ms. Hope emphasized that the City Council has not taken final action on the SMP yet, but the majority appear to be leaning towards a greater setback. Board Member Lovell advised that the Port of Edmonds has Packet Page 664 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 2 gone on record in opposition to the increased setback and indicated they would likely take legal action if the greater setbacks are adopted. Ms. Hope said staff indicated support for the 50-foot buffer, as recommended by the Planning Board and supported by Best Available Science. Board Member Stewart clarified that the City Council is proposing the increased setback requirement on a 2-year interim basis. At the end of the two years, the setback could be renegotiated. Chair Cloutier noted that the City Council is also considering significant modifications to the Board’s recommendation related to Highway 99 zoning. Ms. Hope acknowledged that the Council conducted a public hearing and voted to amend the recommendation, but they will not take formal action until a revised ordinance is presented to them at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) (FILE NUMBER AMD20150006 Mr. English explained that the CFP and CIP are different documents and have different purposes. The CIP is used as a budgeting tool and includes both capital and maintenance projects. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act and is intended to identify longer-term capital needs (not maintenance) to implement the City’s level of service standards and growth projections. The CFP must be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it can only be amended once a year. He provided a graph to illustrate how the two plans overlap. He advised that the CFP is comprised of three sections: general, transportation and stormwater. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects, and each project is organized by the City’s financial fund numbers. He announced that, this year, the 125 funds were combined to include both transportation and parks projects to be consistent with the City’s budget. Mr. English noted that a description of each project was included in the draft CIP. He reviewed some of the projects identified in the CIP and CFP, as well as the progress that was made over the past year as follows:  The 5 Corners Roundabout Project is nearing completion. This significant project is intended to improve the level of service (LOS) of the intersection and improve air quality by moving traffic more efficiently through the intersection.  The City Council approved a $1.6 million budget for a Street Preservation Program in 2014. This has enabled staff to overlay two streets and apply chip seal applications to three streets. Staff is proposing a budget of $1.56 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2015.  The 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project will start in 2015. As proposed, 228th Street Southwest will be extended across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West, and the intersections at Highway 99 and 76th Avenue West will be signalized. 228th Street Southwest will be overlaid from 80th Place West to 2,000 feet east of 72nd Avenue West, and 76th Avenue West will be overlaid from 228th Street Southwest to Highway 99. Chair Cloutier questioned if the proposed improvements would extend all the way to the border of Mountlake Terrace. Mr. English answered affirmatively and noted that Mountlake Terrace is also planning improvements for its portion of 228th Street Southwest.  Intersection improvements at 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest are currently under design and the City is in the process of acquiring additional right-of-way. Construction is planned to start in 2016.  76th Avenue West will be restriped between 220th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive. The section that is currently four lanes will be reduced to three lanes, with a bike lane. Pre-design work for this project will start in 2015, with construction in 2016.  Design money has been identified to start the process of looking at the potential of creating a quiet zone or a trackside warning system at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings. A consultant contract was recently approved, and a kick-off meeting is scheduled for next week.  The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project has received a lot of discussion at the Council level in recent months. The Council recently approved a temporary alignment for the walkway as a trail and these improvements will likely be finished within the next week or two. Packet Page 665 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 3  A sidewalk will be installed on 15th Street between SR-104 and 8th Avenue utilizing grant funding from the Safe Routes To School Program. The project should be completed by November of 2014.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps will be installed on 3rd Avenue, and the project will be advertised this week.  A sidewalk will be installed on the north side of 238th Street Southwest from 100th Avenue West to 104th Avenue West. Stormwater improvements will also be included with this project, which will be funded via a Safe Routes To School Grant and Utilities Fund 422.  A walkway will be constructed on the south side of 236th Street Southwest from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary School. Sharrows will also be added along this stretch. This project is also being funded through the Safe Routes to School Program.  10,000 feet of water main was replaced in 2014, and two pressure reducing valves were replaced. The City just completed 2,000 feet of street overlay where water mains were previously replaced. In 2015, they plan to replace 7,000 feet of water main, as well as some pressure reducing valves.  The 4th Avenue Stormwater Project is in progress and is intended to address flooding issues in the downtown caused by heavy rains. This project should be completed within the next month.  The vactor waste handling facility was completed this year, and they are working to replace the filtration pipes.  The City will build on the study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel as part the Edmonds Marsh Project. Daylighting the creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and the Edmond Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped.  A lift station and other new infrastructure will be installed at Dayton Street and SR-104 to improve drainage and reduce flooding at the intersection.  A flow reduction study has been completed for the Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project, and the project is currently at the pre-design phase.  Sewer main on Railroad Avenue was replaced in July, and more work is scheduled in 2015. By the end of 2014, the City will have replaced over 6,000 feet of sewer main in several locations. In 2015, staff is proposing 1,500 feet of cured-in- place pipe application, 4,000 feet of sewer main replacement, and improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plan. Board Member Lovell noted that Meadowdale Beach Road is in poor condition, and it does not make sense to install a sidewalk before the roadway has been repaved. Mr. English pointed out that repaving Meadowdale Beach Road is identified as a project in the Roadway Preservation Program. If funding is available, it will move forward in 2015. He cautioned that the street may need more than an overlay to address the problems. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe the differences between the cured-in-place pipe application and replacing sewer mains. Mr. English said that the cured-in-place application is a trenchless technology that the City has used on a few projects in the last several years. If a pipeline is cracked but has not lost its grade, you can apply a new interior coating. This can be done by accessing the manholes within the pipe without having to excavate or cut the street. Staff has spent a significant amount of time this year collecting data on the existing condition of the pipes to identify those in which the cured- in-place option would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the cured-in-place application would address root problems. Mr. English answered that the application is a good way to take care of roots. Depending on the age of the pipes, they are most likely to connect at the joints, which provide a pathway for roots. The cured-in-place application would be a continuous inner lining for the pipe so the potential for roots to find gaps or cracks goes away once it is installed. Packet Page 666 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 4 Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe how the Dayton Street Lift Station would work. Mr. English explained that there are a lot of different inputs into the stormwater issues in this location such as the Edmonds Marsh, Shellebarger Creek, and stormwater runoff. In this particular case, when the tide elevation is high, the water cannot drain into the Sound and flooding occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. The marsh does not drain as well, either. The proposed project will re-establish the flow through the marsh, and install a lift station that will mechanically lift the water during high tide so it can be discharged to Puget Sound. Board Member Stewart referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project and asked about the definition for “multi-use pathways.” Mr. English answered that there is not really a definition for multi-use pathways. The concept is based more on width. Ten feet is the standard width for a multi-use pathway, but some are as narrow as 8 feet or as wide as 12 feet. The goal is to have walkers and bikers use the route together. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to allow some wheeled access on the pathway, while bikes are routed to the sharrows on the roadway. Mr. English agreed that would be possible. He noted that while the sharrows for north bound bikers are not in place, bikers going south can use the trail that is striped. Board Member Stewart asked if the City would consider green infrastructure as a method of stormwater improvement such as rain gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement. Mr. English said they are considering a few green options for stormwater. For example, the Shellebarger Creek High Flow Reduction Study recommends building bio-retention facilities within the residential areas. These projects are about 90% designed, and the City plans to apply for grants to build them in 2015. There is also an infiltration facility at Sea View Park to take some of the high flow off Perrinville Creek. Two previously mentioned projects utilize infiltration methods versus collection and putting the water into the Sound. Board Member Stewart suggested that these efforts should be noted in the plans. Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed the project descriptions. She particularly found the history to be helpful in understanding how each project originated. She would also like each project description to reference the plan that supports it and explained why it was proposed. She noted that some of the descriptions provide details about the size of the projects (i.e. length, square footage, acreage, etc.) She found this helpful to make a connection between a project’s size and its anticipated cost. She suggested that this information should be provided for each of the project descriptions. Mr. English agreed that more information could be provided in the project descriptions related to size, but the City does not yet have this detailed information for some of the projects in the CIP. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that walkway projects are referred to as both sidewalks and walkways. She asked if there is a reason to make this distinction. Mr. English agreed that the terms could be more consistent. The City secured grant funding for three sidewalk projects from the Safe Routes to School Program. His guess is that throughout the application process, the projects were probably identified as walkways as opposed to sidewalks. Ms. Hite advised that approximately $120,000 is set aside each year in the CIP for park maintenance items. She explained that although it is not common for cities to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds strictly for parks operations and maintenance, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows it. However, this provision will sunset at the end of 2016. Unless it is extended for an additional time period, the City will have to be creative in 2017 to fill the funding gap. Ms. Hite provided a brief overview of the accomplishments in 2014 related to parks, as well as projects anticipated for 2015:  A new play area was installed at City Park. However, because of issues with drainage and the existing water table, the spray pad had to be redesigned. Permits for the project were submitted earlier in the week, and the goal is to obtain the permits and get the project out to bid before the end of the year so construction can start in February or March. It is anticipated the spray pad will open by Memorial Day 2015. She briefly described some of the features of the new play area and spray pad.  The Dayton Street Plaza Project has been on the City’s plan for the past few years, and demolition work started this month. She provided a schematic design of the project for the Board’s information.  Some historic preservation plaques were installed on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, as well as other locations throughout the downtown. In addition, the Arts Commission has been working on a temporary installation on 4th Packet Page 667 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 5 Avenue to bring visibility to the corridor. They are holding public meetings regarding the project at this time. However, the City does not currently have funding to create permanent features along the corridor.  The City has set aside $655,000 in the CIP and the School District has agreed to contribute $500,000 for redevelopment of the Woodway High School Athletic Field. In 2013, the City received a $750,000 state appropriation from local representatives, as well as a capital grant of $2.5 million from Verdant Health Care. They now have a total of $4.2 million for the project. In addition to a sports field for soccer, softball, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, the play area will be upgraded and a new walking path will be provided to connect to the oval track around the football field. The project is currently in the design phase. The district will construct the project and the City will maintain it and have operational control of the fields. The redeveloped facility is set to open in September of 2015.  The Yost Pool boiler was replaced in 2014. In addition, new plaster was applied to the bottom of the pool, and a new hot water tank was installed. They just recently discovered that the spa has a leak that will cost about $100,000 to fix, and this money was built into the 2015 budget.  The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working in partnership with the Stormwater Division on the Marina Beach Master Plan, which will include daylighting of Willow Creek. Burlington Northern Santa Fe installed a culvert that can be used for this purpose, and they are currently considering two different alignment options, both of which will have impacts to Marina Beach Park and/or the dog park. Staff will work with the design team and the public to come up with the best solution, and they are hoping the work can be completed by next September.  The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Community Cultural Plan were updated this year.  The Anderson Field Amphitheater and Meadowdale Club House Playfield will be replaced in 2015.  The City is working in partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to further develop and maintain the Meadowdale Playfields. They are looking at installing turf on the fields so they can be used year round. The School District has allotted $1 million for the project, and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood have agreed to contribute, as well. They have applied for a grant to help fund the project, and they are hoping to have enough money put together to start within the next three years.  The City has an aggressive goal to acquire waterfront property and has set aside about $900,000 from a Conservations Future Grant and REET dollars for this purpose. The City has been negotiating with a property owner, and she is optimistic that an agreement can be reached.  Rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier has been on the City’s radar since 2009. The facility is located on property owned by the Port of Edmonds, but the facility is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). The City maintains the facility. While the pier looks nice on the outside and is safe, it was constructed 35 years ago and the salt water environment has caused significant deterioration. WSDFW has offered to give the pier to the City, but the City would like the rehabilitation work to be completed before ownership is transferred. The City is working in partnership with the WSDFW to obtain the needed funds, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 million. About $200,000 has been allocated to the project, and the WSDFW has submitted a grant request to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) for $1.3 million. The grant scored well, and they are hoping it will be funded so the project can move forward in 2015.  The City has been working with the Edmonds School District to acquire the Civic Center Playfield. An appraiser was hired to come up with an appraisal that is acceptable to both parties, and third-party appraiser was also hired to confirm the findings. The City submitted a grant request for $1 million to the RCO, and the project scored within the range of projects that were funded last year. However, if there are cuts in the RCO’s budget, the grant may not be funded. If the City is able to complete the acquisition in 2015, some money will be set aside in 2016 to do a master plan. Packet Page 668 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 6 Board Member Lovell asked if the City would continue to maintain the Civic Center Playfield in its current state until such time as it is acquired and redeveloped. Ms. Hite answered that short-term goal is to acquire the property and maintain it as is until a master plan has been completed and the park is redeveloped. Board Member Lovell asked if the senior center was identified on the CFP as a placeholder or if the City will dedicate funding for the project. Ms. Hite said this project will require a partnership with other entities. The City will support the project as much as possible, but it will not be a City project. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City will partner with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Civic Center Playfield. Ms. Hite answered that the City is now pursuing a complete acquisition of the site. The district has indicated it does not have a developer. Ms. Hite agreed that is possible, but the current lease, which runs through 2020, gives the City the first right to purchase. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the new sports field at the Old Woodway High School would be turf. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. She explained that this is something that is desperately needed in the area. Because the City does not have any turf fields at this time, the season is limited to just over four months each year. The City will continue to maintain its grass fields, but having an amenity that allows year-round play is important to the parks system. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that some parks in the City are underutilized. When it comes to thinking of bigger projects like an aquatics center or acquiring property, he asked if the City has considered selling some of the underutilized park land to provide funding for new parks and/or needed improvements. Ms. Hite answered that the City currently has a good balance of neighborhood, community and regional parks, and there are still some deficiencies near Highway 99. They have not considered the option of selling park land because they do not feel there are surplus parks in the system. All of the parks are utilized, and even those that just provide green space are desirable to the community. Board Member Robles referred to Ms. Hite’s report that the City obtained the services of a third-party appraiser to study the Civic Center Playfield. He asked if the City also uses third-party consultants to conduct condition assessments and feasibility studies or is the work done in house. Ms. Hite answered that this work is contracted out, and the various grant guidelines have very rigid rules for assessments and appraisals for parkland acquisition. Board Member Stewart noted that rest room repairs are identified for Brackett’s Landing. She asked if the City has considered turning the restrooms over to a concessionaire. Ms. Hite said the City has a program for encouraging concessionaires in parks, but none have located at Brackett’s Landing to date. Every January, the City sends out a Request for Proposals, inviting vendors who might want to operate a concession stand in a City-owned park. In total, concessions brought in $10,000 last year to help with parks. She expressed her belief that the program is a win-win. It provides additional amenities in parks, as well as funds for park improvements. Board Member Stewart asked if the City has considered meters in parking areas that serve City parks. Ms. Hite said this option has been discussed, but it has not received a lot of support from the City Council. If the Board is interested in pursuing the option, she can facilitate the discussion. Board Member Stewart noted that the project description for the Sunset Walkway Project indicates that a sidewalk will be provided on the west side. She asked if this is the same project identified in the CFP. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively, noting that the $200,000 identified for the project in 2018 will come from the Parks Fund. However, most of the funding for the project will come from grants and the City’s street improvement fund. Board Member Stewart referred to the Fishing Pier and Restroom Project and noted that no funding has been set aside for the Beach Ranger Station, which is old and very small. Ms. Hite agreed that there has been no discussion about replacing the station, and it was not included as a project in the PROS Plan. However, staff could explore this option further as directed by the Board. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 48 of the draft CIP, which talks about Miscelleneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path Improvements. He asked if the City’s website provides a map showing where the bike paths are located within parks. Ms. Packet Page 669 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 7 Hite said there are not a lot of bicycle trails through parks, but the City’s goal is to provide exterior connections. These are not currently listed on the City’s website, but they could be added. Board Member Stewart observed that, although the draft CIP identifies $1.4 million for waterfront acquisition, the allocations would be spread out over a seven year period. She suggested the City look for opportunities to partner with non-profits and apply for grants to obtain additional funding. When land becomes available, the City must move quickly. Developers have ready cash and the City doesn’t, and that can result in missed opportunities. Ms. Hite agreed that the City needs to create new funding sources so they are ready to move forward when opportunities come up. The goal is to continue to add money to the fund each year, but there are also competing priorities for the available park dollars. She emphasized that waterfront acquisition is identified as a high priority in the PROS Plan, and maintaining a separate fund for this purpose should also be a priority. Once again, Board Member Rubenkonig asked that each project description reference the plan/plans that support it and explain why it was proposed. This allows the community to have a clear understanding of why the project is identified as a priority for funding. She also asked that the descriptions provide details about the size of the project. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 4th Avenue arts walk, which starts at Main Street, extends all the way to 3rd Avenue. Ms. Hite answered that it ends at the Performing Arts Center. Ms. Hite said that in addition to the projects identified in the CFP, members of the Economic Development Commission have requested that the City study the option of installing a restroom in the downtown area. She suggested that the concept could be identified in the CFP as a potential project for the City Council’s future consideration. She acknowledged that there is no money available for a restroom right now, but including it on the CFP allows the City to explore funding opportunities. She noted that the community has also indicated support for a public restroom in the downtown. The Board indicated support for the concept, as well. Mr. English reviewed the schedule for moving the CIP and CFP forward to the City Council for final review and approval. He noted that the plans were introduced to the City Council on September 23rd. Both documents, along with the Board’s recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session on October 14th. From that point, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and take final action. Once approved, the CFP will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. English thanked the Board for providing comments. The documents are large and he appreciates the Board’s thorough review and thoughtful comments. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that impact fees were not identified in either plan as a potential funding source for transportation and walkway improvements. Mr. English said this revenue stream is identified in the CIP under Fund 112. He explained that the City has both transportation and park impact fee programs, and funds are collected when development occurs within the City. However, it is important to understand that the money can only be used for certain projects. For example, transportation impact fee dollars can only be used to address concurrency or LOS. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if some of the funding for the 5 Corners Roundabout Project will be used to study how well the roundabout is working to determine if it meets its LOS expectation. Mr. English explained that projects of this magnitude that are funded with federal dollars take quite some time to close out. The money identified in 2015 will be used for this purpose. Chair Cloutier opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience, the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2015 – 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT ADOPTION, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE UP THE MATTER OF A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE DOWNTOWN. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. Packet Page 670 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 8 Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the Board through the findings of the Edmonds’ Affordable Housing Profile. Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13 cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost- effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities. Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing, which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety, proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability. Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:  There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City’s estimated capacity of 2,646 units.  The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.  Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated in multi-family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi-family homes compared with 31% across the County.  The City’s median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are general higher, as well.  A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.  Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.  According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.  A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not affordable to extremely low-income households. Packet Page 671 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 9  A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today’s housing market.  Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants’ income and market rents. Other options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it possible to keep rent levels down.  Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201 units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy (i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.  In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City’s median income ($73,072).  Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.  Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.  Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA’s goal is to continue to work with participating cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to housing. Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house-sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA’s goal is to work with participating cities to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to balance the new policies with the other needs of the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA’s report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity more. Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high-density residential versus low-density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise. Packet Page 672 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board’s previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the AHA is interested in researching this issue. Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful, yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready. This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs. The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to measure affordability. Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to provide “beds for the heads.” The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one option would be to offer a micro-tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific policies on how to encourage more affordable housing. Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent. Board Member Stewart asked if a three-bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but the size of the units has increased. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed-use development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically. Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi-family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations. There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units. Packet Page 673 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 11 Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units, requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for the metrics versus the code. The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However, they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term “housing options” rather than “lower-income housing.” She wants to know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can afford larger houses, they need smaller units. Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the issue would be addressed as part of the strategy. Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, “Builders Say Land in Short Supply.” This article applies directly to the Board’s current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi-family housing, the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate more people is to allow more density. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same presentation was made to the City Council on September 23rd. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:  Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.  Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.  Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre-application assistance for development projects that are being planned. Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats, variances, and other permits related to planning and land-use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years. There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits. Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that Swedish Edmonds Hospital’s project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value. Packet Page 674 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 12 Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Building Official has been working with other cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the State Department of Commerce. The program has been implemented in a few cities as a pilot to figure out how to streamline and reduce the costs of solar permitting. A few incentive programs were rolled out recently in Edmonds. He summarized that it is through a combination of programs that the City is seeing a significant increase in the number of solar permits. This speaks directly to the work they have done to improve the process and provide more information. The City will continue to work hard to encourage solar in the community, and he anticipates the numbers will continue to increase. Ms. Hope reported that for the period between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2104, the Engineering Division issued 591 engineering permits, for total permit fees of $93,285.44. They also performed 1094 inspections, for total inspection fees of $124,815.82. In addition, they completed an estimated 1,200 reviews of plans. Ms. Hope provided a map identifying the location of key development projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that the Development Services Department currently has a total of 544 active issued building permits. These building permits are typically issued early in the year and take time to progress through. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on most of them. Mr. Chave specifically noted the following:  There are currently 52 active new single-family residence permits. This is a significant increase, and one particularly large project is a 27-lot subdivision in the southwest part of the City that is starting to develop.  Swedish Edmonds Hospital recently completed its three-story parking garage. This was an $8.4 million project with over 108,000 square feet of space. They are currently working on an expansion that will add a 94,000 square foot, state-of-the-art facility valued at about $28 million. This project was not reflected in the numbers provided earlier.  Clearing and excavating work is currently taking place for a new mixed-use building in the downtown that will include a somewhat down-sized post office. The project will provide 94,256 square feet of space, with 43 residential units, the post office, and retail space. The project is valued at $7.2 million.  The Community Health Clinic is a new 24,750 facility that houses a medical and dental clinic. The project was completed in July of 2014 and is valued at $2.6 million.  The Salish Crossing Project will be a complete remodel of the “old Safeway site” into five new tenant spaces and a museum within the existing building. Parking lot and pedestrian improvements are also proposed as part of the project.  The Jacobsen’s Marine Project will create a new 10,120 square foot marine service building valued at $810,000 on Port of Edmonds property. This will be a big deal in terms of retail sales, as the company is a significant seller of boats and marine supplies.  Prestige Care is developing a new 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue West. The project is valued at $6.9 million. The new building will replace the existing facility.  Excavation work is going on now for the 5th Avenue Animal Hospital, which will be a 10,562 square foot veterinary clinic that is valued at $891,000. The new building will help fill the gap between the strong retail uses on the south end of 5th Avenue and the downtown retail area.  The City is transitioning to new technology, particularly on-line permit applications and digital permit reviews. Chair Cloutier thanked Ms. Holt and Mr. Chave for the report, which he found to be enlightening and helped him understand the big projects that are occurring in the City. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not review their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier thanked the Board Members for enduring a long meeting. There was a lot on their plate and the issues are important. He also thanked Vice Chair Tibbott for presenting the Planning Board’s quarterly report to the City Council. Packet Page 675 of 676 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes September 24, 2014 Page 13 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed being able to download the meeting packet. Mr. Chave explained that he will work with the City Clerk to learn how to in bed page numbers into the documents so they are easier for the Board to use. Board Member Stewart referred to the two links to videos that were forwarded to Board Members by Ms. Hope. The first video is general about the value of comprehensive plans and important issues to consider when updating them. The second video is called “Planning Roles and Citizen Participation.” She said she reviewed both videos, and she encouraged the other Board Members, as well as City Council Members, to do the same. She particularly recommended the second video, which shows some striking parallels to not only the Planning Board’s role, but how they interact with the City Council. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board of the tour of the marsh and Shoreline that is scheduled for October 4th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O’Connell and a representative from the Tribes. Participants should meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. She explained that the tour is part of her citizen project called “Students Saving Salmon.” In addition to the students, members of the Planning Board, City Council and Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee are invited to attend. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that if the City is expected to accommodate an additional 5,000 residents before 2035, this equates to about 250 addition people per year. If this number is divided by the average household size of just over two, the number of new units needed each year is 125. This year the City added just 33 new single-family residential homes and no duplexes or multi-family units. Mr. Chave clarified that the post office project will provide an additional 43 multi-family residential units for a total of about 76 new residential units. It is likely the number will grow before the end of the year. The best report to look at will be the year-end report that captures all the projects that were completed in 2014. He suspects the final number will be about 100, which is a good year for the City. Vice Chair Tibbott provided a brief review of the quarterly report he presented to the City Council on behalf of the Board. He reported that several City Council Members said they read the Board’s comments and recommendations and they appreciated their work. One City Council Member was somewhat critical of the one meeting the Board held when there was not a quorum of members, yet they reported information that was put together that evening. He didn’t go into the details about the nature of the meeting, but the City Council Member expressed concern that it seemed like the Board was pushing forward an agenda that neither the City Council nor the City staff was ready for. Mr. Chave clarified that there was some confusion about the timeline. The City Council had actually talked about the Highway 99 stuff at their retreat before the Board met with the Highway 99 Task Force. The Board’s discussion was a follow up to the points made by the City Council. He did not feel the Board was out in front of the City Council in this situation. Board Member Lovell asked if any progress has been made to fill the vacant Planning Board position. Mr. Chave answered that Mayor Earling is in the process of interviewing four candidates. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Packet Page 676 of 676