Loading...
Ordinance 4150ORDINANCE NO.4150 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIRED BY RCW 90.58.080(4). WHEREAS, the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires the City of Edmonds to develop and administer a Shoreline Master Program (SMP); and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, through Ordinance 4072, adopted a comprehensive SMP update as required by RCW 90.58.080(2), which was effective as of June 23, 2017; and WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) requires the City of Edmonds to periodically review and, if necessary, revise the master program, in this cycle, on or before June 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, the review process is intended to bring the SMP into compliance with requirements of the act or state rules that have been added or changed since the last SMP amendment, ensure the SMP remains consistent with amended comprehensive plans and regulations, and incorporate amendments deemed necessary to reflect changed circumstances, new information, or improved data; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds developed a public participation program for this periodic review in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(a) to inform, involve and encourage participation of interested persons and private entities, tribes, and applicable agencies having interests and responsibilities relating to shorelines; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1411 initiating the periodic review and adopting the Work Program and Public Participation Plan on May 22, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds used Ecology's checklist of legislative and rule amendments to review amendments to chapter 90.58 RCW and department guidelines that have occurred since the master program was last amended, and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i); and 1 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds reviewed changes to the comprehensive plan and development regulations to determine if the shoreline master program policies and regulations remain consistent with them in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(ii); and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds considered whether to incorporate any amendments needed to reflect changed circumstances, new information or improved data in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(iii); and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds solicited comments on the draft proposal from the Department of Ecology in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5); and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds conducted a formal public comment period in compliance with requirements of WAC 173-26-100; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds published a legal notices for public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council, including a statement that the hearings were intended to address the periodic review in accordance with WAC 173-26-090(3)(c)(ii); and WHEREAS, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist was prepared based upon the Planning Board public hearing draft, and the City of Edmonds SEPA responsible official issued and circulated a copy of the checklist and a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on November 19, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City provided Notice of Intent to Adopt to the Washington State Department of Commerce in accordance with WAC 173-26-100(5); and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has followed its adopted public participation program, including the Planning Board's consideration of the SMP Periodic Review over the course of three meetings including a December 12, 2018 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Planning Board completed a review of staff recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendments and forwarded it to the City Council for review and adoption on December 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation on April 2, 2019; and N WHEREAS, after considering all public comments and evidence, the Council determined that the proposed amendments comply with all applicable laws and rules; and WHEREAS, this completes the City's required process for periodic review in accordance with RCW 90.58.080(4) and applicable state guidelines (WAC 173-26); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Review and Evaluation. The Council hereby finds that the review and evaluation required by RCW 90.58.080(4) have occurred, as described in the recitals above. Section 2. Revisions to the SMP Regulations. Section 24.40.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Critical areas," Section 24.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Nonconforming Uses," 24.70.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Nonconforming development, building and/or structure," 24.80.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process," Section 24.80.100 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Public hearings," Section 24.80.150 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Administrative authority and responsibility," and Subsection 24.90.020.I of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development," are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike -through). Section 24.80.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews," Section 24.80.095 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Shoreline restoration projects —Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations," Section 24.80.105 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Special procedures for WSDOT projects," and Subsection 24.90.020.GG of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Floodway," are hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code as new sections to read as set forth in Exhibit 1, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference (new text 3 is shown in underline). All other portions of the City's SMP Regulations in Title 24 ECDC shall remain unchanged. Section 3. Revisions to the SMP Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization is hereby supplemented to include the memorandum set forth in Exhibit 2, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference. The memorandum attached as Exhibit 2 provides more information on the existing conditions of the Edmonds Marsh than previously existed in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. To the extent that any conflict exists between Exhibit 2 and the other portions of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, Exhibit 2 shall control. Section 4. Adoption. The Council hereby adopts the SMP revisions referenced above in Sections 2 and 3, finding the amended SMP consistent with the requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW and chapter 173-26 WAC, as they apply to these amendments. Section 5. Submission to Department of Ecology. The Development Services director or her designee is directed to submit the SMP and associated documents to the Department of Ecology for its review and approval. Once approved by the Department of Ecology no further action is necessary for compliance with RCW 90.58.080(4) for the periodic review update due on June 30, 2019. Section 6. Effective Date. The amendments to the SMP adopted through this Ordinance shall be effective 14 days after Department of Ecology final action as provided by RCW 90.58.090(7). Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect no earlier than five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. 2 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : 5 7 �/�) CIT ERK, S O ASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY EFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 3, 2019 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 7, 2019 PUBLISHED: May 10, 2019 EFFECTIVE DATE: Ste Se c4io►i Co ORDINANCE NO. 4150 5 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4150 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 7th day of May, 2019, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4150. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIRED BY RCW 90.58.080(4). The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 71h day of May, 2019. ,!Zw CfTXAEIEK, SCO SEY C EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Page 1115 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 May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026 and as amended by Ord. 4106 and Ord. 4127), is herein adopted as a part of this program, except for the specific subsections list below in subsection (C) of this section. All references to the city of Edmonds critical area ordinance in this program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds critical area ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in subsection (C) of this section, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B of this master program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the city of Edmonds critical area ordinance and this shoreline master program, provisions of the shoreline master program shall prevail. C. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the critical area ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. 1. General Provisions. a. ECDC 23.40.130(D), Monitoring Program. b. ECDC 23.40.210, Variances. 2.. ail a. ECDC z3.50.nt 0(B), Wetland Ratings. b. ECDC 233.50.040Standard Buffer- Widths. n40( v2� Required r r Mi . Wetlands. e- �.��i�s�zreaS�liz�tAie��Ec�t9 d. ECDC 23.5A-040(Kr Small, u•°arolegieally iselated Wetlands. -32. Geologically Hazardous Areas. a. ECDC 23.80.040(B)(1) and (2), allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas. D. Development Limitations. 1. All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines, environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas unless in conflict with the provisions of this master program. 2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical areas will be mitigated. 3. Mitigation Sequencing. In order to comply with subsection (D)(2) of this section, 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. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Page 2/15 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 one, two, three, five, seven, 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 10 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. ses!rrsciesses!:rsrr�e�:.asrtir.�:r*sr:!�sr�:ee!e�ee!rrarnes. !srEe!eee!�:essf Nip 116 -� 109 sari=• _ I sar cs�r n eersslrss�sf�seti IMILW11W. project;Is. Category HL Category H! wetlands are: (i) wetlands with a moderate level of funetions (seoring between 16 and 19 points); (ii) can often be adequately replaeed with a well planned mitigation and (iii) interdunal wetlands between one tenth and one aere. Wetlands seoring between 16 and 19 poi generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natLffal resourees in the landseape than Category 11 wetlands. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Page 3/15 Ewr u..rr,.r Width (in Feet) Based on u..T.atAt e4pn .,. [Weiland Category9 64 CategoryT Based PM tota-1 seore 7-5 4AD5 Category T. T Begs high 11 ``,�lY0n t 22-5 and wetlands of eenset=vatien vaiii The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Page 4/15 c,.ore Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on [R et1and Category�..4 } 5 LLu�'.fbitat OT !'' a ffst..l lageat+s cn YJV -i{TS 2-25 Categefy w• 1�5 MENEENEL— Forested "5 �_ Esttwine 4-50 /bu ff «ykdth not based on habitat s «e\ �e �5 )95 4§55 Category r h ,1 te«111 al . etl,.«, s ii5 Category IT- L'..t1-R44.1e 4-W (bu fF r width not on hah-it.1t s «e) Category W (ag) 60 ) 95 5 5 Categery A' 1"I 40 The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Page 5115 Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Dtist I Use be��ge en4 praefieesto� �l lost qw BUffleF Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat SC;OF am7efland Catego -7 EE. 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. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS GF. Critical Saltwater Habitats. Page 6/15 1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below are met: a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020. b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose. c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery. 2. Private, noncommercial 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 no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. 3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all overwater and nearshore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. 14G. Critical Freshwater Habitats. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams and wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition of non -water -dependent uses, where feasible. 1=H. 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. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT Sections: 24.70.000 Purpose. 24.70.010 Nonconforming uses. 24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure. 24.70.030 Nonconforming lots. 24.70.040 Nonconforming signs. 24.70.050 Nonconforming local public facilities. Page 7/15 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 six 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. 2. If a nonconforming use 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 -eighteen 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 applies, 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. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Page 8/15 Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT 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. 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 as closely as practicable 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 subsections (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 si*-eiehteen 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/or structure is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents. 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: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Edmonds Page 9/15 Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT 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. B135 Zone. The B135 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). [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 10115 Chapter 24.80 ADMINISTRATION — SHORELINE PERMITS Sections: 24.80.000 Purpose. 24.80.010 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process. 24.80.020 Letter of exemption. 24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. 24.80.030 Review criteria for all development. 24.80.040 Substantial development permit criteria. 24.80.050 Conditional use permit criteria. 24.80.060 Variance permit criteria. 24.80.070 Minimum application requirements. 24.80.080 Notice of application. 24.80.090 Special procedures for limited utility extensions and bulkheads. 24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects — Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use reeulations 24.80.100 Public hearings. 24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT projects. 24.80.110 Notice of decision, reconsideration, and appeals. 24.80.120 Initiation of development. 24.80.130 Revisions. 24.80.140 Time requirements of shoreline permits. 24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility. 24.80.160 Compliance. 24.80.170 Enforcement. 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. 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: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 11115 1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $5-,7U7,047, 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 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 25 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 ECDC 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. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 12/15 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 $2,500; or b. In fresh waters (Lake Ballinger) the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) twent. thousand five hundred dollars for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or (B) $10,000eleven thousand two hundred dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters., but -However, if subsequent construction fair- ma fLotyalt e exceeding $2 500 occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, 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. 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 45 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. Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, that conforms to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. ^ —L E . - ate „ eet that is designed*� fish of �A41dlife habitat of f4sh passage, when The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 13/15 e. The eivy has deter -mined that the project is substantially eonsisten4 with the local shoreline master program. The city shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the . J q1t, [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. 16. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities. 24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following; A. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the Department of Ecoloev when it conducts a remedial action under Chanter 70.105D RCW. B. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing,site 'te improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national Dollutant discharge elimination system storm water general Dermit. C. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. D. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. E. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. 24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects —Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations. The city may grant relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215. 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 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: �9- 21. 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 -32. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this master program; or The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 14/15 34. The use or development requires an open record public hearing for other city of Edmonds approvals or permits, or . [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. 4. The city receives a request from any interested person within 14 days of the date of the notice of application and the public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee, to be paid by the persons requesting the hearing, in the amount of 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III application fee. B. When a public hearingis s triggered pursuant to subsection A.4 of this section, the project applicant shall pay the other 50 percent of the difference between the Type 11 and Type III application fee, on top of the previously paid Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days of notice from the city that the fee is due. If the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-dayperiod, the application for the project shall be deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing until the additional fee has been paid. For these Dublic hearings. the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by the citv. 24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT proiects. A. Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a target of 90 days review time for local governments. B. Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after date of filing. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility. A. Shoreline Administrator. The shoreline administrator shall be the planning manager or his/her designee and is vested with the following authority and responsibility to: 1. Have overall administrative responsibility for this master program; 2. Determine if a public hearing should be held on a shoreline permit application by the hearing examiner pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100; 3. Grant or deny written permit exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit requirements of this master program; 4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline substantial development permits, except for those for which a public hearing is required pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100; 5. Make written recommendation to the hearing examiner or city council as appropriate and insofar as possible, in order to assure that all relevant information, testimony, and questions regarding a specific matter are made available during their respective reviews of such matter; 6. Review and evaluate the records of project review actions (permits and exemptions) in shoreline areas and report on the cumulative effects of authorized development of shoreline conditions at a minimum every s� eight 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 program 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; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. EXHIBIT 1 Page 15115 2. To grant or deny shoreline conditional use permits under this master program; 3. To grant or deny variances from 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 ECDC Title 20. C. City Council. 1. The Edmonds city council is vested with the authority to 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. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. 3. The City Council will conduct the periodic review process consistent with the requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090. 24.90.020 Definitions — C to F. 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. "Development" does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re -development. GG. "Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political division of the state. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Exhibit 2 Wi-,,O/wardLLC environmental 200 West Mercer St. • Suite 401 • Seattle, WA 98119 Phone: 206.378.1364 • Fax: 206.973.3048 • www.windwardenv.com MEMORANDUM To: Michael Nelson, Diane Buckshnis, Kristiana Johnson, Shane Hope, Kernen Lien, and Maureen Judge, City of Edmonds From: Jennifer Love and Ron Gouguet Subject: Description of Edmonds Marsh for inclusion in the 2019 Shoreline Master Program periodic review Date: April 18, 2019 INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced' wetland occupying approximately 27 acres in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1); it is the remnant of a much larger estuarine wetland that was once located along the shores of Puget Sound (Sea - Run Consulting et al. 2007). Historically, the Marsh was a pocket estuary more than 100 acres in size and protected by a barrier sand spit (Shannon & Wilson 2015). It extended from Point Edmonds (located at the southern end of Marina Beach Park) north to Brackett's Landing near the Washington State Department of Transportation ferry terminal. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide updated information regarding the Marsh, its tributary creeks, and Shellabarger Marsh to be included with the 2019 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) periodic review. A great deal of data and other information has been collected regarding the Marsh and its tributary creeks since 2007, when the last shoreline inventory and characterization document was published (Sea - Run Consulting et al.). The western portion of the Marsh contains mudflat habitat and tidal channels and supports saltmarsh plants (Figure 2). This area is understood to be brackish in the winter months, when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh typically is closed, and saline in the spring and summer months, when the tide gate typically is open (Sea -Run 1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh is open, typically in the spring and summer months (April through September) (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007). Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 2 Consulting et al. 2007). The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks —Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek (Figure 1). Shellabarger Marsh is an approximately 5-acre freshwater wetland located on the east side of State Route (SR)104 (Figure 1). It was once part of the Marsh, but the two areas were separated when SR 104 was constructed. The two marshes are still hydraulically connected via a pair of culverts that run under SR-104 (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007). Both marshes provide valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to conveying large quantities of stormwater and surface water. The Marsh is connected to Puget Sound via Willow Creek, which currently flows out of the Marsh into an approximately 2,200-ft-long system of ditches, pipes, culverts, and flood gate infrastructure prior to discharging into Puget Sound via a submerged outfall. The City of Edmonds (City) plans to daylight (i.e., bring aboveground) Willow Creek, a project that will improve hydraulic and habitat connectivity between the Marsh and Puget Sound (Shannon & Wilson 2015). As the Marsh is the only remaining salt marsh within the nearshore habitat zone of Watershed Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (the Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed), daylighting Willow Creek is ranked as a high priority restoration project (SRFB 2014, 2018). SITE SETTING AND DRAINAGE BASIN The Marsh is surrounded by commercial development, as well as transportation rights -of -way (ROWs) and a former (now vacant) industrial site. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad ROW runs northeast to southwest along the western boundary of the Marsh, and SR 104 runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the Marsh, as shown on Figure 1. The Port of Edmonds's Harbor Square property, which contains buildings, paved areas, and recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts and a paved trail), is adjacent the Marsh to the north. Two properties are adjacent to the Marsh to the south: the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery (Hatchery) property, which is owned by the City, and a former bulk fuel terminal known as the Unocal property, which is owned by the Chevron Corporation (Chevron). Shellabarger Marsh is surrounded primarily by residential developments, both single-family homes and apartment and condominium buildings (Figure 1). The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 acres in size and encompasses residential land to the south and east of the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015; SAIC and Herrera 2013). Willow Creek enters the Marsh as two separate branches, flowing into the southeastern side of the Marsh via the Hatchery property (Figure 1). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 acres in size and encompasses dense residential developments to the north, east, and south of the Marsh (SAIC and Herrera 2013). Shellabarger Creek flows through Shellabarger Marsh and other privately owned residential properties to the south of Shellabarger Marsh before passing through the SR 104 culverts into the Marsh. Upon exiting the culverts, Shellabarger Creek flows in an unconfined path (i.e., it is not contained within a distinct channel) through the dense Marsh vegetation (predominantly cattails [Typha latifolia]). Including the two creeks and wir ward eniranmental i rr Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 3 other areas that discharge surface water to the Marsh, the drainage basin of the Marsh is approximately 900 acres in size. Other smaller areas also contribute surface water flows to the Marsh. Stormwater enters the Marsh from the Harbor Square property and Dayton Street via two stormwater outfalls on the northern edge of the Marsh (Figure 1). After exiting the outfalls, the stormwater flows into patches of cattail and other emergent vegetation at the Marsh perimeter. Stormwater from a portion of SR 104 also discharges directly to the eastern portion of the Marsh. Water flowing out of the Marsh enters the lower, channelized portion of Willow Creek. Just downstream of the primary tidal channel of the Marsh, Willow Creek makes a sharp turn to the south and runs through a 600-ft-long open ditch parallel to and alongside the BNSF railroad tracks (Shannon & Wilson 2015) (Figure 1). The creek then flows into double culverts that run underneath the railroad tracks before entering a 1,600-ft-long series of underground pipes and other drainage infrastructure, including a tide gate (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The tide gate is made of steel and has a top -hinged flap gate within a large storm drain vault. It is chained open in spring and summer (from March until October), allowing tidal flow into the Marsh. It is closed in fall and winter (from October until March), although it is not totally watertight when closed. After passing through the underground drainage system, Willow Creek discharges to the Puget Sound via a submerged outfall located approximately 200 ft offshore from Marina Beach Park (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The current drainage system through which Willow Creek passes prior to discharging to the Puget Sound limits both tidal flow and fish passage into and out of the Marsh and its tributary creeks (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Even with the existing tide gate open, tidal flow into the portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property detention basin is muted (i.e., reduced) by 1 to 2 ft of elevation owing to the seaward pipes and other drainage infrastructure that Willow Creek passes through before connecting to Puget Sound. The City is planning the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project in order to daylight the portion of Willow Creek downstream of the Marsh and conduct other habitat restoration activities within the Marsh. The project would restore a more natural, aboveground creek channel in this portion of Willow Creek, removing the creek from the subsurface pipes, culverts, and other drainage infrastructure through which it currently flows. Ultimately the creek would flow to the Puget Sound by way of Marina Beach Park (Shannon & Wilson 2015, 2017). The project would also include the excavation of channels through the Marsh in order to improve the flow of Shellabarger and Willow Creeks downstream of the SR 104 culverts and through the eastern portion of the Marsh, re-establish connections between Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, and increase the extent of saltwater influence within the Marsh. Extending saltwater influence would allow native salt marsh vegetation to re -occupy some of the areas that Wir, ward environmental i rr Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 4 are currently dominated by cattail, and opening up the creek channels would allow fish to access the stream habitat (Shannon & Wilson 2015). MARSH HABITAT AND WILDLIFE The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Internet soil survey lists Mukilteo muck as the dominant soil type within the Marsh (USDA 2011). Mukilteo muck is typically found in depressions, and its parent material is herbaceous organic material. It is very poorly drained soil with a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. The NRCS rates Mukilteo muck as hydric. Minor soil types are also present on the margins of the Marsh, including Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams and Everett very gravelly sandy loam. Urban land, consisting of level areas where structures and altered soils are present, is also present on the Marsh's margins. Alderwood-Everett and Everett soil types are found on terraces and outwash plains formed by glacial outwash. These soil types drain moderately well, and their surface layer is gravelly sandy loam. As part of a baseline study being conducted within the Marsh in 2018 and 2019, water depth and salinity data are being collected from several monitoring stations within the Marsh using conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) recorders. An additional CTD recorder is being used in the fenced basin west of the BNSF tracks, which receives outflow from the Marsh and Willow Creek. CTD data from July 17, 2018 through March 7, 2019, are currently available; the network of CTD recorders will be maintained for a total of one year as part of the baseline study. To date, salinity within the Marsh has typically ranged from 0 to 25 parts per thousand (ppt).2 Absolute tide (referenced to the geoid) will be calculated after a real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS survey is completed toward the end of the baseline monitoring period. Vegetation in the eastern portion of the Marsh is dominated by cattail, with some patches of alder and willow intermixed (Figure 2). The western portion of the Marsh contains tidal channels, mudflat habitat, and a greater diversity of Marsh plants, several of which are salt -tolerant, such as pickleweed (Salicornia depressa), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), cosmopolitan bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). Figure 2 shows the existing boundary between the cattail - dominated eastern portion of the Marsh and the western portion, which is tidally influenced. 2 In 1978, the Practical Salinity Scale, which uses a ratio of measured conductivity to the conductivity of a standard potassium chlorine solution to determine salinity, was adopted by oceanographers (Thermo Scientific 2011). This scale is referred to as PSS-78 and has no units, as it measures ratios, but it does report salinity in "practical salinity units' (psu). One psu is virtually equivalent to 1 ppt, and salinity is often still reported in ppt. The salinity measurements being taken in the Marsh are calculated from conductivity and temperature in psu but are reported herein as ppt for comparison with regulatory standards. wi!en�iward ranmental i rr Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 5 A diverse mix of both native and non-native vegetation is also present within the Marsh's buffer areas. Native species observed along the northern portion of the Marsh within the Harbor Square property include Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings, common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red -flowering currant (gibes sanguineum), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), among other species. The diversity of native plants in this area has been enhanced by recent restoration efforts. Invasive species, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), are also present, as are ornamental plantings along the northern side of the paved pedestrian path. The Hatchery property contains relatively high -quality, forested upland and wetland habitat with a diversity of native species, including red alder, bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga douglasii), western red cedar, and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). The understory contains a variety of native shrub and ground cover species, including salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), red -osier dogwood, red -flowering currant, vine maple (Acer circinatum), western red cedar seedlings and saplings, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), youth -on -age (Tolmiea menziesii), lily -of -the -valley (Convallaria majalis), western bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), and a good number of skunk cabbages (Lysichitum americanum) beneath the tree canopy along Willow Creek. Invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy (Hendra helix) and a few scattered seedlings of English holly (Ilex aquifolium), have also been observed within the Hatchery property, but for the most part these exist in sparse and non -dominant patches. A very dense patch of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) is present near the transition from the forested wetland habitat of the Hatchery to the emergent area of the Marsh interior. Forest vegetation along the southwestern portion of the Marsh, located on the Unocal property, appears to be similar to that of the Hatchery property. Vegetation growing between SR 104 and the Marsh consists of a narrow but dense strip of red alder, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Pacific willow. Near the location where Shellabarger Creek passes through the double culverts to enter the Marsh, cattails extend from the Marsh all the way to the sidewalk along the highway. The invasive species bittersweet nightshade, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass are also present in this area. The strip of trees and shrubs between the highway and the Marsh widens as it extends south from the Shellabarger Creek culverts. The forest here is a mix of native trees, including red alder, water birch (Betula occidentalis), Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, and western hemlock. Edmonds Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are home to 190 bird species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, raptors, and passerines (Riddell and Peterson 2016). Eastern cottontail rabbits, coyotes, and deer are some of the mammal species that have been observed in the Marsh and its buffer areas. Wir, ward environmental i rr Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 6 While fish are not currently known to use the Marsh's tidal channels, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), resident and sea -run cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), sculpins, and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were observed in Willow Creek historically (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007; Shannon & Wilson 2015).3 Prior to the early 2000s (when the Willow Creek outfall pipe was lengthened and submerged deeper into the Puget Sound), small numbers of adult coho salmon were known to return to Willow Creek and migrate into Upper Willow Creek (Shannon & Wilson 2015). After the early 2000s, very small numbers of adult salmon or sea -run cutthroat trout were reportedly able to find the submerged pipe and migrate up into Willow Creek, but none have been observed for the past several years (Shannon & Wilson 2015). In 2008, more than 5,500 threespine stickleback, a pair of prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and a single starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) were captured in the lower portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property and the BNSF railway line (Arcadis 2010).4 No salmonids were observed in this portion of the creek in 2008. One of the goals of the Willow Creek daylighting project is to promote the use of the Marsh and its tributary creeks by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Additional data and information regarding the habitat value and other ecological functions provided by the Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are being collected as part of the Edmonds Marsh Baseline Study. This study started in the summer of 2018 and will continue for one year. Additional information generated by the study will be available in the future to help inform the SMP periodic review process. REFERENCES Arcadis. 2010. Final - Phase II remedial implementation as -built report. Appendix E. Fish relocation, Willow Creek, former Unocal/ Chevron Edmonds terminal site. ARCADIS, Seattle, WA. Riddell C, Peterson T. 2016.190 bird species of Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds, WA. SAIC, Herrera. 2013. Dayton Street and SR 104 storm drainage alternatives study, City of Edmonds. SAIC and Herrera Environmental Consultants. Sea -Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. 3 Fish were observed within Willow Creek; it is not clear whether they were also observed in the Marsh's tidal channels or in Shellabarger Creek. 4 The fish were captured and removed from this portion of Willow Creek because it was undergoing remediation by Chevron. Wir, ward environmental i rr Exhibit 2 Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update April 18, 2019 Page 7 Shannon & Wilson. 2017. Willow Creek daylight project, expanded marsh concept design and hydraulic modeling report. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. SRFB. 2014. Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) project subcommittee report. 2014 grant round - salmon recovery funding board (SRFB) & Puget Sound acquisition and restoration (PSAR). WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, Salmon Recovery Funding Board. SRFB. 2018. Approved 2018 WRIA 8 four-year work plan - capital project and program priorities. Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Thermo Scientific. 2011. Applications tip of the week. Conductivity and salinity. Thermo Scientific. USDA. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils data interactive map: areas of interest [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. [Cited 4/8/11.] Available from: http: / /websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Wir, ward en�iranmental i rr ME w Dayton_ - •• - SEE Edmonds / O ` N �D a Marina � ��'.'� '- Harbor-Squa� ji lffr` . cf �� y p x .. r n Shellabarger e� Marsh IvEl _ - c .� WSDOT Edmonds Way Outfall `1 a Willow Creek Outfall %o Ili e _ I . C Edmonds Marsh A. p a O O Shellabar,ger.Creek O O Willow Greek miF , Cattail -donated r` O Outfall Inlet U • , _ ,1 - marsh Unocal Site a, - ro O _ Yd ponds'' de Gate #' O 9 I O Edmonds l ^ I�I Point Edwards. p .City Park �I I II jII -'• ` Z� O _44� r � Willow Creek '• i r a F=Hatchery O _ 1 pIlk -1-1 T1 T F7 oF— owl 011 t .. o 1"1 F 8 - -- 0o.° OP Marina Beach Parka C Vai Exhibit 2 Patch ID No. Species Within Patch P f 1 seaside arrowand cosmopolitan bulrush " r'l •_ grass 2 brass buttons growing along mudflat perimeter 3 L n b e's sedge cattail and hardstem bulrush; cosmopolitan bulrush growing 4 along mudflat perimeter �� T' f `, �� M f r ' f_° �' Y f •' • d F } 5 hardstem bulrush 6 hardstem bulrush 7 common reed 8 saltgrass, Pacific silverweed 9 saltgrass © © l� �• 10 cosmopolitan bulrush 11 cosmopolitan bulrush, seaside arrow grass 12 Baltic rush, saltgrass, Pacific silverweed, meadow barley1 i © , 13 Pacific silverweed narrow band of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry 14 along wooden boardwalkk - 15 cattail and bittersweet nightshade "� native shrub buffer (e.g., snowbenroses, red -flowering ' � ky, , r:= .•-'� "rah �, , �� " -� i •k 16 currant) - planted L Japanese knotweed, hops, reed canarygrass, small -fruited + 17 bulrush growing adjacent to boardwalk 18 cosmopolitan bulrush, Pacific silvenveed, salt rass - f . L -3 ¢ r- ,' � } 19 saltgrass O ' . , — J cattail and common reed (common reed in western portion of 20 patch) saltgrass, Pacific silvenveed, baltic rush, Lyngbye's sedge, �. f` t t ► ? k. small patch cosmopolitan bulrush, brass buttons, spear�- 21 saltbush and pickleweed along mudflat perimeter 22 spear saltbush, saltgrass O ^'R� 23 sear saltbush, salt rass, meadow bane 24 sear saltbush, salt rass, meadow bane -,ew L- �• - 25 hardstem bulrush, creeping bent rass 26 - ILLI:I:LlG15 - t • ., I11._ .. •f ,, _ --lam . r. f' i�- � ,} J 4•_- ~� - v ,. Y r, Willow- and -41 alder iL �p r L i lImagery 1 - taken May 2018 provided by Google Earth N o 0.01 0.02�❑ Willwar Miles Unique vegetation patches o Major vegetation transition line Figure 2. Marsh interior vegetation environmentalLLC 0 50 100eet Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH856280 ORDINANCE NO. 4150 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 05/10/2019 and ending on 05/10/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The ap i of the fee for such publication is $23.53. 11111{I'i! Subscribed and sworn be ore me on this `►►��� �- B �,Q� �I� day of\Q�gglOktFxA ).,470 �/ r+i'�+u+++a+•a•'Cl S y Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 SCOTT PASSEY Classified Proof SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4150 tl11hB Cary pf EdmOntl}, WAahlnplp» On the 7th day of May, 2019, the City Cvuncll of the Giry pf Edmonds. pawed Ofda5611C9 N0. 4580. A 6U1Rn19ry Oi �h7 CGPIIBi1l of sald ordlnanrp. onslaSln of ft SISIe, pmwos as idiiowe: AN ORCINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONIXI, WASHINGTON, GOHCERNING THE %IORELINE MA$TER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW REOUIREO BY ROW 90.6E OMU[a]Na The full Iext of Ordinance will he malied upon iaqueaL DATED this 7th day of May. 2019. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PIfiASS Y Polo May ioi QA1W Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 05/10/2019 09:37:12 am Page: 2