The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-07-27 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, July 27, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting 1. 2. A. Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09 Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 Phyiscal Location The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived Approval of Minutes Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6631) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve meeting minutes from the July 13th meeting. Planning Board Page 1 Printed 712212022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 27, 2022 ATTACHMENTS: • PB220713d (PDF) 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Audience Comments 5. Administrative Reports A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6656) Development Services Activity Report Background/History Every year the Development Services Department updates the Planning Board and City Council on development activities in the city. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Dev_Serv_Pres_2022_06_22 (PDF) B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6657) Equitable Engagement Framework Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework.2 (PDF) 6. Public Hearings 7. Unfinished Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6652) Salmon -Safe Certification Narrative The Salmon -Safe program has recommended that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon - Safe subject to 3 Pre -Conditions and 12 Conditions listed in the report (Attachment #1). During the May 25, 2022 Parks & Planning Board presentation of Salmon -Safe Certification, the Board requested the following information for their next review and consideration of recommendation to the City Council. Planning Board Page 2 Printed 712212022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 27, 2022 1. Prioritization of the 12 conditions along with criteria used to prioritize them. 2. Estimation of costs for each of the conditions, including staff commitments. 3. Time estimates that would be required. 4. Any private landowner requirements that would be necessary to meet the standards. 5. Confirmation that the city would meet preconditions 1 and 2. The attached memo (Attachment #2) addresses each of these items as well as identifies city staff responses and implementation recommendations for a number of the Conditions for the Board's review and contemplation. Staff Recommendation Planning Board consider recommending the City Council approve the conditional Salmon Safe Certification as found in the attached Report and consider staff's recommendations for possible revisions. ATTACHMENTS: • Salmon Safe Certification -City of Edmonds DRAFT V2 (PDF) • Salmon -Safe Memo (PDF) 8. New Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6630) Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone Background/History This topic was originally scheduled for an introduction to the Planning Board on June 22 but had to be rescheduled due to technical issues that evening. This is file AMD2022-0001. On February 15, 2022, Council adopted Ordinance 4247, which declared a two -month emergency moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for certain projects in the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. The moratorium applied to projects that require a SEPA threshold determination on sites that are not subject to the Designated Street Front standards in Chapters 16.43 and 22.43 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The moratorium was intended to give staff time to create interim design standards to address gaps in the code that apply to those sites. On March 29, staff introduced the proposed interim design standards to Council. A new section would be added to the existing design standards for the Downtown Business zones in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. These new standards would only apply to projects in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated Street Front requirement and are multifamily -only buildings. The intent of the section was to ensure that this type of project is compatible within the downtown area by adding standards for materials, private amenity space, and street -side amenity space (Exhibits 1 & 2). On April 5, Council held a public hearing on the moratorium and voted to extend the Planning Board Page 3 Printed 712212022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 27, 2022 moratorium for two weeks to allow additional time to consider the proposed interim design standards and to gather additional information about the history of the Designated Street Front requirements in the BD zones. Staff also presented the proposed interim design standards and received feedback from Council. The designated street front topic moved along more or less in parallel with the design standard work (Exhibit 3). On April 19, Council discussed the proposed standards and proposed some amendments of their own before tabling the discussion due to the late hour (Exhibit 4). On April 21, the Council discussed the revised interim design standards and approved the emergency Ordinance 4256 and revised standards at that meeting (Exhibits 5 & 6). After being extended several times, the building permit moratorium was lifted on June 1 by Council's adoption of Ordinance 4262. On June 14, the Council held a public hearing on the interim ordinance as required by state code. On June 21, the Council adopted findings supporting the interim standards and to retain them through October 21. Staff was directed to prepare permanent design standards for the multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone and take them through the standard review process for code amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting. Consider the interim standards and any additional refinements for permanent standards. The design standards were introduced to the Architectural Design Board on June 29 and they will make a recommendation on updated language on August 3 prior to the Planning Board's public hearing on the permanent standards on August 10. ATTACHMENTS: • Exhibit 1 - 2022-03-29 Council Minutes(PDF) • Exhibit 2 - Graphics for Interim Design Standards (PDF) • Exhibit 3 - 2022-04-05 Council Minutes(PDF) • Exhibit 4 - 2022-04-19 Council Minutes(PDF) • Exhibit 5 - 2022-04-21 Council Minutes(PDF) • Exhibit 6 - Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards (PDF) 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6665) Extended Agenda Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review Extended Agenda ATTACHMENTS: • 07.21.2022 Extended Agenda (PDF) Planning Board Page 4 Printed 712212022 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 10. Planning Board Chair Comments 11. Planning Board Member Comments 12. Adjournment July 27, 2022 Planning Board Page 5 Printed 712212022 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve meeting minutes from the July 13th meeting. Narrative Draft meeting minutes from July 13th attached. Attachments: PB220713d Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting July 13, 2022 Vice Chair Pence called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Vice Chair Pence read the Land Acknowledgement. Board Members Present Staff Present Roger Pence, Vice Chair Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager Matt Cheung Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Svcs. Director Todd Cloutier Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Judi Gladstone Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Richard Kuehn Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Other: Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group Board Members Absent Alicia Crank, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Linda Ferkin _ sg tad expressed concern about the legality of the tree code. She cited a recent legal decision with the United States Court of Appeals, 6tn Circuit, where a city who was doing much less than the City of Edmonds is doing did not prevail. She stated that Edmonds has permanently seized the rights to all trees on vacant properties and the land underneath them without compensation. Permits for divisions or improvements while retaining more than 30% of the trees are denied until payment is received for the owner's trees. Edmonds permanent seizure of the rights of all trees is recorded on property titles with the Snohomish County Auditor. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Pagel of 9 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a The seizures and excessive fees restricting the use of vacant properties have affected her and many others economically as it has decreased property values and owners' equity. Edmonds denies constitutional protection of vacant property that all US citizens benefit from. Instead of compensating property owners, Edmonds is charging property owners for their own trees plus $2500 per tree unplanted. The tree ordinance is an unreasonable seizure and a violation of the 4d' Amendment with an excessive fine in violation of the 8a' Amendment. She believes the original intent of the tree code was to avoid clear cutting and to encourage more trees planted on properties without trees, not to restrict and unnecessarily raise costs of needed homes. Requiring compensation for every tree removed and all remaining trees on the property recorded on property titles as protected trees by the City of Edmonds before a permit is issued is taking from property owners the rights to their trees and the ground beneath them and a purposeful devaluation of private property. She encouraged the Planning Board to remember that trees on property with homes are private property. She hopes the changes the City is making will be more equitable. She asked if they could keep their trees after dividing their property. a� Larry Williamson asked Kemen Lien to give a brief update on the status of the Comprehensive Plan process. c Mr. Lien indicated he could provide that under the Extended Agenda portion of the agenda. 0 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS > 0 L Q A. Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department — Q 1 Update a Director Feser made a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Q 1 Update. Administration/Park Planning: • The PROS Plan was approved on June 28 after several revisions. It is in place and being used. Since this is a component of the Comprehensive Plan it will be approved through the amendment process at the end of the year and formally adopted. • Salmon Safe Certification — Public Works is pulling together data at the request of the Planning Board. • A Park Planner/Project Manager (Kyle Woods) has been hired. • Agreements with concessionaires/special events have been completed. • Established system for remote advisory board meetings. • Supporting Development Services around their work for the Highway 99 Revitalization, Green Streets, and public spaces projects • The greenhouse variance was submitted and approved. • $2.9M Goffette donation was accepted by City Council this month. It is very specific for hanging flower baskets, corner parks, and maintenance. • Yost Pool replaster was completed mid -April. • Dayton Street tree removal by PUD and Streets. The City is considering a possible Green Street design for this section of the block. • Edmonds College Horticulture Program. • Library displacement support. • Yost Park bridge(s) reinforcement/repair Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a • Civic Park project — 38 "no work" days due to rain and weather. The schedule is starting to expand. The 96"'/Yost infiltration project is eligible for ARPA funds. Staff will be asking Council to approve that. She reviewed several arial shots of the site and plans. Parks Maintenance: • Aquatics — Yost Pool operates 7 days a week. The spray pad is open. • There are challenges with hiring and retaining part time/seasonal help. We are 50% for FTE staff recruitment. Overtime for existing staff was burned up for the year by June. There has been an equal amount of Comp time used up. • Yost and Seaview Parks — Tennis/pickleball courts have been pressure washed. New nets were installed. • Supporting special events — Uptown Market • 100 hanging flower baskets • Bill Anderson viewer installation at the marsh. Unfortunately, it will be uninstalled due to repeated vandalism. Recreation Programming: • Q2 reservations are tracking well. People are back in the business of recreating. • Leagues for adult softball and pickleball are very busy. • Summer camps and contracted camps are doing great. • Other events: Earth Day, Watershed Fun Fair, Health & Fitness Expo • Environmental Education program is up and rolling — ranger naturalists on Edmonds beaches, K-6 spring marine education, and Birdfest Cultural Arts Division: • On the Fence exhibits are back up. • Summer concerts (19) — moving into new locations • Highway 99 Gateway project design • Public Art projects — specialized maintenance, Floretum Club 100"' Anniversary, Civic Park Art • Write on the Sound (WOTS) Conference • Create Grants - $13,500 awarded • Tourism Promotion Grants - $20,000 (LTAC approval) • 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor grant — ECA partnership Human Services: • Hired Outreach Coordinator — Compass Health • Provided work space at the Frances Anderson Center for South Snohomish Community Resource Advocate (1 day/week) • ARPA Funding — Ordinance revision support • Snohomish County — south county housing enhancement • Coordinated services for 49 individuals • Maintain long-term motel vouchers (5) for Emergency Shelter • Program Manager, Mindy Woods, increased to full time 2022 Q3 upcoming: • 2023 Budget Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a • City of Lynnwood/Meadowdale Park ILA renewal and playground funding • Civic Park Construction continuation • Parks small capital projects: 96d' Avenue Infiltration project; greenhouse • Yost bridge assessments • Special event support • Outdoor movie nights Comments/Questions: Vice Chair Pence referred to the Goffette donation and asked if this means they might see hanging baskets spread throughout the city and not just in the downtown area. Director Feser explained they would have flexibility to spread throughout the community. Vice Chair Pence urged Parks to spread them broadly throughout the City. Director Feser agreed. Board Member Campbell asked if Parks would be reporting for the empty positions. Director Feser explained how they are refining the process. a� Vice Chair Pence said he had the opportunity to hear Mindy Woods talk about what she does, and he was very S impressed. o PUBLIC HEARINGS 'o L Q Q A. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Code a Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell and Angela Tinker from the Lighthouse Law Group. He presented a PowerPoint regarding the Edmonds Wireless Code Periodic Update. He reviewed the reasons for updating now — to respond to recent mandates from the FCC, to implement best practices, to apply lessons learned from recent projects, and to clean up the code. Summary of Proposed Amendments: • Applicability — Clarify master permits, facility lease/licenses, and site -specific authorizations for work (building permit or ROW permit). Establish a review of ROW installations after 10 years to ensure consistency with future wireless code amendments for aesthetics — master permit does not create a vested right for facilities in the ROW. • Clarify shot clocks and application requirements - Create a 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections. Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions. Administrative clarifications for permit applications. • Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates — Updates proposed to track with FCC mandates. Create a 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections. Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions. • Clarify maintenance and abandonment language — Administrative clarifications. • Update nonconforming language — Language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible Facility Request standards. • Small cell dimensional, locational, and aesthetic standards — Intended to minimize visual impact of small cell installations. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Edmonds Location Preference Hierarchy within the ROW: • LP 1— Hollow utility pole (no solutions available yet for power poles) • LP2 — Freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight • LP3 — Wood utility pole — on top (PUD doesn't allow this yet) • LP4 — Wood utility pole — side mount (in communication space) • LP5 — Strand -mounted — on wires The applicant must prove infeasibility before stepping down the list. Small Cell Dimensional, Location, and Aesthetic Standard Amendments: • Revise facility dispersion requirements — the existing requirement is 300' for all LPs. The proposed would be no requirement if LP1, 150' if LP2, 300' for LP3-LP5. The intent is to encourage the use of LP 1 and LP2 for full concealment in the ROW. • Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless facilities (LP2) — Allow for additional height and width. Update location/clearance requirements. Encourage use of LP2. • Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments (LP3 and LP4) — PUD doesn't allow LP3 pole -top attachments, but solutions exist. Discussions are ongoing. LP4 was landing spot for first small cell application. It requires mounting of conduits and equipment as close as possible to pole. o Require power from overhead if available to reduce conduits. Multiple points of attachment vs. single. 70 Discussions with providers are ongoing. o a Q. Staff recommends moving draft language in Attachment 1 to City Council for further refinement at their next a series of meetings. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. Greg Bush, Wireless Polia Group, on behalf of AT&T, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. AT&T is requesting that the Planning Board continue the public hearing in order to allow time for the wireless industry, Snohomish County PUD, and city staff to discuss ways to further refine the draft code into a form that is workable for wireless providers, utility and infrastructure owners, and outlines clear and reasonable procedures for city review of wireless applications. Specifically, AT&T is requesting additional time to review the code in order to address the following: 1. The City's changes are inconsistent with federal and state law and industry practice. There is currently no option for a hollow utility pole, and he is not aware of any in the pipeline. 2. Location preferences for small wireless facilities continue to not reflect feasible and available design options. 3. Design standards such as flush mounting of conduits utility poles conflict with Snohomish County PUD requirements as well as national safety standards. Flush mounting of conduit poles is not feasible because workers need to climb the poles. 4. Providing additional clarity for city staff review would be helped by continuing the public hearing and application materials and pole requirements such as Snohomish County PUD's ability to provide specific statements assessing and potentially denying types of configurations. 5. They request additional time to develop specific guidelines regarding whether a new streetlight is warranted under ECDC 20.50.070.i2c. This appears to give the director authority to determine whether a new streetlight pole (LP2) is required. There are currently no guidelines for this. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a Doug O'Donnell, Snohomish County Pam, and other PUD staff members referred to Attachment 7 and solicited any questions on the points the PUD has made. He read the letter from the PUD to the Mike Clugston. The letter stated that Snohomish County PUD has determined that placing small cell antennas on top of power poles is not viable. Any work on an antenna mounted on the top of a power pole will require Snohomish County PUD line crew to perform the work. Snohomish County PUD does not currently and has no plans to authorize third parry personnel to install antennas on top of its utility poles and does not believe that the City has the authority or should require such installations. Therefore, their preferred installation would be to have small cell antennas and radio in the communication space (40" below the lowest power attachment). This will allow the carriers to install and maintain their equipment without involving Snohomish County PUD line crews. The communication space is also the ideal height for the carriers. Currently there are designs for co -locating streetlight poles that conceal most of the small cell apparatus; however, at this time there is no available design for utility poles with concealed small cell equipment. If a hollow pole design does become available, Snohomish PUD will be required to evaluate it before any consideration of its use as a replacement for wood power poles. Also, while it could be possible to route the cell coax and power for the cell radio inside a purpose-built power pole, it would be difficult to install the antennas and radio inside the pole and make them accessible for routine maintenance. Perhaps, in the future if the size of small cell radio shrinks, this may be a viable option. a Additionally, Snohomish PUD has many other concerns related to this as listed in their comment letter. Kim Allen, Wireless Policy QLoup, Issaquah, spoke on behalf of Verizon Wireless stated she submitted a 0 comment letter today that was fairly detailed. She noted this is an extremely technical and complicated code. 'o She concurred with the others asking that the public hearing be held open for at least another 30 days to give a them and their technical teams time to provide detailed comments and suggested revisions. She stated they only a just learned about the public hearing and received the draft code on Monday. She stated that there is only one small wireless facility that has been proposed in Edmonds, and it is not a Verizon Wireless facility. It is their intent to grow the Verizon network as wireless communication is more important than ever. She concurred with N the issues identified by AT&T and urged the Planning Board to keep the hearing open to allow time for m ca meaningful feedback. a Seeing no further comments, the public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:26 p.m. Deliberation: Vice Chair Pence commented on the three very detailed, technical letters they received today. He thought this was too much to digest and move on to City Council tonight. Board Member Gladstone asked what kind of stakeholder involvement there has been. If there has been involvement why does the code not reflect any of these comments? Mr. Clugston replied there has been limited outreach to stakeholders because they know this is going to be a two-step process. Board Member Gladstone asked about the basis for creating the revised code. Mr. Clugston said it was reaction to the proposed applications that they are trying to incorporate into the current code. He stated a number of the Verizon and AT&T's comments had to do with macro cell installations; there are no proposed changes to that language. Board Member Cheung asked if the issues raised by Verizon and AT&T have already been addressed in the code. Mr. Clugston replied they have not had time to look at them in great detail. He noted that the comments referring to the macro cell code were related to a section of code that is already settled. Board Member Cheung Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a asked if staff would like more time to continue revising this based on the letters received. Mr. Clugston thought it was ready to move to Council where they would have their own introduction and their own public hearing and deliberation process. The Council could refine things as they choose. Ms. McConnell concurred. Board Member Campbell thought it would not be an effective use of Council's time to send this to them at this point with so much new information that the Board has not thoroughly reviewed. She was concerned that the outreach did not make it to some very significant stakeholders. She was in favor of giving this time to get worked out further. Board Member Rosen concurred. He thought it was the Planning Board's role to give Council good opinions after full consideration. He was supportive of allowing additional time for the stakeholders to review this and for staff to review what they provide. He was also interested in hearing comments about macro cell facilities if fatal flaws have been noticed. He was supportive of delaying a decision and of continuing the public hearing. He was confused about why the cell providers only heard about something as important as this on Monday. He wondered if this points to something they should be doing differently in the future. Board Member Kuehn agreed with Board Member Rosen. He noted that he wasn't comfortable giving feedback a on something he hasn't fully read yet. He thinks Council would just send this back to the Planning Board with a request for more information. He would like to keep the hearing open to allow more time for working this out. M If there are other issues or new technologies or questions that carriers have on the macros, he was also interested 0 in hearing about those. 'o L Q Board Member Gladstone commented that this is very complex and technical subject. She is disheartened that a the major players who are affected by this important code haven't been consulted much or at all. She also felt this undervalued the Planning Board's role in providing something to Council that is refined enough that it can be recommended or not. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS TO BE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION WITH CITY STAFF TO REFINE WHAT WAS PROPOSED TODAY. Board Member Cheung spoke in support of this motion. He concurred that this would be a more efficient use of Council's time and would produce a more useful product. He looks forward to hearing what the carriers and other stakeholders have to say. Board Member Cloutier commented that it seems like staff did the same process as last time, but the industry just got involved later this time. Vice Chair Pence was supportive of sending a product to Council that has been thoroughly worked through. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston said staff would look at the extended agenda to see when they could bring this back. NEW BUSINESS Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 13 A. Phase II Tree Code Amendments The City's new Urban Forest Planner, Deb Powers, made a presentation regarding the Phase II Tree Code Amendments. She briefly reviewed the benefits of trees which is the basis of the tree codes. The City of Edmonds' Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is the guidance document which has a goal (Goal IA) of updating tree regulations "to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations." This was accomplished last year with the adoption of the current Tree Code. At that time the Council indicated they wanted to consider codes that limit property owner tree removal with what is known as the Phase II Code Amendments. Council's preferred options for property owner tree removals was to limit the number of tree removals, have a certain waiting period between removals, and consider limiting landmark tree removals without a permit or fees. Questions related to this are: • What should trigger a permit or fees? • Should there be a minimum number of existing trees? • What about replacements? There is now consideration of expansion of the Phase II Code Amendments to consider minor changes to the current code (both development and property owners) and continued UFMP implementation. The expanded scope would be to limit property owner tree removal, consider minor changes to the current code and continue UFMP implementation. Minor code amendments relate to simplifying the code, updating Best Management Practices (BMPs), etc., streamlining the review process, addressing code interpretation issues, and addressing canopy study findings. Attachment 2 is a list of the preliminary code amendments with justification and pros and cons of the proposed amendments. Ms. Powers solicited Board feedback about the scope of the project and the general approach. Comments/Questions: Board Member Cloutier spoke in support of the scope and acknowledged the challenge of balancing tree preservation with personal freedoms. Board Member Rosen also agreed with the scope and welcomed Ms. Powers to Edmonds. Vice Chair Pence asked about the community engagement process. Ms. Powers replied that tree codes are complex and controversial. She stated that there will be a robust public engagement process. The Planning Board will be hearing Director McLaughlin's presentation about the equitable engagement framework which will be used for the outreach. Some methods of collecting public feedback include: a community survey, events like the farmers market, possible open houses, and developing stakeholder lists by groups. Vice Chair Pence asked about the possibility of ending up with a code that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups. Ms. Powers replied that would be ideal but acknowledged there are very polarizing points of view with regulating trees on private property. The goal is not necessarily to please everybody. Board Member Gladstone acknowledged the difficult task of developing this code. She hopes the public feedback that they receive will include what types of solutions people have and not just their likes and Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a dislikes. Ms. Powers agreed that this will be important and what they hope to draw out of people. She discussed the challenges of balancing growth with a livable city and environmental quality. Vice Chair Pence suggested focusing on incentives rather than penalties. He suggested fewer "sticks" and more "carrots". Ms. Powers agreed and noted that the UFMP is a toolbox that includes both "carrots" and "sticks". Board Member Cheung pointed out the importance of protecting the interests of people who might be impacted by this but don't know it yet. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien reviewed and facilitated discussion regarding the extended agenda and pending items for future consideration. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS a� Vice Chair Pence commented there are a lot of things happening in the planning realm in the City of Edmonds. c Most are related in one way or another to the Comprehensive Plan. He hopes that the Planning Board can be looped in early when these things come around. He referred to the middle housing grant application that went 0 first to City Council and was ultimately rejected by Council. The equitable engagement framework has been 'o subject to some concern by a letter writer in myedmondsnews.com, but it doesn't exist on the City's website. a The Reimagining Streets project also began in the media before the Planning Board was involved. He is 0. a concerned because these are planning projects and there is an expectation that the Planning Board should know what is going on. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Gladstone said she worked with Mr. Lien to get a time for a tour of the BD2 zone on Monday, July 18 at 10 am. If any other board members want to join (three or less members) let them know. I\ 1 Lei i1.7►1►I 1 �1►Y W The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 15 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Development Services Activity Report Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History Every year the Development Services Department updates the Planning Board and City Council on development activities in the city. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative An update on development activities will be presented to the Planning Board. It includes the following: Development Services COVID response; General information about permitting and revenues; Illustrations of development projects; and Comprehensive Plan Performance Measures While COVID has added extra challenges, permitting activity was at historic highs 2021 and development in Edmonds continues at a healthy pace. Attachments: Dev_Serv_Pres_2022_06_22 Packet Pg. 16 SUSAN MCLAUG H LI Development Services Director BJORBACK Building -- IAIIW� Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a Agenda • COVID Response • Permit Activity • Key Developments • Comp Plan Performance Measures June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department oj; EDP Q Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a COVID RESPONSE LI June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a COVID RESPONSE • Electronic permitting activities • MyBuildingPermit.com is the online portal for managing permit applications • Pre -application meetings continue over Zoom • Customer feedback on electronic processes is positive June 21, 2022 Welcome to MyBuildingPer One -stop portal for development service applications, = inspection scheduling, permit status information -j a and tip sheets for government agencies. City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 0 CV N O N 0 off, EDi Q Packet Pg. 20 5.A.a CITY HALL REOPENING June 21, 2022 • City hall reopened to the public in March Hours 10am-2pm Monday -Friday • Majority of staff are utilizing hybrid work model N • Customer assistance is provided in- N, person, virtual, or over phone and/or email City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 0 E oy P-L),,, a Packet Pg. 21 5.A.a CUSTOMER SURVEY June 21, 2022 Surveyed 29 users of the online permitting system in February 2022. IIW 0 a a • —90% of respondents stated they were satisfied with the online permit In - process and overall customer service 0 • Most respondents (53%) stated they N, did not require in -person service • Zoom meetings remain a popular, time -efficient option City of Edmonds I Development Services Department N N O N N 0 a 0 E 0. I�v Q Packet Pg. 22 5.A.a IN -PERSON SERVICE June 21, 2022 Effort to be most efficient with staff time while providing in -person customer service. Staff has been tracking demand since reopening: • Average 2.6 customers/day E OL • Average visit of 13 minutes 0 N • Less than 10% of visits require follow upto 11 Demand by Division City of Edmonds I Development Services Department ■ Planning Engineering N N O N I N d L I I 0 Oy P-L),,, a Packet Pg. 23 5.A.a PERMIT ACTIVITY June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department c a� E ca Oy e� Q c Packet Pg. 24 5.A.a REASONS FOR GETTING A PERMIT June 21, 2022 Helps protect property value Makes selling property easier Reduces liability Improves safety It's required City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 0 oy P�� a Packet Pg. 25 5.A.a PERMIT ACTIVITY HISTORY a m r :r $2,000,000---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,000 $1,800,000----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 1,800 as r $1,600,000----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 1,600 a $1,400,000---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --------------------------------------- ------ --------- ------ 1,400 2 $1,200,000 r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------- ------ -- -- -- -- -- ------ 1,200 N N $1,000,000------------------------ 1,000 to 0 I N $800,000 ------- ------ ------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -------------- ------ 800 � N N I $600,000---------------------------------------------------- 600 0 a. $400,000--------------------------------------------------------------- - 400 �I co $200,000 _ ' , ' 200 0 c $ 0 0 LO co r— w M O rl N mI;t M 0 r- w M O N m�t M 0 r— 00 M O N mI;t M 0 I- w M O� � w w w w x O M M M O O M O M O O O O O O O O O O O rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl rl N N M O M O M O M M M O O M O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O }, rl c-I rl rl c-I rl rl c-I rl rl c-I rl rl c-I oj; FDAt� Q Total Devel Svc Revenue # Building Permits `~ June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 26 5.A.a BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY TYPE June 21, 2022 Type of Permit 2020 2021 2020 2021 # Issued # Issued Valuation Valuation New '- w Single Family 32 33 $13,220,676 $13,128,167 Duplex 1(2 Units) _ bol&388,462 Apartment/Condo 2 (202 units) 9 (44 Units) $27,298,995 $8,461,547 Commerci [$2,456,999 a 0 Mixed Use (Office/condo) 0 0 $0 Additions / Alterations N N Single Family 148 150 $8,678,810 $10,598,819 0' Apartment / Condo 17M 36 $754,563 $2,171,982 0l Commercial 42 52 $6,124,564 $5,457,568 L Other Mechanical / Plumbing 470/333 652/400 Demolition 21 12 0 r Miscellaneous 256 287 $1,848,609 $1,157,270 oj� pD� Q �� c City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 27 5.A.a ENGINEERING PERMITS ISSUED Permits Issued Permit Revenue Inspection & Review Revenue June 21, 2022 $58y221 $2497427 447 $41y595 $223y678 $55y433 $2487499 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department ci a r E CL o 0 N N I $87yO8O NI 0 N I d L �I $2127935 >I 0 E Oy e� Q Packet Pg. 28 EA I FA I FA 5.A.a IMPACT FEES + 8 (1) GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES a Transportation Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Water G FC Sewer GFC Storm GFC June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department $2927730 $1347282 $274y541 $1287373 $517149 r E CL 0 aD m 0 N N, O O I N N (D N N d L 0 Oy P-L),,, a Packet Pg. 29 5.A.a SOLAR PERMITS Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Totals # of Permits F O a E a- 0 0 N NI to O I N N O N N L a m 0 June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 30 5.A.a INSPECTIONS 01 June 21, 2022 41831 Building 3y419 Engineering 235 Planning+ Fire City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Average Number of Building Inspections Q per Working Day w a 23.9 0 (2019) E 0. 0 17.4 0 (2020) N N w� N N O NI 19.2 a (2021) 0 E OIL PL4 a Packet Pg. 31 5.A.a DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department c a� E ca Ov rL4 Q c Packet Pg. 32 •i ��=•o� _ 16A ain Street Civic Field :=KEY PROJECT MA Commons _......� a �`MEMi Bell St Apts. [I! _ 01 WWTP Port Office Carbon Building Recove GBH Holdings Pine Park Edmonds Way PRD IIIIm a Issued Applied * Design Review t_,� Pre-App * Rezone .�m �_■_� Paradise Heights ■ SO IMuGlacier f Environmental Ford Hunter Townhomesli�, ■l■1� Kisan Westgate Apts.04Station Brass Tack k Housing Sunde""""'. Hope ■ OW Townhomes* aEdmonds Crossing Apts. r e Terrace Apollo Apts. Edmonds Townhomes Place ImodiiiiaMi4Ad V, ri �=F 5.A.a -..� Green[ �Townhoi s n.n.�.n. ■ O Ant ology a Se r Livia co e,..n., Q. O, ■ d i ' i i d i Q NI o� Z� CO) o E I Packet Pg. 33 1 5.A.a Wastewater Treatment Plant Issued Carbon Recovery Project 1 200 - 2nd Ave. S June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Oy PL)'It Q Packet Pg. 34 5.A.a June 21, 2022 E Apartments Issued 1 192 New Residential Units 1 23400 Highway 99 MFTE Application: 20 moderate -income and 20 low-income I— M M � AV Housing U ride Hop o r� Ism Ter toIil� 7Apartme Apo I Io Apts _ Edmonds Edmonds Plac�l ssi��lpts..�MAMIN City of Edmonds I Development Services Department L a m 0 oj: PL)1�1 a Packet Pg. 35 5.A.a Anthology of Edmonds 8 Issued 1 127 New Senior Living Units I r :r a 21200 - 72nd Ave. W E a- --- , 2 Greenhill N KFIacierTWr�far�-r Cq Environment NI - to L a Ford Hunter CO Town homes Art oI ogy, .,,1. Se r Living ... =�k E -s June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 36 5.A.a June 21, 2022 Bell St. Apartments Issued 1 4 New Residential Units 1 650 Bell St. Port Office City of Edmonds I Development Services Department k Hain street "� r Wic Fieid F 0 a m r :r a a� a 0 Commons o Bell St AptN NI NI WVVTP N NI Carbor Recoverya. MOM E�lmor�ds ply (a LV■ GPI �. 5.A.a Main St. Commons Issued I Retail, Restaurant, and Event Space 1 550/558 Main St. F 0 a m r :r a E a- 0 0 N N w I 0 I N N O N N d L a m a� 0 June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 38 5.A.a Edmonds Crossing Issued 1 10 New Residential Units 1 23830 Edmonds Way Mnde' Town homes s Edmonds 'Apartment ramor Tonho Am MIWA9 � 5 ANr=—. F 0 a m r :r a E a- 0 0 N NI to O I N N O N I N L a. Cl)� 0 Q June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 5.A.a M Koisan Townhomes Issued 1 18 New Residential Units 1 22810 Edmonds Way M jj1.,Mj aradise Heig Kisan� Westgate�' Station ' brassTack win June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 40 5.A.a Ford Hunter Townhomes AMM� Issued 4 Unit Townhomes 1 7528 - 215t" St. SW Greenhill Townhomes June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 5.A.a Heightsaradise Issued 1 12 New Residential Units 1 550 Paradise Lane F 0 a m r :r a E a- 0 0 N N to I 0 I N N O N N I d L a I m I a� 0 c a� E �a a June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 42 5.A.a Edmonds Townhomes Issued 1 4 Unit Townhome 1 8029 - 238t" St. SW Sunde Townhomes Edmonds Crossing Ap ti Housing Hots. Ta PI, GRE Apartment Apollo Apts. 7 � r � 2 Edmonds LTo nhomes MPF F 0 a m r :r a a- 0 a� 0 N NI to 0 N N 0 NI N tU a` June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 43 5.A.a Civic Field Issued I Park Updates 300 - 6t" Ave. N AW .0 . ma 4.Main StreetCivic Field Commons ..=a- Bel St Apts. wvvTp GBH Hola n6F - Port Office C - - Bu ildil"Ig ��er ILI � Edm PRD Wri��Vl11111 �Vi�� F 0 a m r :r a a- 0 0 N NI w O N N O NI N L a Cl), 0 E oj�a I p� Q Igloo G June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds Development Services Department Packet Pg. 44 5.A.a June 21, 2022 Apollo Apartments Applied 1 252 New Residential Units 1 23601 Highway 99 MFTE Application: 25 moderate -income and 26 low-income 5unde Townhomes ------- ` Q;;L_ Housing Hopi Edmonds Crossing Apts. City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Apartment04 N� 0 I 04 Apollo Apts. N Edmonds Terrace Townho es 0, 0 y E OV PL4 a Packet Pg. 45 5.A.a Port Office Building Port Office Building Applied 1 6,650 sf. New Commercial Main Street Crrlons..:.'. WWTP GBH Holdings.a==I, Carbon" --- -- - - � � Recovery Pine Park ys r M HUM 471 Admiral Way a June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 46 5.A.a Westgate Station Applied 1 4,700 sf. Commercial + 20 Residential Units 1 9601 Edmonds Way ORR � Paradise Height jht vveszgate Station �rass Tac ohm June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Developm WA 5.A.a Pine Park Applied 1 6 Live/Work + 8 Unit Townhome Port Office Building June 21, 2022 a 1 n Street commons CiVi c Fi el d W P GIBHWbiJl%s= C3 f bo)n �■�■�Illlll�lllllr 614/616-5t"Ave S. City of Edmonds I Development Services Department G Packet Pg. 48 r L O Q ci a E Q. d > m 0 N N to N N O NI N a a� 0 r c a 5.A.a June 21, 2022 Sunde Townhomes Design Review 1 5 Unit Townhome 1 8629 - 238t" St. SW 5unde Townhomes* City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Hope r L O Q ci a E CL 0 OJI Apartment04 N04 ApoI I is 0 N 0 N d Edmonds � a ownhomes � 0 -s U Packet Pg. 49 5.A.a Greenhill Townhomes Design Review I U. V- la le iranmental Ford Hunt Tovynhame EM June 21, 2022 6 Unit Townhome t Greenhill 7103 - 210t" St. SW City of Edmonds I Development Services Department F 0 a m r :r a E a- 0 0 N NI t0 0 N N O NI N 0 a` 0 E 0y F:L) t, Q w� Packet Pg. 50 5.A.a Vehicle Access I I 3 ? 0 2 v E. o , N N A 13'Setback GBH Holdings Design Review 24 Unit Townhome 627 -Dayton St. 3-Story Apartment Building 24u,dsas,24u,de ,d Pan* Scares A4po..a*24,M SF -------------- Existing Sidewalk 627 Dayton DAYTON STREET n June 21, 2022 Port OfifiE .-4 .1 1. City of Edmonds I Development Services Department r L O Q ci a E �R 2 Main Street- � Commons Civic Field o ji a... ANK a} N Edell St Apts. "i i+ -F g;o 0 h Ni W TP GBH Holdings = = N r Carbon 21 L Pine Parr q= Kn -_ INN of Ed mo n�a IL, Pi � Ji� P.ojFDA a Packet Pg. 51 5.A.a ■ r L 9 O Q Housin Hope ci a Design Review 52 New Residential Units + Services 8215 - 236t" St. SW On -site programs include household management, finance, parenting, and health. E June 21, 2022 F L [ W PIOM All U 5unde Town homes 1; Edmonds Crossing Apts. City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Terrace Place # G FEE Apa rt m en Q I Io Apts. rL 0 0 N NI 0 0 I N N 0 N Townhomes o oj; P,D,It Q �_ Packet Pg. 52 5.A.a Glacier Environment a Design Review I New Commercial Office +Warehouse I I ' o a m r :r a 7509 - 212t" St. SW ■Glacier Environment Ford Hunter Tory home s E a- bwN d frlhill N To ryh ft-e:s 2n�tol glIliN cPaaico ISe i vi n June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department 5.A.a Terrace Place Pre-App 260 New Residential Units 1 23625 - 84t" Ave. W u nde Off ii ii rri Edmonds .Crossing Apts. June 21, 2022 Housing Hope r � Terrace Pl acem G FEE # Apartment .j- � MMM - - A Edmonds Townhomes CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI CI in i CI 11 CI CI CI CImrn17 CI CImrn17 VAM i� ; 1� 17 1� 17 pm. 1� 17 ppl 17 17 IM: gill 17 ppl 1� 17 M 17 1 :I :1 :1rn :Imrn17 "Mi i� ^Gad I I I I 17 r7 17 le I: 1:m17 1� leml7 rn 11 1 r7 r7 r7 ! ; mrn mrn m !rnCI rn17 !rn mrn m !rnCl �1 ii iin ii ii iI —i ii ii iii ii ii iii iin Fill ii INS[ City of Edmonds I Development Services Department E OV LOA -s -- lqliia� U Packet Pg. 54 5.A.a Brass Tack Investments Rezone I June 21, 2022 7 New Residential Units 1 9516 Edmonds Way City of Edmonds I Development Services Department -ys - N N N N I d L a I m I a� 0 c a� E ca OIL P,D �y c Packet Pg. 55 I Port Office Building F/F CAL fdw Main Street Commons Civic Field is Bell St Apts. WWTp GBH Moldings = =�. Carbon Recover Pine Park MlKRII II S Edmonds Way P D Pre-App 1 16 Lot Planned Residential Development 1 540/550 Edmonds June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Nla co NI . «. --- --- N N d L a i m Cn i m 0 :.o c m E ca off, EJ) Q y,, w liia� Packet Pg. 56 5.A.a COMP PLAN � PERFORMANCE MEASURES June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department c a� E ca oy e� Q c Packet Pg. 57 5.A.a COMP PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES F 0 Annually report on: • city-wide and city government energy use • number of residential units permitted • average number of jobs within the city • lineal feet of water, sewer, and stormwater,13 mains replaced or rehabilitated 0 N • review Capital Facilities Plan project of NI delivery results N 0 N I • lineal feet of sidewalk renovated or I rehabilitated I 0 E -s U June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 58 5.A.a Commercial Residential CITY-WIDE ENERGY Consumption Consumption USE, ELECTRICITY up 14% YOY up 23% YOY o a CITY-WIDE 250 E a- 0 O m 07 > 200 00 C6 LO (3) � 00 LO LO 00 LO 00 00 In O L CO N N 150 � O� 06 � °� CY) � °° N � 00 C3 � CO C) N 00 00 � (01 0 1 o NI 100 LO 00 CO QO N L a m ml 50 1H rn °� o °� o CO3 CO rn >' , o 0 E 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ■ Commercial Residential � June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 59 5.A.a CITY GOVERNMENT ENERGY USE, ELECTRICITY 9 8 7 6 � 5 0 4 3 2 1 0 00 LO ti r-I T4 2011 2012 2013 June 21, 2022 City Government Consumption down 9% YOY ° a CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES E a 0 m m 0 N N co to � � N o Cfl co 00 00 O NI Ln (0 LO C14 L6 N U) I sy a i a� Cl) a� O N 00 O LO N L ~ I ~ L ~ 4 4 4 E 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 01c ■ Electric Utility Street Lighting City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 60 5.A.a NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PERMITTED Target: Average: June 21, 2022 112 units/yr. 88 units/yr. Year Housing Type SF Multi Duplex ADU 2021 33 44 1 4 2020 32 202 - 6 2019 26 26 2 7 2018 57 4 4 9 2017 60 120 4 7 2016 41 97 - 4 2015 53 4 - 5 2014 46 43 14 6 2013 36 - - 5 2012 27 - - - 2011 15 89 - 5 total 1 629 25 58 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Demo (12) (20) (16) (24) (23) (16) (11) (19) (19) (8) (174) E O Net 70 Cn 220 45 50 E O 168 0 126 N 51 0 90 N N CD NI 22I L 19 �I 103 964 OIL PL4 a Packet Pg. 61 5.A.a AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS ADDED Target: Average: June 21, 2022 95 jobs/yr. 220 jobs/yr. Year I Covered Employment 2021 Not yet released L o 2020 137084 w a 2019 127738 2018 127480 0 2017 127717 O ' 0 2016 107883 N N 0 2015 107677 N N NI N 2014 117542 d L 2013 127721 ' 0 2012 117952 2011 107880 G��0`F `a City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 62 5.A.a LINEAL FEET OF WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER MAINS REPLACED OR REHABILITATED Lineal Feet Water 2021 Replaced 47715 327 Rehabilitated - 37546 2022 Replaced 77016 27369 Rehabilitated - 17934 F O a E a- 0 0 N N Storm N N 1,569 N m 47361 0 U June 21, 2022 City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Packet Pg. 63 5.A.a CFP PROJECT DELIVERY RESULTS June 22, 2022 Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development Community Park/Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School Main St. & 9th Ave S (interim solution) 76th Ave. W & 212th St. SW intersection improvements 76th Ave. W & 220th St. SW intersection improvements 228th St SW Corridor Safety Improvements Residential Traffic Calming Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @Dayton and Main St. Dayton St. and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements Edmonds Marsh/ShellabargerCr/Willow Cr/Day-lighting/Restoration Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/ Management Project Previously added UP projects that are active Highway 99 Gateway/Revitalization Stage 2 238 St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to SR104 Dayton St. Walkway from 3rd Ave to 9th Ave Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave New UP projects added in 2020-2025 UP Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave to 7th Ave SR104 Walkway from HAWK Signal to Pine St/Pine St from SR104 to 3rd Ave Citywide Bicycle Improvements Downtown Lighting Improvements Waterfront Re -development New UP projects added in 2021-2026 UP SR-104 Adaptive System 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave New UP projects added in 2022-2027 UP Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (244th St - 238th St) Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (220th St - 224th St) City of Edmonds I Development Services Department Conceptual Complete Conceptual Complete Conceptual Complete Design/ROW Complete Conceptual Design in progress Design/ROW Complete Conceptual On -going annual program Conceptual Complete Design Complete Study Conceptual Study On -going capital program Conceptual Construction in progress Complete Conceptual Selected Sections Completed Design in progress c14 N Completed in 2020 cl Project does not have secured funding N c In-Progress/On-going NI Project does not have secured funding m Completed in 2020 a, i :r Design to begin in 2022 to Project does not have secured funding d .r Preliminary Design to begin in 2022 y Design to begin in 2022 E Design to begin in 2022 ov ED'It Q r i. ir/ U —s Packet Pg. 64 5.A.a LINEAL FEET OF SIDEWALK RENOVATED OR REHABILITATED 2021 2020 Lineal Feet Contractors 1 - Will be Public Works added soon Private Development' Contractors 1,170'IL Public Works 3007 Private Development 3,459' City of EdmondsDepartment 0 A y� 2 \` IN 'w" Packet Pg. 65 5.A.a 111] =1 I Is c a� E ca 01c e� Q �y c Packet Pg. 66 5.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Equitable Engagement Framework Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative As the City of Edmonds prepares to update several citywide plans, including the Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and Transportation Plan, the City is developing a more equitable and consistent approach to community engagement. The City of Edmonds consistently leads project specific community engagement and often hears from people who are white, people who own their own homes, people who use English, and people who have high incomes. To encourage new voices, broader representation, and to uncover the City's practices that make it easier for some folks to participate, the City of Edmonds is investing in building a comprehensive equitable community engagement framework. Equitable and inclusive engagement involves spending more time and energy to engage people who have been historically underrepresented and people most impacted by a project. It also includes processes that support participation by people who are Black, people who are Indigenous, people of color, people who use languages other than English, people who are immigrants and refugees, and people with low incomes. The City's goal is to create a framework for engaging and building meaningful relationships with communities who have historically been underrepresented in planning for public infrastructure and other City projects. The City of Edmonds has hired PRR to evaluate Edmonds' current demographics and learn from community partners and then develop a framework to guide equitable, inclusive, and meaningful community engagement for citywide projects and planning efforts. Staff will provide a presentation on the Equitable Engagement Framework project at the Planning Board meeting. Attachments: Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework.2 Packet Pg. 67 Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework Demographic Analysis Overview Susan McLaughlin, Director of Development Services City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 68 5.B.a Equitable Engagement Framework Goal: to create a framework for engaging and building meaningful relationships with communities who have historically been underrepresented in planning for public infrastructure and other City projects. Staff lead: Susan McLaughlin Description AM Discovery • Team kickoff meeting 90-minute project kick-off meeting to confirm City goals, objectives, strategies, key audiences, and timeline (COMPLETE) • Demographic data review Summary of demographic data up to three (3) pages in length (COMPLETE) • Interviews Up to 15 community interview summaries and one (1) summary of themes and key recommendations. (80% COMPLETE) Equitable Engagement framework • Criteria map Criteria to map underrepresented communities Map depicting priority neighborhood/communities • Community champions list Leaders and/or organizations within the top ten communities identified as underrepresented Timeline: Framework complete by July 15 Framework Equitable engagement framework document Review with Planning Board Review with City Council Packet Pg. 69 5.B.a s Purpose of Demographic Review W LVI M. This report aims to provide a demographic profile U of communities in the City of Edmonds. These N demographics include age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, internet access, and language spoken at home. The demographic analysis allows the City and project teams to make data -informed plans about community engagement. ,-T Packet Pg. 70 Geographic areas To identify priority audiences, neighborhoods, and groups of people that have been underrepresented in prior engagement efforts, the report summarizes population characteristics within ten identified geographic locations • Census Tracts 502 (Area 1) • Census Tracts 505.01 (Area 6) • Census Tracts 503 (Area 2) • Census Tracts 505.02 (Area 7) • Census Tracts 504.02 (Area 3) • Census Tracts 507 (Area 8) • Census Tracts 504.03 (Area 4) • Census Tracts 508 (Area 9) • Census Tracts 504.04 (Area 5) • Census Tracts 509 (Area 10) 5.B.a s �rlr iY`l� E W how � W C. ��W Packet Pg. 71 Methods Quantitative approach We conducted secondary data analysis using data from the United States Census Bureau (2020 American Community Survey) to identify 13 key population characteristics at the individual level and household level. We included the City of Edmonds demographics in the table as references. Individual -level demographics Household level demographics • Age • Household living situation (younger family ) • Sex • Housing tenure • Race and ethnicity • Transit dependency • Poverty (below 200% Federal Poverty Level) • Computer use and internet subscription • Citizenship status • Household income • People living with a disability • Language spoken at home Packet Pg. 72 . . Notable sex and age differences Adults under 18 • Area 5 - 25% • Area 10 - 25% • Area 8 - 22 % • Area 2 - 21% Older than 55 • Area 6 - 62% • Area 7 - 52% Area 6 has 26% more female than male residents ake ce Poverty and household income • Largest percent of community members below 200% FPL • Area 5 - 19% • Area 6 - 17% • Area 10 -17% • Lowest household median incomes • Area 10 - $62,560 • Area 6 - $62,958 • Area 5 - $81,581 5.B.a s j .o C 4) W r-, ake ce 1C4 7 Packet Pg. 74 • • • • Race and ethnicity More than a quarter of the total population is Hispanic or Latino, 27% The Vietnamese population makes up 7% of the total population Area 5 has the largest proportion of people who are BIPOC, 47% Area 10 has the second largest proportion of people of color, 45% 5.B.a :s d E W W Packet Pg. 75 Limited English proficiency and language spoken at home Areas 10, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of people who speak English less than "very well. Area 10 Total population • 16% Spanish: 11% Chinese": 4% Vietnamese: 3% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 3% "Chinese includes Mandarin and Cantonese 3,950 14% Spanish: 17% Vietnamese: 4% 6,420 8% Spanish: 5% Korean: 4% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 2% The section only includes languages that are more than 2% of people spoken in the area. �,W Packet Pg. 76 Citizenship status Area 1 2/ Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 2% Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Edmonds Not a U.S. citizen 3% 3% 3% 4% 7% 9% 13% 13% 14% ika cc Packet Pg. 77 Largest percent of people living with a disability With an independent living difficulty With a self -care difficulty Disability Q33 5% 4% 5% 1% 2% With an ambulatory difficulty MML M 3% 4% 9% 1% With a cognitive difficulty 1% 4% 3% With a vision difficulty 2% - 1% 1% 3% 9% With a hearing difficulty 6% 4% Area 6 ■ Area 7 ■ Area 8 ■ Area 9 10% 11% Area 6: 19% Area 7: 13 Area 8: 13 Area 9: 13 ,-T Packet Pg. 78 Housing Tenure A re a 1 A re a A re a A re a 4 A re a 5 A re a 6 A re a 7 Area 8 A re a 9 Are a 10 Edmonds 9 % 10 Renter -occupied housing units 15 o M o 4 o 7% ��}} 4 4 o 28% 5 0 o 8 Packet Pg. 79 Lack of Internet Subscriptions The section includes proportion of people without an Internet subscription and Cellular data plan as the only Internet subscription. Limited internet access Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Area 9 Area 10 Edmonds 4% 11% 11% 12% 25% I� W ,M Packet Pg. 80 5.B.a Deliverables • Community Champions list • 105 organizations • Focus on organizations that represented historically underrepresented communities including • people who are BIPOC, • people who are immigrants or refugees • people who are experiencing poverty • people who are experiencing homelessness • young families • people with limited or impaired abilities • people who are (LGBTQIA+ • people who use languages other than English, specifically Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. • People who are older than 55 Packet Pg. 81 5.B.a Deliverables • Community Interviews ✓ 9 complete City of Edmonds Police Department -'Edmonds College - Center for Student Cultural Diversity & Inclusion Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition Friends of the Edmonds Library Korean Community Services Center Program for Early Parent Support Resident Action Project Washington Kids in Transition Arc of Snohomish County Communities of Color (0) Coalition Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation St. Michael Ethiopian Tewanda Church W Key Audience,� People with disabilities N General community, people who are Black o Student population, people who are LGBTQIA+ General community General community, youth and families Korean community Young families People who are BIPOC; people with low incomes Youth, people who are experiencing homelessness, Latinx Communii People with disabilities People who are BIPOC General community, people who are LGBTQIA+ Ethiopian community Latino Educational Training Institute (LETI) Latinx community Packet Pg. 82 5.B.a Deliverables • Demographic Analysis and Criteria Mapping • Summary and data table provided 06/17/2022 • Framework • Draft due week of June 20 • Final due July 15 Packet Pg. 83 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Salmon -Safe Certification Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Prepared By: Angie Feser Narrative The Salmon -Safe program has recommended that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon -Safe subject to 3 Pre -Conditions and 12 Conditions listed in the report (Attachment #1). During the May 25, 2022 Parks & Planning Board presentation of Salmon -Safe Certification, the Board requested the following information for their next review and consideration of recommendation to the City Council. 1. Prioritization of the 12 conditions along with criteria used to prioritize them. 2. Estimation of costs for each of the conditions, including staff commitments. 3. Time estimates that would be required. 4. Any private landowner requirements that would be necessary to meet the standards. 5. Confirmation that the city would meet preconditions 1 and 2. The attached memo (Attachment #2) addresses each of these items as well as identifies city staff responses and implementation recommendations for a number of the Conditions for the Board's review and contemplation. Staff Recommendation Planning Board consider recommending the City Council approve the conditional Salmon Safe Certification as found in the attached Report and consider staff's recommendations for possible revisions. History In 2020, the Mayor directed staff to pursue a Salmon -Safe Certification after a recommendation from the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee. The Council approved the $38,800 expenditure in the 2021 budget. The project started in fall of 2021 and continued through to the submittal of the Certification Recommendation to the City. This was presented to the Planning Board for review and consideration of recommendation to the City Council for adoption. It was also reviewed by city staff and City Attorney. Salmon -Safe Program Salmon -Safe is a leading regional U.S. certification program oriented towards reducing impacts on water quality and fish habitat from urban land and water management practices. Since being founded by Pacific Rivers in 1997, Salmon -Safe has worked collaboratively with more than 900 urban and agricultural landowners and certified approximately 100,000 acres in key salmon watersheds. In recent years, Salmon -Safe has expanded beyond single sites, campuses, and developments to certify Packet Pg. 84 7.A jurisdictions on a system -wide basis across municipal sites, developments, and operations, including the City of Portland, Oregon, in 2016 and the City of Shoreline, Washington, in 2019. The City of Edmonds is the second Washington municipality to seek Salmon -Safe citywide certification. Assessment Process The Salmon -Safe assessment process consisted of a series of interviews with 1S key personnel, extensive document and policy review, and field visits to 16 different City parks and facilities. The assessment process culminated in a certification report (Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington). These tasks were conducted by Salmon -Safe staff and an interdisciplinary team of scientists (the Science Team) with expertise in fisheries, salmon habitat requirements, aquatic ecosystems, innovative stormwater management, land management, and integrated pest management (IPM). Certification Report At the completion of the field visits, the Science Team, supported by Salmon -Safe staff, met to discuss observations made during the site visits and identified additional questions for City staff. The Science Team also identified several additional documents that were needed for them to complete the site assessment. The Science Team and Salmon -Safe staff met again to review the additional information provided and discuss conditions for certification. Following this, the Science Team and Salmon -Safe staff finalized conditions for certification and reached a final unanimous decision on certification, recommending that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon -Safe subject to 3 pre -conditions and 12 conditions listed in the report, addressing topics ranging from habitat protection and restoration to stormwater management. Attachments: Salmon Safe Certification -City of Edmonds DRAFT V2 Salmon -Safe Memo Packet Pg. 85 SALMON -SAFE INC. SALMON Salmon -Safe Inc. 1001 SE Water Ave, Suite 450 Portland, Oregon 97214 (503)232-3750 info@salmonsafe.org SAFEwww.salmonsafe.org May 9, 2022 M7 0 Q. as c 0 `17C. 199, U Packet Pg. 86 7.A.a CONTENTS Recommendation Summary .................................................... 1 Background..................................................................... 1 Overview of City of Edmonds Facilities and Policies ............................... 1 The Assessment Process....................................................... 3 0 Science Team................................................................... 3 a � Interviews...................................................................... 5 c 0 Table 1. Staff Interviewed 5 .................................................... Document Reviews.............................................................. 5 Table 2. Documents Reviewed ............................................... 5 V FieldReviews................................................................... 6 Table 3. Sites Visited during Field Review ..................................... 7 JT y c 0 General Observations......................................................... 9 E M W Certification Conditions....................................................... 14 N Certification Recommendation.................................................. 14 Certification Preconditions 1-3.............................................. 14 u_ Q Certification Conditions 1-12................................................ 15 C Continuing Improvement Recommendations ..................................... 23 Conclusions.................................................................. 24 APPENDIX A Model Stormwater Management Guidelines for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment ......... 26 Introduction................................................................ 26 Goal & Objectives........................................................... 27 PlanElements............................................................... 28 Considerations for Salmon -Safe Certification .................................. 30 APPENDIX B Pesticide Storage Management Checklist ........................................... 32 Packet Pg. 87 7.A.a 0 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY The Salmon -Safe Science Team is pleased to recommend that the City of Edmonds, Washington, be certified Salmon -Safe, subject to the conditions detailed in this report. Background In 2000, Salmon -Safe expanded beyond agricultural land certification to apply the Salmon -Safe assessment and certification process to land and water manage- ment within the urban realm. This initiative significantly advanced restoration efforts in urbanized watersheds by developing urban aquatic protection guidelines and a citizen education campaign throughout the Pacific Northwest. Working closely with independent scientists and technical experts, Salmon -Safe developed a comprehensive certification framework oriented towards reducing impacts on water quality and fish habitat from urban land and water management practices? Since 2005, more than 60 urban sites have received Salmon -Safe certifica- tion in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. While Salmon -Safe standards are designed as a stand-alone program, they can also complement other leading certifi- cation standards (e.g., LEED, Sustainable Sites, Envision, and Earth Advantage). As an overlay certification, Salmon -Safe certifies project activities that specifically address ecological function and the quality of habitat for fish, wildlife, and people. In recent years, Salmon -Safe has expanded beyond single sites or developments to certify jurisdictions on a system -wide basis across municipal sites, developments, and operations, including the City of Portland, Oregon, in 2016 and the City of Shore- line, Washington, in 2019. The City of Edmonds is the second Washington municipality to seek Salmon -Safe citywide certification. 0 OVERVIEW OF CITY OF EDMONDS FACILITIES AND POLICIES The City of Edmonds covers 10.01 square miles at the southwestern corner of Snohomish County and includes more than 42,000 residents. Edmonds is generally bounded by the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace to the east, the City of Shoreline to the south, the Town of Woodway and Puget Sound to the west, and unincorporated Snohomish County to the north. Edmonds is approximately 94% built -out with the vast majority of the land use as single-family or multi -family residential homes. The City of Edmonds operates as a mayor —council government, with an elected mayor and a seven -member City Council. Departments that oversee activities and facilities that pertain to Salmon -Safe include Parks, Cultural Arts & Human Services; Development Services; and Public Works and Utilities. ' Salmon -Safe standards for Urban Development can be found at https://solmonsafe.org/certification/urban-development. The current version of these standards is 3.0, but this assessment was conducted under version 2.0 because the new standards did not come into effect until after the certification assessment began. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 1 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 7N7 Packet Pg. 88 7.A.a Edmonds has five miles of shoreline along Puget Sound, which is crossed by several streams, including Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek, which flow into Edmonds Marsh, Shell Creek, Northstream Creek, Fruitdale Creek, Perrinville Creek, Terrace Creek, Outfall Creek, Stilthouse Creek, and Lund's Gulch Creek. The City consists of 26 local sub -basins, with 24 of those basins eventually draining into Puget Sound. The remaining two basins are part of the greater Lake Ballinger watershed which discharges into Lake Washington. Edmonds has 47 parks with 230 acres of open and preserved space. Downtown Edmonds has several major parks, including the public beach at Brackett's Landing on both sides of the ferry terminal, City Park overlooking Edmonds Marsh, Marina Beach Park, and the future Civic Field, which is currently under construction just north of downtown. A view of Edmonds Marsh with Washington state map and location of the City of Edmonds The City also has several urban forests and natural reserves, which preserve some of the original vegetation of the area and provide hiking and walking trails. Edmonds Marsh Park, on 22 acres south of downtown, is one of the few remaining saltwater marshes in the state and is home to 225 species of bird and several walking trails. The largest wooded space in the City is the county -owned and -maintained Southwest Snohomish County Park, with 120 acres of land along Olympic View Drive at the north end of the City. Yost Park is another large natural area that contains one of the few large areas of native forest that remain in Edmonds. The park is situated along Shell Creek and the deep ravine its waters carved over time. Edmonds' Stormwater System Utility is responsible for managing stormwater drainage and protecting surface water quality through adherence with their Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Drinking water is purchased from the Alderwood Water Wastewater District who in turn sources their water from the Spada Reservoir managed by the City of Everett. Wastewater services are provided by the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant located in downtown Edmonds. This is a regional facility that also provides services to Mountlake Terrace, Ronald Sewer District, and the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The City of Edmonds' 2015 Strategic Action Plan includes as one of its primary objectives to "maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment." Several specific action items were identified under this objective that are particularly relevant to Salmon -Safe: • 2a.3 — Reroute Shellabarger Creek back to Edmonds Marsh by creating new channels that will allow drainage through the deposited sediments • 2a.4 —Plant street trees, restore native habitat in disturbed areas, remove invasive species to promote use of native and drought resistant plants and restoration of wildlife habitat Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 2 Packet Pg. 89 7.A.a • 2a.5 —Resolve on -going flooding and water quality issues in Lake Ballinger • 2a.8 — Daylight Willow Creek to help with restoring saltwater access to Edmonds Marsh • 2a.9 —Continue to encourage the development of rain gardens, green roofs and walls, bio-filtration swales, and other green develop- ment features in Edmonds' projects and development codes The City has made progress on these action items, as discussed below in the General Observations and Conclusions section. The City has also adopted a Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan that estab- lished a goal of preserving, protecting, and enhancing critical habitat and ecosystems The latest version of the PROS plan was adopted in 2016. The plan has been revised and will be considered for adoption by the City Council in 2022. MTHE ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Salmon -Safe assessment process consisted of interviews with key management personnel (see Table 1), document and policy review (see Table 2), and field reviews of specific parks and facilities (see Table 3). The assessment process culminated in a certification report (this document). These tasks were conducted by Salmon -Safe staff and an interdisciplinary team of scientists (the Science Team) with expertise in fisheries, salmon habitat requirements, aquatic ecosystems, innovative stormwater management, land management, and integrated pest management (IPM), as summa- rized below. Science Team The Science Team for this project was composed of Tad Deshler, Dr. Richard Horner, Jose Carrasquero, and Barbara DeCaro. Tad Deshler: Environmental Scientist, Coho Environmental Mr. Deshler's practice focuses on environmental assessment and impact a, with particular focus on the interaction between built and natural environments. Much of his project work has centered around aquatic sites, or at the interface between aquatic sites and the adjacent upland environments, where understanding the transport mechanisms that connect upland and in -water environments is paramount. Tad earned a BA degree in Aquatic Biology from the University of California at Santa Barbara and an MS degree in Animal Science from the University of California at Davis. Tad also has specialized expertise in sediment assessment and management, risk assessment, and chemical transport and fate studies. Dr. Richard Horner: Stormwater Management Expert, University of Washington Dr. Horner received engineering BS and MS degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and a PhD in civil and environmental engineering from the University of Washington in 1978. Following 13 years of college teaching and professional practice, he joined the University of Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 3 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 90 7.A.a The Sammc Washington research faculty in 1981, where he held appointments in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Landscape Architecture, and the Center for Urban Horticulture. His principal research interests involve analyzing the effects of human activities, especially in urban areas, on freshwater ecosystems and solutions that protect these resources. Dr. Horner founded the Center for Urban Water Resources Management in 1990 to advance applied research and education in these areas. He is now emeritus research associate professor and splits his time between private practice and some continuing university research. Jose Carrasquero: Fisheries and Marine Biologist Wiith a BA and a MS degree from the University of Washington, Jose brings 30 years of experience to his work. He performs feasibility assessments and alternative analyses for instream, riparian, and floodplain salmon habitat projects. He participates in the design of fish passage projects and reviews construction projects to assess whether they comply with local, state, and federal laws. Through these project reviews, he evaluates construction plans and recommends best management practices and mitigation measures. As a technical expert, Jose has participated in the development of guidance and technical documents sup- porting planning and regulation under the Growth Management and Shoreline Management Acts. He has also reviewed and scored projects submitted for funding through the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration program, and the Recovery Funding Board. Barbara DeCaro is a retired Senior Environmental Analyst, and an active Horticulturist and Continuing Education Instructor. Her professional work centers on public landscape management focused on education and training of best management practices for landscapes, horticulture, urban forestry, and design, development and implementation of environmental policies and programs, including water conservation, integrated pest management, urban wildlife management, and Green Stormwater Infrastructure. She holds a bachelor's degree in Botany from the University of Washington, Seattle and enjoyed a 32-year career in Seattle Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources. Barbara also spent 6 years as a Horticulture instructor for South Seattle College, Landscape Horticulture Program, and Lake Washington Institute of Technology's Environmental Horticulture program and continues to work with the ecoPRO Certified Sustainable Landscape Professional training program, managed by Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association. Tad Deshler Richard Horner Jose Carrasquero Barbara DeCaro Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 4 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 91 7.A.a Interviews For the first step in the assessment process, Salmon -Safe staff conducted interviews with key management and facility staff (Table 1). The purposes of these interviews were to obtain an understanding of ongoing activities relevant to Salmon -Safe and to identify specific opportunities for improvement, as identified by individual City staff. Table 1. Staff interviewed Pamela Randolph I Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Tod Moles I Street/Storm Manager); Chuck Hiatt I Street Leadworker Mike Adams I Fleet Manager Zack Richardson Stormwater Engineer); Pat Johnson I Stormwater Technician Kris Kuhnhausen Water/Sewer—Water Leadworker Jeff Kobylk Water/Sewer—Water Quality Technician Angie Feser Parks Director; Jesse Curran I Parks Maintenance Lead Thom Sullivan I Facilities Manager Rob Chave I Planning Manager; Kemen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager Mike Delilla I Senior Utilities Engineer; Henry Schroder I Capital Projects Manager �Mllll Am Document Reviews 11.30.2021 12.1.2021 12.1.2021 12.2.2021 12.2.2021 12.2.2021 12.2.2021 12.2.2021 12.6.2021 The Science Team was provided with multiple documents and websites to review prior to conducting field reviews (Table 2). The intent of this document review task was for the Science Team to become familiar with applicable codes, policies, and plans adopted by the City of Edmonds. The Science Team continued to identify and review additional documents throughout the assessment process that are not listed on Table 1. These documents were typically related to specific projects and locations. Table 2. Documents reviewed Long-range planning web page Comprehensive Plan (2020) Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) Tablet continues nextpage > Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 5 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 10) ) Packet Pg. 92 7.A.a Long-range plans, continued Streetscape and Street Tree Plan (2015) Shoreline Master Program (2021) Urban Forest Management Plan (2019) Highway 99 Sub -area Plan (2017) W Operations Stormwater: NPDES Program Plan and 2020 Report Maps, GIS Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Parks Snow and Ice Standard Operating Procedures (Snow & ICE SOP) Project plans for current capital projects Lake Ballinger I Willow Creek I Perrinville Creek Codes Stormwater code and reference documents Critical Areas regulations Sustainability Mayor's Climate Protection Committee web page Climate Action Plan web page Sustainability web pages Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Element (2020) Strategic Action Plan (2015) Low -Impact Development web pages Field Reviews The Science Team conducted field reviews of selected sites throughout the City. The sites were intended to represent a variety of land use types, including both natural areas and infrastructure. Throughout the site visits, the Science Team asked many questions of the City staff accompanying them about specific locations and also about City-wide practices. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 6 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 10) ) Packet Pg. 93 7.A.a Table 3. Sites visited during field review Site Type Park (under Civic Center Playfield construction) 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach, Henry Schroder Seaview Park Park 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach Marina Beach Park Park 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach, Jesse Curran Brackett's Landing Park Park 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach, Jesse Curran Edmonds Waterfront Center Park/ Building 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach, Jesse Curran Hickman Park Park 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach City Hall Building 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach Green 81st & 83rd Ave rain gardens stormwater 12.21.2021 Jenn Leach, Pat Johnson infrastructure Yost Park/Upper Shell Creek Park/Natural 1.28.2022 Jenn Leach, Joe Scordino*, Area/Creek Greg Ferguson* Willow Creek Hatchery Hatchery/ 1.28.2022 Jenn Leach, Joe Scordino*, Natural Area Greg Ferguson* Edmonds Marsh Natural Area 1.28.2022 Jenn Leach, Joe Scordino*, ' Greg Ferguson* Perrinville Creek Creek 1.28.2022 Jenn Leach, Pat Johnson Lower Shell Creek Creek/Natural 1.28.2022 Jenn Leach, Pat Johnson Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Infrastructure 3.3.2022 Pamela Randolph Parks & Facilities Operations Maintenance Yard yard 3.4.2022 Jenn Leach, Jesse Curran & City Park Public Works Operations Operations 3.4.2022 Jenn Leach, Tod Moles, and Maintenance Center yard Mike Johnson, Pat Johnson * citizen volunteer At the completion of the field visits, the Science Team, supported by Salmon -Safe staff, met to discuss observations made during the site visits and identified additional questions for City staff. The Science Team also identified several additional documents that were needed for them to complete the site assessment. The Science Team and Salmon -Safe staff met again on April 19, 2022, to review the additional information provided and discuss conditions for certification. On May 9, 2022, the Science Team and Salmon -Safe staff finalized conditions for certification and reached a final unani- mous decision on certification. 0 a as c 0 m U m R c 0 M U) Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 7 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 94 7.A.a Salmon -Safe staff meets virtually with City of Edmonds staff to kick off the certifi- cation process, dis- cussing a work plan and the goals of each phase of the assessment. Above: Members of the Salmon -Safe Science Team convene to share their views and observations across various disciplines and areas of expertise. Left: Fish biologist and Salmon -Safe Science Team member, Jose Carras- ^�^� quero, reviews the City's response to habitat restoration -related questions. .sw.wwrr.ru..w....�r..rr....w.. 'r`r. r"r.rwrir..r..w.r..�.rr..r.rr-.....�..... �.......r. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 8 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 95 7.A.a 0 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The Science Team took note of a strong organizational motivation and enthusiasm for environmentally sustainable policies and practices, as evidenced by the sustain - ability elements in the 2015 Strategic Action Plan, 2020 Comprehensive Plan, and the draft 2022 PROS Plan. These plans and policies are largely consistent with Salmon -Safe standards, although the inclusion of additional environmental commitments may be warranted, as discussed below in the Certification Conditions section. An ongoing volunteer -led water quality monitoring program (Edmonds Stream Team) has been in place since 2015. Under this program, water quality and habitat conditions data are collected monthly at Shell, Willow, Shellabarger, Hindley, Perrinville, and Lund's Gulch Creeks, and from the Edmonds and Shellabarger Marshes. High school student volunteers in Students Saving Salmon have also conducted salmon and habitat enhance- ment activities. Water quality has generally been good in the creeks, but temperature and dissolved oxygen frequently do not meet state standards in Edmonds Marsh. In addition, toxic hydrocarbons have been detected at concentrations above state standards in water from Edmonds Marsh. Restoration of Edmonds Marsh, including daylighting of Willow Creek, is a high priority for the City. Multiple studies have been conducted in recent years to collect the neces- sary baseline data and study restoration alternatives. The Parks Master Plan referred to in the draft PROS plan would be the appropriate planning document to provide details on the funding mechanisms and schedule for implementing any of the alternatives identified in the studies. The Science Team supports the preparation of this document, and any project -specific master plans. Data collected by the Edmonds Stream Team, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),Z and others have contributed to a solid understanding of salmonid use and fish passage barriers in City streams. This information has been recently organized for the City as part of watershed planning required by the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. However, this watershed planning does not appear to have considered the feasibility and benefits of removing fish passage barriers, many of which have been mapped by WDFW.3 Additional planning and coordination with the state on removal of fish passage barriers is warranted, as discussed below in the Certification Conditions section. The City has a comprehensive and well -organized stormwater management program. The program responds thoroughly to the requirements of its Ecology -issued municipal stormwater permit and goes beyond those requirements in a number of ways. The City has produced a detailed addendum to the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual z WDFW maintains an online mapping tool called SalmonScape https.//apps.wdfw.wo.gov/solmonscope/mop.html that documents fish presence and fish passage barriers. 'Washington State Fish Passage https.Ilgeodatoservices. wd fw. wo.govlhplfishpossagelindex.html Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 9 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 7077 Packet Pg. 96 7.A.a Water outlet from Willow Creek Hatchery Fence covered in nightshade at Edmonds Marsh, removed Winter 2022 Remnants of an old water supply system at Shell Creek for Western Washington to cover local conditions. The City also has a relatively ambitious capital projects program related to stormwater. The City offers extensive and clear guidance to practitioners implementing the stormwater management program, such as: • The best management practices (BMP) infeasibility criteria document leaves no ambiguity in an area often characterized by vagueness. It sets out at length, BMP-by-BMP, the conditions that must exist for a practice to be rejected as infeasible. • Another document provides extensive guidance for determining infiltra- tion rates. • There are exceptionally complete checklists to guide stormwater manage- ment planning and the selection and specification of common green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) BMPs. • Draft covenant forms increase the likelihood that GSI BMPs will be used properly. • Construction -phase stormwater specifications are consistent with impor- tant elements of the Salmon -Safe guidelines, emphasizing strategic site management (e.g., seasonal work limitations, limiting ground disturbance). The City has undertaken, or is in the process of developing, a number of large GSI projects. A regional stormwater facility is planned for Mathay-Ballinger Park. The project will provide water quality treatment and some flow control for a major portion of the City's Lake Ballinger basin, which includes the highly urbanized Highway 99 corridor. The project would signifi- cantly benefit the lake ecology and habitat conditions, and provide mitigation opportunities associated with the future Highway 99 Revitalization project. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 10 ,, q ,n_, Packet Pg. 97 7.A.a Rain garden at the corner of 238th St & 104th Ave W Perrinville Creek: Looking upstream at Talbot Road Rain garden at the Edmonds Waterfront Center Neighborhood rain gardens have been constructed within the City rights -of -way in the upper portion of the Perrinville Creek watershed. Coupled with the infiltration facility at Seaview Park, these projects have reduced the severity of scouring flows within Perrinville Creek during heavy rain, thereby reducing streambank erosion that requires significant City maintenance efforts to address. Phase 2 of the Seaview Park infiltration project is scheduled for late summer 2022. In spite of these efforts to reduce uncontrolled flow in Perrinville Creek, significant challenges remain. Planning for a restoration project on the lower portion of the creek is underway. The project will include short-term solutions to maintain flow and prevent further loss of fish life and longer -term solutions to restore fish habitat and populations The City's Snow and Ice Control standard operating procedures (SOP) document is divided into four phases. Phase 1 describes the application of calcium magnesium acetate (CMA), which Salmon -Safe favors. However, the definition of "designated areas" for application of CMA during Phase 1 is not clear. Deicers for Phases 2-4 are not specifically identified. Additional clarification of procedures within each phase is warranted, as discussed below in the Certification Conditions section. The City's irrigation systems are generally efficient and include rain sensors that are monitored weekly to reduce the likelihood of over watering. New construction, such as the rain gardens at the Edmonds Waterfront Center, include irrigation controllers. Tracking the amount of water used for irrigation at City parks and facilities is theoreti- cally possible, but it has not been done. Such tracking is warranted as part of an overall water management plan, as described below in the Certification Conditions section. The City's Parks Department is committed to reducing pesticide use in its parks and has achieved a 60% reduction since 2008 by using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to park maintenance. With a few exceptions, only natural and organic Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Pag( of the City of Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 98 7.A.a Parking lot catch basin at Brackett's North, Brackett's Landing Park Parks & Facilities Maintenance Yard & City Park: wash area for herbicide applications drains to sewer system A problematic construction entrance at Civic Park Wastewater Treatment Plant: drains in north end plaza drain into city stormwater system -1 Waste -oil tank with no secondary containment at Public Works Operations & Maintenance Center (see Certification Condition 9, p. 20) Diversion structures at Perrinville Creek pesticide products are used, such as Avenger', which is a citrus -based, nontoxic herbicide. These exceptions include Crossbow', which is used sparingly for removal of some invasive species, and Snapshot', which is used in ornamental planting areas. Crossbow contains two compounds (2,4-D and triclopyr BEE) that are on Salmon Safe's list of high hazard pesticides and Snapshot contains one (trifluralin). Use of these high hazard pesticides by the City should be curtailed, unless a variance request is submitted to Salmon -Safe, as described in more detail below in the Certification Conditions section. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Pag( Packet Pg. 99 7.A.a Although the City appears to be committed to IPM in practice, the only IPM docu- mentation appears to be a City website4 that describes the City's pest management practices. While the website is appropriate for public education, it is not sufficient documentation for internal use. Additional documentation of the City's IPM program should be prepared, as discussed below in the Certification Conditions section. The Parks & Facilities maintenance yard at City Park is reasonably well -organized and generally follows practices that are consistent with Salmon -Safe standards, although some improvements are warranted. For example, the fertilizer storage area is over- crowded, and equipment is stored on top of fertilizer is some places. Since fertilizers contain oxidizers (e.g., nitrates) that could increase fire danger, they should be stored separately from all equipment and Personal Protective Equipment within fire -proof containment. The Public Works Operations and Maintenance Center includes acceptable facilities related to fueling, but is in need of upgrades related to stormwater manage- ment, as discussed below in the Certification Conditions section. 4https./7www.edmondswo.gov/croslone.aspx?portalld=16495016&pageld-77269338 Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 13 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 100 7.A.a 0 CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS Certification Recommendation: The Science Team recommends that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon -Safe subject to three pre -conditions and twelve conditions listed below. The conditions are organized by certification standard categories. All conditions are subject to annual verification by Salmon -Safe. Timelines for accomplishing objectives are measured from the official date of this Salmon -Safe conditional certification, when adopted by City Council. Within the pre -conditions and conditions below there are refer- ences to General Standards, standards, and appendices, which can be found in the Urban Standards at https://salmonsafe.org/certification/urban-development. EPre -Condition 1: Ensure environmental regulatory compliance The City of Edmonds shall provide a signed statement to Salmon -Safe stating that it is not in violation of national, state or local environmental laws, or associated administrative rules or requirements as determined by a regulatory agency in an enforcement action, per General Standard 1. Compliance is apre-condition of certification, then subject to annual verification by Salmon -Safe. Pre -Condition 2: Commitment to adhere to Salmon -Safe standards for expansion or redevelopment While acknowledging the City's Sustainable Building Policy (Resolution No. 1168) that requires all renovations and new construction > 5,000 square feet to pursue a minimum of LEED Silver rating, the City of Edmonds shall provide a signed letter to Salmon -Safe confirming that it has a mechanism in place to ensure that Salmon -Safe standards, including model permanent (see Appendix A) and construction -phase (see Appendix F of the Urban Standards v2.0) stormwater guidelines, are adhered to for construction, expansion or redevelopment of city -owned properties. f1'�li1i� Compliance is a pre -condition of certification, then subject to annual verification by Salmon -Safe. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 14 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 101 7.A.a 17 Pre -Condition 3: Phaseout use of high hazard pesticides The City of Edmonds shall not allow use of pesticides with ingredients listed on Salmon -Safe's "high hazard" pesticide list unless such use is justi- fied in a written variance request approved by Salmon -Safe or as part of an IPM plan approved by Salmon Safe. Justification for use of a "high hazard" pesticide includes demonstrating a clear need for use of the pesticide, that no safer alternatives exist, and that the method of application (such as timing, location, and amount used) represent a negligible risk to water quality and fish habitat. Compliance is a pre -condition of certification, then subject to annual ' verification by Salmon -Safe. Stormwater Management As described above, water quality in the ecologically important Edmonds Marsh is often poor. Accordingly, stormwater inputs from potentially pollution - generating surfaces should be avoided or minimized to the maximum feasible extent. Stormwater from the Parks & Facilities operation yard drains toward the marsh through a series of ditches and swales adjacent to Highway 104. In accordance with Standards U.1.3 and U.1.4, the City shall verify that stormwater discharged from this yard does not flow on the surface into Edmonds Marsh. Verification shall be accomplished by observing and photographing the channel in WSDOT property alongside Highway 104 during a range of rainfall conditions, including relatively large total quantities (at least three storms > 0.5 inch, with at least one > 1 inch), high intensities (qualitatively judged by observation and comparison to routine conditions), and extended durations (at least three storms lasting > 12 hours with total gaps < 1 hour). Meteorological conditions and visual observations should be documented, along with representative photographs or videos, in a report. A report documenting the observations described above shall be completed and submitted to Salmon -Safe for review within two years 6L of certification. V Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 15 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 102 7.A.a The City has done a good job creating a GIS inventory of stormwater infrastructure, primarily related to hard structures, such as catch basins, manholes, and pipes. However, it does not appear that GIS information is being collected on GSI elements such as rain gardens, swales, and perme- able pavement. In addition, the GIS data do not include spatial data that would allow calculations of the drainage areas being managed by various stormwater management techniques. The collection and analysis of such data is important for tracking improvements in stormwater management and prioritizing stormwater management projects. Per one of the performance requirements of Standard U.1.1, the City shall document GSI elements within the stormwater layer of their GIS. The City shall also incorporate a drainage area assessment into the existing GIS layer, thereby making it possible to determine what fraction of a given drainage area is being managed by each stormwater management technique in that area. Coupled with basin -wide objectives, this assessment would enable a demonstration of the degree to which capital projects are reducing water- shed impacts over time. � T TIMELINE The City s a update the existing GIS layer and submit it to Salmon - Safe for review within two years of certification. The City has installed several canopies over outdoor storage areas at the Public Works yard to prevent stormwater from contacting bulk materials. The City shall extend this commendable practice by installing canopies over all outdoor storage areas at the yard not already so equipped, including areas for maintenance materials and metal picked up and held for recycling. The canopies should be large enough to cover the maximum quantities expected to be stored, including the cover for winter road sand. It is not necessary to pipe the areas under these storage canopies to the sanitary sewer. Instead, berms ("speed bumps") should be constructed that prevent water from running into or out of them. T e City s all install canopies within two years of certification. i a in Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 16 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 103 7.A.a Water Use Management The City has put practices in place to limit the amount of water used for irrigation, as described above under General Observations. However, to ensure that Salmon -Safe practices are maintained over time, the City shall prepare a water conservation plan in accordance with Standard U.2.9 and Appendix G of the Urban Standards, which is focused on reducing the use of potable water for irrigation. The plan shall include a description of the existing site water infrastructure inventory (Standard U.2.1), an evaluation of the feasibility of various water use reduction strategies (Standard U.2.3), and documentation of water conservation practices used during site main- tenance (Standard U.2.6). The plan should also describe water conservation strategies that will be implemented under drought conditions. Developing strategies for reducing irrigation water usage will require data on the amount of water currently being used for irrigation. Accordingly, the City shall use available resources such as water billing records to establish a baseline against which future improvements can be measured. Given the variability in water usage in response to climate and status of landscaping at each park, it may be necessary to retrieve data for several previous years to establish such a baseline. The water conservation plan should include strategies and procedures for tracking irrigation water usage in the future. A water conservation plan, including baseline data for irrigation water usage, shall be submitted to Salmon -Safe for review and implemented within one year of certification, then subject to annual verification by Salmon -Safe. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 17 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 104 7.A.a Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control The City's Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) plan includes specific elements that are generally protective of water quality, but improvements are warranted. Specifically, it should be updated to specifically state a goal of avoiding the discharge of sediments and other pollutants from construc- tion sites, and provide a hierarchy of practices as a means to pursue the goal (see Appendix F of the Urban Standards). The SWMP plan shall be updated as described above and submitted to Salmon -Safe for review before the annual update is submitted to Ecology in 2023. Pesticide Reduction and Water Quality Protection It is the Science Team's understanding that Parks personnel are required to be licensed pesticide applicators within one year of employment. Accordingly, the City shall provide a list of the license status for all Parks employees, including license number and any specific endorsements for any of the state -defined categories of pest control they undertake. The license status of all Parks employees shall be provided to Salmon -Safe for review within three months of certification. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 18 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 105 7.A.a The pest management philosophy that is followed by the Parks Depart- ment, as described on the City's website, appears to be largely consistent with Salmon -Safe standards. However, this "outward -facing" documenta- tion is insufficiently detailed to be utilized by Parks staff in their day-to- day operations. Accordingly, the City shall develop an IPM, nutrient, and chemical management plan according to Salmon -Safe standards (see Appendix D of the Urban Certification Standards) so that consistency can be confirmed. In addition to herbicides and other pesticides, the chemicals to be addressed in the plan are those that are commonly used to maintain urban infrastructure, such as solvents, deicers, and sealants. The plan shall include records of all applications of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer. It shall also include a schedule for periodic soil testing to determine the need for nutrient amendments such as fertilizer or compost. This plan will benefit Parks staff responsible for these maintenance activities by providing written documentation of appropriate procedures. Such documentation will be particularly useful for training new staff. To be effective in that regard, the plan shall be site -specific and be regularly updated when changes in procedures, equipment, or materials are made. The IPM, nutrient, and chemical management plan shall be submitted to Salmon -Safe for review within one year of certification. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 19 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 106 7.A.a The Parks & Facilities maintenance yard at City Park includes storage areas for small fuel containers, pesticides, and fertilizers. While these storage areas are reasonably well organized, they do not meet Washington State regulations for storage of such materials. The City shall upgrade these storage areas to conform with the regulations. Pesticide storage regulations are provided at WAC 16-228-1200 and WAC 16-228-1220 and are summarized in a booklet published by the Washington State Department of Agriculture.' An example pesticide storage management checklist is also provided in Appendix B. Fertilizers shall be stored within fire -proof containment. Regulations for storage of flammable materials are provided at WAC 296-155-270. The City shall adhere specifically to regulations associated with secondary containment. �**:Iffln MkIMM I The storage areas at the Parks & Facilities maintenance yard shall be upgraded within one year of certification. The waste oil tank at the Public Works yard is a single -walled tank placed next to a catch basin. This configuration does not comply with Washington State regulations for above -ground storage tanks (WAC 173-180-320). Therefore, the City shall replace this tank with a double -walled tank or place the existing tank within secondary containment sufficient to hold 110% of the tank contents. The containment system for the waste oil tank shall be upgraded within six months of certification. 5 https://cros.agr.wa.gov/WSDAKentico/Documents/Pubs/079-PesticideLawsRulesHandoutBooklet.pdf Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 20 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 107 7.A.a The City's Snow and Ice Control SOP document is not in alignment with Salmon -Safe standards. The document shall be updated to more completely describe procedures and to take into consideration impacts on aquatic life, including: • specify deicers to be used at each phase • specifically assessing existing or potential salmon habitat in relation to snow and ice control • encouraging caution to carefully use the minimum needed with any deicer in the drainage of any water body or ground- water recharge area • avoiding chloride -based deicers where runoff can flow to a headwaters (third -order or smaller) salmon spawning or rearing stream, unless runoff passes through green storm - water infrastructure The updated Snow and Ice Control SOP document shall be submitted Lto Salmon -Safe for review within one year of certification. Instream Habitat Protection and Restoration The City, in cooperation with WDFW and the Edmonds Stream Team, has completed what appears to be a reasonably complete inventory of fish passage barriers, which is consistent with Standard U.6.1. The City has not, however, created a prioritization strategy for removing those barriers, as required by Standard U.6.9. Accordingly, the City shall create such a plan. The plan shall evaluate each barrier with respect to feasi- bility of removal and potential benefits to be achieved from removal. The plan shall then establish a priority ranking scheme and apply it each fish passage barrier. Ideally, the prioritization scheme should follow a watershed approach similar to that used by the City for its recently completed report of C11 continues next page > Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Page 21 May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 108 7.A.a Receiving Water Conditions and Stormwater Management Influence Assessment.' That report includes useful information about baseline conditions that could be incorporated into the analysis of fish passage barrier removal. King County has recently completed a similar exercise' that might also provide a useful model for comparison. Although the prioritization plan need not include specific design plans for each barrier, conceptual designs shall be developed that are sufficient to inform the prioritization framework. The conceptual designs of the fish passage structures shall incorporate current climate change criteria in determining the type and size of the structures. In 2022, the City shall include a commitment to conduct the fish barrier removal prioritization project in one or more of the follow- ing planning documents: PROS plan, Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan. Additionally, the City shall complete a report that priori- tizes and ranks the feasibility and benefits of fish passage barrier removal and submit to Salmon -Safe for review within three years of certification. The City shall develop a comprehensive habitat restoration plan for each of the salmon -bearing creeks in Edmonds. Such plans shall also be devel- oped for creeks that may not currently support salmon, but would likely become salmon -bearing creeks once the lowest (in relation to Puget Sound) fish passage barrier in the creek is removed. The comprehensive habitat restoration plans should be multi -objective, and address topics such as aquatic, floodplain, and riparian habitat improvements; flooding; water quality improvements; and education (to foster environmental stewardship among residents and visitors). In 2022, the City shall include a commitment to develop the compre- hensive habitat restoration plans in one or more of the following planning documents: PROS plan, Comprehensive Plan, Strategic 6 https://p7cdn4stGtic.civiclive.com/U`serFiles/Servers/Server 76494932/File/Edmonds_TM_RWAssessment 20220327.pdf https✓/your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/habitat-restoration/fish-passage-restoration/remedies-to- existing-fish-passage-barriers-report. pdf Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 22 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 109 7.A.a Action Plan. Additionally, the City shall complete the comprehensive habitat restoration plans for current salmon -bearing creeks and submit to Salmon -Safe for review within three years of certification. Habitat restoration plans for any additional creeks that may become salmon -bearing because of planned (within 5 years) removal of fish passage barriers shall also be completed and submitted to Salmon - Safe within the 5-year certification cycle. Continuing Improvement Recommendations In addition to the conditions for certification listed above, Salmon -Safe offers the following continuing improvement recommendations, the adoption of which is not mandatory to achieve certification, but is considered Salmon -Safe best practice: 1. Consult with tribes to assess historical use of Edmonds streams by salmonids. The availability of grant money for salmonid habitat restoration is often predicated on the presence (or potential presence) of species that are listed as threatened under Federal or State law (e.g., Chinook salmon) or are otherwise important to tribes in the region (due to fisheries rights and cultural significance). Streams in the City are likely too small in their current configuration to support Chinook salmon, but they could potentially support, or may have supported in the past, other species of interest to tribes, such as cutthroat trout and steelhead. Consulting with the tribes may provide valuable information that could help support future applications for grant funding to support habitat restoration projects. 2. Amend City of Edmonds code for shoreline armoring. Current City of Edmonds code (Chapter 23.90 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas and Chapter 24.30 Shoreline Environments) provides guidance for shoreline armoring. In 2021, the Washington State Senate passed a bill that provided updated guidance for replacing shoreline armoring. The intent of this bill was to promote shoreline restoration practices that are beneficial to fish.' The City should consider updating its code to reflect the new guidance contained in the Senate bill. 3. Investigate the impacts of 6PPD-quinone. In light of more recent science concerning the negative impacts of car tires, specifically 6PPD-quinone, on salmonids', conduct testing for 6PPD-quinone as part of ongoing water quality monitoring. $ https://legiscan.com/WA/text/SB527`3/2027 9 https✓/pubs.ocs.org/doi/10.2027/0cs.est/ett.1c00970 https.-IlpubS.GCS.org/do/`/10.2021/Gcs.est/ett.2cOOO5O Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 23 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 PacketPg.11071 7.A.a 4. Incorporate results from Edmonds Stream Team into habitat restoration planning. The City should use the monitoring results for water quality and habitat conditions that are being collected by the Edmonds Stream Team to inform habitat restoration planning, if it is not already doing so. 5. Develop a priority point system for Salmon -Safe accredited contractors. Salmon -Safe's contractor accreditation program is the nation's first independent accreditation program to recognize construction professionals' excellence in water quality protection practices. Contractors accredited under this program have adopted a goal of zero sediment runoff across their entire operations. The City should consider adopting a priority point system that incentivizes Salmon -Safe contractors to bid on Edmonds projects, including capital projects and any public partnership investments such as future public housing and transportation -oriented developments. 6. Create educational signage. The City of Edmonds contains many green stormwater infrastructure features and water use reduction elements that are consistent with Salmon -Safe standards. These elements should be highlighted and publicized to foster environmental stewardship among residents and visitors. Salmon -Safe can assist the City by providing examples of appropriate signage. 0 CONCLUSIONS Salmon -Safe and the Science Team commend the City of Edmonds for their com- mitment to implement the conditions listed in this report, and to manage the City to continue to improve water quality and urban habitat over the next five years. We extend appreciation and congratulations to the City of Edmonds team for their work in preparing for the certification assessment and assisting the Science Team in its assessment. Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification Page 24 of the City of Edmonds, Washington May 9, 2022 Packet Pg. 111 7.A.a APPENDIX A Model Stormwater Management Guidelines for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment May 2018 0 a as c 0 m U m cv c O Cu Cn N a_ Q 0 N c O E w 4- 0 r U c O v m U m Cn c O E Cu Cn c m E t v a r r Q Packet Pg. 112 SALMON -SAFE INC. MODEL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR ULTRA -URBAN REDEVELOPMENT MAY 2018 Introduction Polluted stormwater is the largest threat to the health of the Pacific Northwest's urban watersheds. Pollutants targeted by Salmon -Safe's urban initiative such as heavy metals, petroleum products, pesticide runoff and construction sediment have an adverse impact on the watershed and severely compromise downstream marine health. With the goal of inspiring design that has a positive impact in our watersheds, Salmon -Safe offers stormwater design guidance for ultra -urban areas, which we define as typically those densely developed "downtown" locations mostly covered by structures and pavement. Generally first developed long ago, many such areas are brownfields now undergoing redevelopment, mostly for commercial and residential purposes. The very extensive impervious surfaces in ultra -urban spaces create a hydrologic environment dominated by surface runoff, with little of the soil infiltration and evapotranspiration predominating in a natural landscape. Vehicle traffic drawn to such areas and the activities occurring there deposit contaminants like heavy metals, oils and other petroleum derivatives, pesticides and fertilizers (nutrients). These pollutants wash off of the surfaces with the stormwater runoff and drain into the piping typically installed to convey water away rapidly. If the piping network is a combined sanitary -storm sewer system, the large stormwater runoff volumes draining from an ultra -urban area exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant at the end of the line in some storms, resulting in releases of untreated, mixed sewage and stormwater to a water body. If the piping network is a separated storm sewer system, the runoff and the pollutants it carries enter a receiving water body without treatment, to the detriment of water quality and the aquatic life there. Although salmon -spawning and rearing streams are rarely present in an ultra -urban location, if they are, the elevated runoff quantity itself is damaging to the downstream habitat that salmon and their food sources rely on and directly to the fish themselves. Many of the pollutants conveyed by stormwater runoff are toxic to salmon and their invertebrate food sources. The toxicity of heavy metals like copper and zinc to aquatic life has been well studied. However, salmon face many more potentially toxic pollutants in both their freshwater and saltwater life stages. These contaminants include other heavy metals; petroleum products; combustion by-products; and industrial, commercial, and household chemicals. Emerging science from NOAA Fisheries shows that these agents collectively create both lethal and non -lethal impacts, the latter negatively affecting salmon life -sustaining functions to the detriment of their migration, repro- duction, feeding, growth and avoidance of predators. Salmon -Safe Inc. 1001 SE Water Ave, Suite z Portland, OR 97214 (503) 232-3750 info@salmonsafe.org www.salmolnsaTe.org Packet Pg. 113 Despite these challenges, an array of options exists to reduce, or even in the utmost application, eliminate the negative impacts of ultra -urban development stemming from the large quantities of contaminated stormwater runoff potentially generated there. This management category addresses practices to control ultra -urban stormwater runoff to reduce both water quantity and water quality impacts with the following goal. Goal Any development or redevelopment project with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall use low -impact site planning, design, and operational strategies' for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the water quality, rate, volume, and duration of flow. Objectives 1. Prime objective Implement low -impact practices, especially runoff retention practices,addressing both water quantity and water quality control to the maximum extent technically feasible in redeveloping ultra -urban parcels to achieve the stated goal of restoring the predevelopment hydrology. Provide documentation of how the objective will be achieved. If full achievement of the goal is technically infeasible, assemble documentation demonstrating why it is not and proceed to consider Objective 2A and/or 213, as appropriate to the site. 2. Alternative objectives Assess if achieving Objective 1 is documented to be technically infeasible. 2A Alternative water quantity control objective when the site discharges to a combined sanitary -storm sewer or a stream —Start with the low -impact practices identified in the assessment pursuant to Objective 1. To the extent that they cannot prevent the generation of stormwater runoff peak flow rates and volumes greater than in the predeveloped condi- tion3,4, implement effective alternative measures to diminish and/or slow the release of runoff to the maximum extent technically feasible, with the minimum objective of reducing the quantity discharged to comply with any applicable water quantity control requirements and, in any case, below the amount released in the preceding developed condition.6 ' Collectively termed "low -impact practices" in the following points. 'Retention means keeping runoff from flowing off the site on the surface by preventing its generation in the first place, capturing it for a water supply purpose, releasing it via infiltration to the soil or evapotranspiration to the atmosphere, or some combination of these mechanisms. 3A predeveloped condition is the natural state of the site as it typically would be for the area prior to any modification of vegetation or soil. 'As determined through hydrologic modeling of the previously developed and modified conditions. 5 Specified for discharges to combined sewers by the municipal jurisdiction; specified for discharges to Western Washington streams by the Washington Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Minimum Technical Requirement #7. 'As determined through hydrologic modeling of the previously developed and modified conditions. Model Stormwater Management Guidelines May 2018 2 for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment Packet Pg. 114 2B Alternative water quality control objective when the site discharges to a water body or a separate storm sewer leading to a water body —Start with the low -impact practices identified in the assessment pursuant to Objective 1. To the extent that they cannot prevent the generation of stormwater runoff containing pollutants, implement alternative effec- tive measures to reduce contaminants in stormwater to the maximum extent technically feasible, with the minimum objective of complying with the regulatory requirements for water quality control applying to the location! Plan Elements 1. Inventory and analysis —Narrative, mapping, data, and quantitative results that summarize: (1) site land uses and land covers in the redeveloped and preceding developed conditions; (2) results of hydrologic modeling of the undeveloped, previously developed and modified conditions, as the basis for pursuing quantity control objectives; and (3) stormwater drainage sub -basins, conveyance routes, and locations of receiving stormwater drains and natural water bodies in the redeveloped state. 2. Low -impact practices —Low -impact practices are systematic methods intended to reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff produced and improve the quality of the remaining runoff by controlling pollutants at their sources, collecting precipitation and putting it to a beneficial use, and utilizing or mimicking the hydrologic functioning of natural vegetation and soil in designing drainage systems. The following low -impact practices are particularly relevant to ultra -urban sites: • source control practices V minimizing pollutant introduction by building materials (especially zinc - and copper -bearing) and activities conducted on the site J isolating pollutants from contact with rainfall or runoff by segregating, covering, containing, and/or enclosing pollutant -generating materials, wastes and activities V conserving water to reduce non-stormwater discharges constructing vehicle travel ways, sidewalks and uncovered parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided that public safety and a walkable environ- ment for pedestrians are not compromised • harvesting precipitation and putting it to a use such as irrigation, toilet flushing, vehicle or surface washing, or cooling system make-up water • constructing low -traffic areas with permeable surfaces, such as porous asphalt, open -graded Portland cement concrete, coarse granular materials, concrete or plastic unit pavers, and plastic grid systems (Areas particularly suited for permeable surfaces 'In Western Washington, specified by the Washington Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Minimum Technical Requirement #6, which is equivalent to the City of Seattle's SMC, Section 22.805.090.B.1.a. Model Stormwater Management Guidelines May 2018 3 for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment Packet Pg. 115 are driveways, walkways and sidewalks, alleys, and overflow or otherwise lightly -used uncovered parking lots not subject to much leaf fall or other deposition.) • draining runoff from roofs, pavements, other impervious surfaces, and landscaped areas into one or more of the following green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) systems: V bioretention area* (also known as a rain garden)8 J planter box*, tree pit* (bioretention areas on a relatively small scale) vegetated swale9* J vegetated filter strip* J infiltration trench V green roof * signifies compost -amended soils as needed to maximize soil storage and infiltration The following low -impact practices are of limited applicability to ultra -urban sites but may contribute to meeting objectives in some circumstances: • conserving natural areas including existing trees, other vegetation and soils • minimizing soil excavation and compaction and vegetation disturbance • minimizing impervious rooftops and building footprints • designing drainage paths to increase the time before runoff leaves the site by empha- sizing sheet instead of concentrated flow, increasing the number and lengths of flow paths, maximizing non -hardened drainage conveyances and maximizing vegetation in areas that generate and convey runoff 3. Alternatives —When on -site low -impact practices alone cannot achieve Objectives 2A and/or 213, implement one or more of the following strategies to meet at least the minimum water quantity and quality control objectives stated above: • For runoff quantity and/or quality control— V contribute materially to a neighborhood project using low -impact practices and serving the stormwater control needs of multiple properties in the same receiving water drainage basin, with the contribution commensurate with the shortfall in meeting objectives on the site itself. V implement low -impact practices on -site to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater generated in a location off the redevelopment site but in the same receiving water drainage basin, with the scope of the project commensurate with the shortfall in meeting objectives using practices applied to stormwater generated by the site itself. 89Preferably with an open bottom for the fullest infiltration, but with a liner and underdrain if the opportunity for deep infiltration is highly limited or prohibited for some specific reason, e.g., bedrock or seasonal high-water table near the surface, very restrictive soil (e.g., clay, silty clay) that cannot be adequately amended to permit effective infiltration, non -remediable contamination below ground in the percolating water pathway. Model Stormwater Management Guidelines May 2018 4 for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment Packet Pg. 116 7.A.a • For runoff quantity control —install a vault or tank10 to store water for delayed release after storms to help avoid combined sewer overflows or high flows damaging to a stream. For runoff quality control —install an advanced engineered treatment system suitable for an ultra -urban site." Considerations for Salmon -Safe Certification Fulfilling the stormwater component of the Salmon -Safe certification process requires submission of documentation of how Objective 1 will be achieved based on the inventory and analysis conducted for the site. On the other hand, if Objective 1 has been judged to be unachievable, pursuing certifica- tion requires documentation establishing the technical infeasibility of doing so. Relevant documenta- tion includes, but is not necessarily limited to, site data, calculations, modeling results, and qualitative reasoning. If achieving Objective 1 is demonstrably technically infeasible, the certification process then requires similar documentation of how Objectives 2A and/or 213, as appropriate to the site, will be achieved. Prepared for Salmon -Safe Inc. by Dr. Richard Horner, et. al. 10 While useful for runoff quantity control, passive vaults and tanks provide very little water quality benefit. The most effective candidate treatment systems now available are chitosan-enhanced sand filtration and advanced media filtration coupled with ion exchange and/or carbon adsorption. Basic sand filtration is another option suitable to an ultra -urban site but is less effective than the more advanced alternatives. Model Stormwater Management Guidelines May 2018 5 for Ultra -Urban Redevelopment Packet Pg. 117 7.A.a APPENDIX B Pesticide Storage Management Checklist r Q Packet Pg. 118 7.A.a APPENDIX B: Pesticide Storage Management Checklist .. 1 Annual staff training Create an ongoing training program for staff in pesticide storage and who use pesticides and perform storage management practices procedures and practices to include: (1) rules and regulations; and (2) practicing procedures. Clean and organized Sweeping/cleaning floors. Containment storage areas of contaminants. Boot cleaning stations at entrances/exits. Sequester/identify/map hazards, products and supplies. Secondary containment Tasks and training to prevent/stop contamina- of pesticide products tion within facility and runoff from facility. Up-to-date Assign facility monitor(s) in conduct monthly facility inspections inspections. Up-to-date Assign pesticide inventory monitor(s) and pesticide product update inventory as needed. Maintain records inventory of pesticide purchases and disposals. Prevention by design Monitor and review spill incidents and make for spills within procedural changes as needed. or outside the facility Safety Map/identify locations of facility components and safety hazards. Establish eye wash maintenance and other PPE maintenance and replacement cycles. Appendix B I Report of the Science Team Regarding Salmon -Safe Certification of the City of Edmonds, Washington Packet Pg. 119 7.A.a Additional Credits Report design & production: Jay Tracy Studios Project Site, Virtual Meeting & Science Team member photos © Salmon -Safe Inc. Edmonds Marsh photo (Pages 2 & 9): Bill Anderson Packet Pg. 120 7.A.a SALMON SAFE www.salmonsafe.org 0 a as c 0 m U m cv U) c O m U) N H LL Q N C O E W 4- 0 U c O v m U m U) c O E m U) c m E t v a r r Q SS-2022-C-EW Packet Pg. 121 7.A.b v EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES To: City of Edmonds Parks & Planning Board From: Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Date: July 21, 2022 Re: Salmon -Safe Certification Additional Information During the May 25, 2022 Parks & Planning Board presentation of Salmon -Safe Certification, the Board requested the following information for their next review. 1. Prioritization of the 12 conditions along with criteria used to prioritize them 2. Estimation of costs for each of the conditions, including staff commitments 3. Time estimates that would be required 4. Any private landowner requirements that would be necessary to meet the standards 5. Confirmation that the city would meet Pre -Conditions 1 and 2 1. Certification Condition Prioritization and Ranking Salmon -Safe's Science Team developed a scoring system for the City's Salmon -Safe certification conditions as requested by the City of Edmonds Planning Board. The criteria is somewhat analogous to what was done by Herrera recently for the Edmonds Receiving Water Conditions Assessment. There are four criteria including benefit to aquatic habitat/species (qualitative, based on best professional judgment); direct vs indirect; action vs plan; and area. The following is a summary of ranking of Conditions provided by Salmon -Safe using the criteria. Rank Condition 1 Condition 11: Develop prioritization strategy for removing fish passage barriers 1 Condition 12: Develop comprehensive habitat restoration plans 3 Condition 4: Develop water conservation plan and track irrigation water usage 3 Condition 7: Create an IPM, nutrient, and chemical management plan 5 Condition 2: Improve inventory of stormwater infrastructure 5 Condition 10: Update Snow and Ice Control SOP document 7 Condition 1: Verify that stormwater discharged from the Parks maintenance yard does not flow on the surface into Edmonds Marsh 7 Condition 9: Upgrade containment for waste oil tank at Public Works yard 9 Condition 5: Adopt Salmon -Safe construction standards Packet Pg. 122 7.A.b 10 Condition 3: Improve outdoor storage areas at Public Works yard 10 Condition 8: Upgrade storage areas at Parks maintenance yard 12 Condition 6: Document pesticide applicator licensing status for all Parks employees 2. Estimate of costs for each of the conditions, including staff commitments and 3. Time estimates that would be required The following are conditions that would require significant commitments in both one- time consultant costs and ongoing staff time. The remaining conditions, although somewhat impactful to city resources, are not as significant as the highlighted ones found below. Attachment #1 is a Table detailing the Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services (Parks) and Public Works Departments' Considerations for work required to meet the more impactful conditions. Following is Attachment #2 City Public Works Department - Salmon Safe Certification Conditions Considerations City Resource Impact Considerations Summary City Cost Estimate Staff Condition City Dept (one-time) (annual) Condition 2: Improve Inventory of PW $50,000 0.1 FTE Stormwater Infrastructure Condition 4: Develop water conservation plan PRCAHS $35,000 0.2 FTE and track irrigation water usage Condition 7: Create an IPM, nutrient, and PRCAHS $40,000 0.2 FTE chemical management plan Condition 11: Develop Prioritization Strategy PW $100,000 - $325,000 0.2 FTE for Removing Fish Passage Barriers Condition 12: Develop Comprehensive PW $100,000 - $300,000 0.2 FTE Habitat Restoration Plans 4. Any private landowner requirements that would be necessary to meet the standards The Salmon -Safe assessment of the City of Edmonds encompasses City sites and operations only. It is not a city-wide assessment and private property or public lands not owned by the City are not included in the scope of this assessment. PA Packet Pg. 123 7.A.b 5. Confirmation that the city would meet Pre -Conditions 1 and 2 This document was reviewed by the City legal department with no concerns stated, so the City should be able to meet the first two Pre -Conditions. However, in preliminary review by Departmental staff, it was communicated there is a need to conduct some additional research the ability for the City to meet Pre -Conditions 1 and 2. Pre -Condition 3, responsibility of the Parks Department would take several months to complete as well. This would create a timeline of late Fall to complete all three Pre -Conditions before presenting to Council for acceptance of the Salmon -Safe Certification. Packet Pg. 124 7.A.b Salmon Safe Certification Attachment #1 Table - City Resource Impact Considerations City City Staff Condition Dept City Comments City Recommendation Cost Estimate (annual) Condition 2: Improve PW The requested information is not Add "if funding is available' as this task is not $50,000 0.1 FTE Inventory of Stormwater required to be collected/mapped by the currently included in the City budget. Infrastructure City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, so this would be an additional requirement imposed on the City's stormwater and surface water management program. There are currently approximately 210 public and private stormwater BMPs/facilities in the City (as of the 2021 Annual Report submittal to the Department of Ecology in March 2022). The City will consider requesting information on contributing drainage areas draining to stormwater BMP/facilities as part of the drainage report submittal to facilitate future data collection for private stormwater Condition 4: Develop water Parks City's existing irrigation system has Water conservation plan completed by consultant. $35,000 0.2 FTE conservation plan and track manual control systems without online irrigation access. Monitoring water consumption Add "if funding is available' as this task is not water usage would be through reviewing utility bills currently included in the City budget. managed in another department. Propose a two-year timeline due to impact on limited narks maintenance staff. Condition 7: Create an IPM, Parks City does not currently conducte soil Consultant hired to develop site -specific IPM, $40,000 0.2 FTE nutrient, and chemical testing. nutrient and chemical management plan. management plan Plan to address new practices tailored Propose a two-year timeline due to impact on each Dark site. limited Darks maintenance staff. Condition 11: Develop PW A majority of the fish passage barriers Focus on the conceptual design City -owned fish $100,000 - $325,000 0.2 FTE Prioritization Strategy for located in the City are not owned by the passage barriers for this study; the privately owned Removing Fish Passage City (e.g., BNSF, WSDOT, private barriers could be mentioned in the report along with Barriers properties) potential policy updates and funding opportunities. Propose focusing on two drainage basins within the proposed 3-year timeline and adding two additional drainage basins every 3 years. Add "if funding is available' as this task is not au—tly inrinrlari in thw Rite h A—f Condition 12: Develop PW chase 1 - prioritize salmon -Dearing basins and $100,000 - $300,000 0.2 FTE Comprehensive Habitat complete two basins first within the proposed 3-year Restoration Plans timeline and the two remaining within the next 3 years. (Perrinville Creek, Shell Creek, Shellabarger Creek, and Willow Creek) Phase 2 - focus on six potential salmon -bearing basins that could be evaluated on the two basin every 3-years cycle. (Northstream Creek, Fruitdale Creek, Hindley Creek, Stilthouse Creek, Terrace Creek, and Outfall Creek) Propose removing the following creeks from the list since the stream channels are located outside of the City limits: Hall Creek, McAleer Creek and Lyon Creek. Propose removing the following creeks from the list since there are no fish passage barriers located in the City limits and the creeks are not salmon - bearing: Deer Creek and Lund's Gulch. Add "if funding is available' as this task is not curdy inrinrlari in thw city h-1—f Packet Pg. 125 Attachment #2 7.A.b City Public Works Department - Salmon Safe Certification Conditions Considerations Condition 2: Improve Inventory of Stormwater Infrastructure Text from Draft Certification Report The City has done a good job creating a GIS inventory of stormwater infrastructure, primarily related to hard structures, such as catch basins, manholes, and pipes. However, it does not appear that GIS information is being collected on GSI elements such as rain gardens, swales, and perme- able pavement. In addition, the GIS data do not include spatial data that would allow calculations ofthe drainage areas being managed by various stormwater management techniques_ The collection and analysis of such data is important for tracking improvements in stormwater management and prioritizing stormwater management projects_ Per one of the performance requirements of Standard U_l_l, the City shall document GSI elements within the stormwater layer of their GIS. The City shall also incorporate a drainage area assessment into the existing GIS layer, thereby making it possible to determine what fraction of a given drainage area is being managed by each stormwater managementtechnique in that area_ Coupled with basin-wvide objectives, this assessment would enable a demonstration of the degree to which capital projects are reducing water- shed impacts overtime_ .+ {1 The City shall update the existing GIS layer and submit it to Salmon - Safe for review within two years of certification- Recommendations/Comments for Salmon -Safe Team • The requested information is not required to be collected/mapped by the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements, so this would be an additional requirement imposed on the City's stormwater and surface water management program. • There are currently approximately 210 public and private stormwater BMPs/facilities in the City (as of the 2021 Annual Report submittal to the Department of Ecology in March 2022). • Since this mapping task is not currently included in the City budget, the City would like to add a caveat (similar to what was included in the City of Shoreline Salmon -Safe conditions) for "if funding becomes available." • The City will also consider requesting information on contributing drainage areas draining to stormwater BMP/facilities as part of the drainage report submittal to facilitate future data collection for private stormwater facilities. Packet Pg. 126 Attachment #2 7.A.b Background Information for Level of Effort Estimate # of Citywide BMPs/Facilities City -owned stormwater BMPs/facilities 81 Private stormwater BMPs/facilities 96 (inspected annually as required by the NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit) Private stormwater BMPs/facilities 33 (older facilities that are not required to be inspected annually by the NPDES Municipal Stormwater permit) Total 210 Planning Level Cost Estimates for City Consideration Phase 1 Phase 2 Citywide Delineations Ongoing Maintenance/Data Updates Planning Level $50,000 Not applicable Cost Estimate City Staff Support • Gathering and providing available 0.1 FTE drainage reports, model files, and/or as-builts for existing public and private BMPs/facilities (-16 hours) • Project management and deliverable review (-2-4 hours per month) Consultant Yes No Support Needed? Assumptions • Desktop exercise only; no field • Assumes 70-80 new private BMPs/ verification facilities per year • Assumes 210 public and private • Assumes 3 new public BMPs/ facilities facilities per year • Assumes some, but not all BMPs/ • Assumes 2 hours for delineating facilities have drainage reports, drainage areas and updating model files, or as-builts mapping per new BMP/facility • Includes a short tech memo • Assumes ongoing refinement of documenting the process and 10% of the original BMPs/facilities providing guidance for ongoing per year for retrofits, changes in updates drainage patterns, field • Assumes 1-year timeline for observations, etc. completing the work 2 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment #2 7.A.b Condition 11: Develop Prioritization Strategy for Removing Fish Passage Barriers Text from Draft Certification Report The City, in cooperation with WDFW and the Edmonds Stream Team, has completed what appears to be a reasonably complete inventory of fish passage barriers, which is consistent with Standard U_6_1. The City has not, however, created a prioritization strategy for removing those barriers, as required by Standard U.6.9. Accordingly, the City shall create such a plan- The plan shall evaluate each barrier with respect to feasi- bility of removal and potential benefits to be achieved from removal_ The plan shall then establish a priority ranking scheme and apply it each fish passage barrier. Ideally, the prioritization scheme should follow a watershed approach similar to that used by the City for its recently completed report of Receiving Water Conditions and Storm water Managemem Influence Assessment.6 Th at report includes useful information about baseline conditions that could be incorporated into the analysis offish passage barrier removal_ King County has recently completed a similar er€erdse7 that might also provide a useful model for comparison. Although the prioritization plan need not include specific design plans for each barrier conceptual designs shall be developed that are sufficient to inform the prioritization framework_ The conceptual designs of the fish passage Structures shall incorporate current climate change criteria in determining the type and size of the Structures. In 2022, the City shall includes commitment to conduct the fish barrier removal prioritization project in one or more of the follow- ing pianning documents: PROS plan, Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan, Additionally, the City shall complete a report that priori- tfzes and ranks the feasibility and benefits of fish passage barrier removal and submit to Salmon -Safe for review within three years of certification. Recommendations/Comments for Salmon -Safe Team • A majority of the fish passage barriers located in the City are not owned by the City (e.g., BNSF, WSDOT, private properties) • We would like to focus on the City owned fish passage barriers for this study; the privately owned barriers could be mentioned in the report along with potential policy updates and funding opportunities, but conceptual design would be focused on City -owned barriers • While we see value in completing this evaluation, we would like to propose focusing on two drainage basins within the proposed 3-year timeline and adding two additional drainage basins every 3 years • Since this task is not currently included in the City budget, the City would like to add a caveat (similar to what was included in the City of Shoreline Salmon -Safe conditions) for "if funding becomes available." 3 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment #2 7.A.b Background Information for Level of Effort Estimate Stream # of Barriers within the City Limits (All Barrier Types)* # of City Owned Barriers (All Barrier Types)** # of City Owned Complete Barriers Deer Creek 0 0 0 Hall Creek 0 0 0 McAleer Creek 0 0 0 Lund's Gulch 0 0 0 Northstream Creek 6 5 3 Fruitdale Creek 5 4 3 Perrinville Creek 4 2 1 Shell Creek 6 5 3 Hindley Creek 4 4 1 Stilthouse Creek 3 2 2 Terrace Creek 3 2 2 Outfall Creek 3 2 2 Shellabarger Creek 14 6 5 Willow Creek 4 3 1 Unknown Waterway 2 1 0 Total 54 36 23 *Additional barriers maybe present in the City that are not mapped by WDFW. Will need to conduct additional field reconnaissance (possibly through Condition 12) to develop a more complete culvert inventory. **Several City -owned barriers are located near highway crossings. Will need to confirm ownership with WSDOT, but these barriers were included in this planning level cost evaluation. Planning Level Cost Estimates for City Consideration Option 3 Citywide Prioritization Option 2 Plan (including Option 1 Citywide Prioritization Policy/Funding options Prioritization Plan for Plan (without non -City for non -City owned Two Priority Basins owned barriers) barriers) Planning Level $100,000 $300,000 $325,000 Cost Estimate City Staff Support • City staff will coordinate access on private property for non -city culvert assessments • Project management and deliverable review (0.2 FTE for duration of project) Consultant Yes Yes Yes Support Needed? 4 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment #2 7.A.b Option 1 Prioritization Plan for Two Priority Basins Option 2 Citywide Prioritization Plan (without non -City owned barriers) Option 3 Citywide Prioritization Plan (including Policy/Funding options for non -City owned barriers) Assumptions • Assumes conceptual • Assumes conceptual • Assumes Option 2 design for 7 City -owned design for 36 City- (Citywide Prioritization barriers owned barriers Plan) with additional • Field reconnaissance • Field reconnaissance research/discussion limited to 2 hours per limited to 2 hours per related to policy and/or culvert plus travel time culvert plus travel time funding for addressing • Assumes no CAD work; • Assumes no CAD work; non -City owned conceptual design conceptual design barriers presented in graphical presented in graphical rendering rendering • Assumes no hydraulic • Assumes no hydraulic or hydrologic modeling or hydrologic modeling to be required for each to be required for each culvert culvert • Assumes no PLS survey • Assumes no PLS survey will be required will be required Condition 12: Develop Comprehensive Habitat Restoration Plans Text from Draft Certification Report The City shall develop a comprehensive habitat restoration plan for each of the salmon -bearing creeks in Edmonds_ Such plans shall also be devel- oped for creeks that may not currently support salmon, but would likely become salmon -bearing creeks once the lowest (in relation to Puget Sound) fish passage barrier in the creek is removed_ The comprehensive habitat restoration plans should be multi -objective, and address topics such as aquatic, fIoodplain, and riparian habitat irnprovernents; flooding; water quality improvements; and education (to foster environmental stewardship among residents and visitors)_ In 2022, the City shall include a commitment to develop the compre- hensive habitat restoration plans in one or more of thefolIowing planning documents: PROS plan, Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan, Additionally, the City shall complete the comprehensive habitat restoration plans for current salmon -bearing cre-eks and submit to Salmon -Safe for review within three years of certification. Habitat restoration pIansfor any additional creeks that may become salmon -bearing because of planned (within S years) removal of fish passage barriers shall also be completed and submitted to Salmon - Safe within the S-year certification cycle. 5 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment #2 7.A.b Recommendations/Comments for Salmon -Safe Team • While we see value in completing this evaluation, the City would like to propose focusing on two priority basins first within the proposed 3-year timeline and the two remaining salmon -bearing basins within the next 3 years. There are also six potential salmon -bearing basins that could be evaluated on a two basin every 3-year cycle after these initial salmon -bearing basins have been evaluated. • Since this task is not currently included in the City budget, it would be helpful to add a caveat (similar to what was included in the City of Shoreline Salmon -Safe conditions) for "if funding becomes available." • There are four salmon -bearing creeks located in the City o Perrinville Creek o Shell Creek o Shellabarger Creek o Willow Creek • Future potential salmon -bearing creeks in the City may include: o Northstream Creek o Fruitdale Creek o Hindley Creek o Stilthouse Creek o Terrace Creek o Outfall Creek • The City would like to propose removing the following creeks from the list since the stream channels are located outside of the City limits: o Hall Creek o McAleer Creek o Lyon Creek • The City would also like to propose removing the following creeks from the list since there are no fish passage barriers located in the City limits and the creeks are not salmon -bearing: o Deer Creek o Lund's Gulch Background Information for Level of Effort Estimate Drainage Basin/Creek Total Stream Length (feet)* Total Stream Length within the City Limits (feet) Total Stream Length for Habitat Assessment (feet) Deer Creek 4,405 204 0 Hall Creek 11,311 0 (no channel in the City limits) 0 McAleer Creek 23,304 0 (no channel in the City limits) 0 Lund's Gulch 11,836 1,189 0 Northstream Creek 3,417 3,417 3,417 Fruitdale Creek 3,960 3,960 3,960 Perrinville Creek 14,566 5,306 5,306 Shell Creek 8,650 8,650 8,650 0 Packet Pg. 131 7.A.b Attachment #2 Drainage Basin/Creek Total Stream Length (feet)* Total Stream Length within the City Limits (feet) Total Stream Length for Habitat Assessment (feet) Hindley Creek 4,565 4,565 4,565 Southwest Edmonds Not calculated 0 (no channel in the City limits) 0 Stilthouse Creek 31257 3,257 3,257 Terrace Creek 2,170 2,170 2,170 Outfall Creek 2,522 1,998 1,998 Shellabarger Creek 7,478 7,478 7,478 Willow Creek 4,130 2,432 2,432 Total 89,855 44,422 43,233 *Mainstem only Planning Level Cost Estimates for City Consideration Option 3 Option 2 Citywide Basin Habitat Citywide Basin Habitat Restoration for All 10 Restoration Plan for All 10 Salmon -Bearing or Option 1 Salmon -Bearing or Potential Salmon - Habitat Restoration Plan Potential Salmon -Bearing Bearing Basins for Two Priority Basins Basins (Desktop only) Planning Level $150,000 $300,000 $100,000 Cost Estimate City Staff Support • City staff will coordinate access on private property for habitat assessments • Project management and deliverable review (0.2 FTE for duration of project) Consultant Yes Yes Yes Support Needed? Assumptions • Assumes a total stream • Assumes a total stream • Assumes no field length of—14,000 feet length of—43,000 feet for work; desktop exercise for two drainage basins) 10 drainage basins only • Assumes average of • Assumes average of • GIS analysis to 2,000 feet of channel 2,000 feet of channel per evaluate factors per day for field day for field investigation influencing habitat investigation • Assumes minor quality, including fish • Assumes minor calculations in addition to barriers, riparian calculations in addition SMAP canopy, land to SMAP • Assume data analysis ownership, floodplain • Assume data analysis does not include connectivity, channel does not include generation of graphics in sinuosity, channel generation of graphics in R Studio and all graphics confinement, R Studio and all graphics will be produced in GIS impervious surface, will be produced in GIS slope O O_ N 0 r m U m c 0 E O E m a� c O E M U) c W E z U 2 Q Packet Pg. 132 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History This topic was originally scheduled for an introduction to the Planning Board on June 22 but had to be rescheduled due to technical issues that evening. This is file AMD2022-0001. On February 15, 2022, Council adopted Ordinance 4247, which declared a two -month emergency moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for certain projects in the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. The moratorium applied to projects that require a SEPA threshold determination on sites that are not subject to the Designated Street Front standards in Chapters 16.43 and 22.43 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The moratorium was intended to give staff time to create interim design standards to address gaps in the code that apply to those sites. On March 29, staff introduced the proposed interim design standards to Council. A new section would be added to the existing design standards for the Downtown Business zones in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. These new standards would only apply to projects in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated Street Front requirement and are multifamily -only buildings. The intent of the section was to ensure that this type of project is compatible within the downtown area by adding standards for materials, private amenity space, and street -side amenity space (Exhibits 1 & 2). On April 5, Council held a public hearing on the moratorium and voted to extend the moratorium for two weeks to allow additional time to consider the proposed interim design standards and to gather additional information about the history of the Designated Street Front requirements in the BD zones. Staff also presented the proposed interim design standards and received feedback from Council. The designated street front topic moved along more or less in parallel with the design standard work (Exhibit 3). On April 19, Council discussed the proposed standards and proposed some amendments of their own before tabling the discussion due to the late hour (Exhibit 4). On April 21, the Council discussed the revised interim design standards and approved the emergency Ordinance 4256 and revised standards at that meeting (Exhibits 5 & 6). After being extended several times, the building permit moratorium was lifted on June 1 by Council's adoption of Ordinance 4262. On June 14, the Council held a public hearing on the interim ordinance as required by state code. On June 21, the Council adopted findings supporting the interim standards and to retain them through October 21. Staff was directed to prepare permanent design standards for the multifamily buildings in Packet Pg. 133 8.A the BD2 zone and take them through the standard review process for code amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting. Consider the interim standards and any additional refinements for permanent standards. The design standards were introduced to the Architectural Design Board on June 29 and they will make a recommendation on updated language on August 3 prior to the Planning Board's public hearing on the permanent standards on August 10. Narrative The following interim design standards were adopted by Council to apply to multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone and are in effect through October 21 (Exhibit 6). Any building permit submitted until that date must meet these standards. Work on these interim standards by the Planning Board and Architectural Design Board over the next few weeks may lead to some refinements for the Council to consider when adopting permanent standards prior to October 21. These interim design standards are very narrowly focused given the time and resources available and do not involve comprehensive analysis of multifamily design standards throughout the City. The multifamily design standard project anticipated for later in 2022 will take a broad look at multifamily areas throughout Edmonds and will revisit BD2 multifamily standards as well. 1) Materials There is currently no preference stated in the code for the types of materials that can be used on the exterior of a building. This allows flexibility but can result in use of materials that do not reflect the historic patterns in the downtown area as the Building/Site Identity guidance in the Comprehensive Plan indicates. To that end, this standard would require the use of preferred materials including natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass. Man-made products like fiber cement could be used if it is made to look like the preferred materials. While contributing to a more historic look, using a variety of preferred materials can be used to break up a building's massing. 2) Private amenity space Multifamily -only projects in the BD2 zone would be required to provide 10% of gross lot area in some form of private amenity space on the project site. This could take the form of balconies, decks, patios, or yards for individual dwelling units or applied to the site (see Exhibit 2). These spaces would improve livability for the residents and serve to modulate building facades and reduce building massing. There are different options proposed to meet this standard because each site and building are unique so that what makes sense on a BD2 zoned parcel that has no required side setback might not work as well on a parcel that has a 15-foot required setback from an adjacent R-zoned property. 3) Street -side amenity space or pedestrian area Multifamily -only projects in the BD2 zone would be required to provide 5% of gross lot area in some form of street -side amenity space or pedestrian area on the project site (see Exhibit 2). This space would have to be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk. This standard is consistent with the Pedestrian Access and Building Setback language in the Comprehensive Plan in that it would serve to move the building back somewhat from the sidewalk similar to a setback but still Packet Pg. 134 8.A allow for pedestrian connection with the street. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - 2022-03-29 Council Minutes Exhibit 2 - Graphics for Interim Design Standards Exhibit 3 - 2022-04-05 Council Minutes Exhibit 4 - 2022-04-19 Council Minutes Exhibit 5 - 2022-04-21 Council Minutes Exhibit 6 - Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards Packet Pg. 135 8.A.a UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged that, 1) there is a housing affordability issue in Edmonds, 2) the comprehensive plan supports a variety of housing types including multifamily development in the downtown activity center, and 3) in the interest of seeing successful multifamily development, it is critical that there are design standards to support that. The proposed interim design standards are intended to fill the gap for multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. Staff welcomes council feedback on the interim design standards. Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: • Moratorium Ordinance 4247: o "The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to draft interim zoning regulations for the BD2 zone that would change the required setback for properties that do not front on a Designated Street Front." o This was NOT a comprehensive look at the BD zones or multifamily design standards • Downtown Business Zones Designated Street Front o BD 1 — Retail Core o BD2 — Mixed Commercial o BD3 — Convenience Commercial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 136 8.A.a o BD4 - Mixed Residential o BD5 - Arts Corridor Designated Street Front (identified by blue line on above map) Standards o Commercial and mixed -use building 0 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial o Floor height minimums o Transparency and access at sidewalk o Detail at ground level o Multifamily allowed behind 45 feet or above BD2 parcels without Designated Street Front (on the edges of the BD2 zone, transition between the core and typically multifamily residential or single family residential) o Small area on Main Street, small area on 2' Avenue a few parcels up 3' and 2nd Avenues and two parcels on Sunset. o Two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property Comprehensive Plan: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. ■ E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses Comprehensive Plan: Downtown Design Goals and Policies o Vehicular access and parking o Pedestrian access and connections o Building setbacks o Building/site identity o Massing Proposed design standards o Materials ■ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street -side amenity space ■ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ■ Section Cut - Street Facing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 137 8.A.a - Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity space o Private amenity space ■ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases `eyes on the street' thereby improving safety ■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a rooftop deck ■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10' Mr. Clugston explained the goal tonight, if the council is satisfied with the proposed standards, is to adopt the ordinance in the packet as Exhibit 3 referencing Exhibit 2, the new standards that would be applied to Chapter 23.43. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had a problem with the BD zones having no commercial; in her opinion adding these high density properties was ruining the downtown area because, in her opinion, the BD2 zone was mixed commercial, not residential. The council should look at all the BD zones because she did not understand how the downtown area, which should service small business, is suddenly becoming more dense and apartment blocks. She questioned allowing straight up residential in a BD zone with no mixed use at all. Ms. McLaughlin answered the code allows solely multifamily developments in the BD2 when not adjacent to the blue lines (designated street front) on the map. It is meant to be a transitional space, in an urban development transect, the retail commercial core allows for some residential but predominantly active storefronts on the ground level. This area was always intended to be a transitional zone where it will transition to residential only. The parcels on the edges of BD2 are where that transition is occurring. She acknowledged there could be philosophical differences regarding that. Mr. Clugston agreed the code specifically allows it. He was not employed by the City when the code was adopted in 2006/2007, but these are transitional area on the outside edge of the BD2 zone and the feeling was while it could be mixed use, they could also be just multifamily based on their location relative to the BD 1 zone around the fountain. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood transitional zones, but she wondered how those areas of BD2 were selected and did not go further into 6t' or further up to Bell. In her opinion, the City needed to unwind all the BD zones; it is important to keep businesses in the downtown area thriving and not have high density buildings. She relayed a citizen's question about whether the two lots have different setbacks and his feeling it should not have gone to the ADB due to the lot differentiation. Mr. Clugston said prior to adoption of the BD zones, this area was zoned community business (BC). When the different BD zones were developed, the intent was to apply them to the types of development that were there at the time, understanding that most of the commercial area will be around the fountain and radiating out, with transition spaces at the furthest edges. That is what this proposal is trying to address. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 138 8.A.a Ms. McLaughlin cautioned about not getting into specifics about the project that is under review. She clarified there is no variance proposed for that project. Mr. Clugston explained all the development codes have to be met; the City's variance criteria are very restrictive, primarily related to parcels with environmental constraints. Virtually nowhere else has a variance been granted in the 15 years he has been at the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there are two different properties. Mr. Clugston explained they are both zoned BD2 with the exact same development standards. The only difference is the eastern side of the site is adjacent to multifamily residential which requires a 15' setback. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that 15' setback was still required. Mr. Clugston answered it was. Councilmember Tibbott asked what the setback from the lot lines was for BD2; he understood there was 5% for the front and asked if there was a setback requirement for the side or rear. Mr. Clugston answered there are zero setbacks from any lot line in the BD2 zone whether street, side or rear. The only setbacks that exist for these parcels are when they are adjacent to R zoned property which requires a 15' setback. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long that setback standard had been in effect. Mr. Clugston answered since 2007 when the code was adopted. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would take to extend the blue lines. As the downtown fills up and commercial businesses thrive when there are other good, viable strong commercial businesses around them, it seems that more commercial space would add to the vibrancy of the downtown. It has been 15 years since those standards were adopted, it may be necessary to extend the blue lines. Ms. McLaughlin answered that certainly should be considered in the scoping for the comprehensive plan update. Given that the downtown activity center is such a robust commercial retail and residential center, the City needs to analyze commercial demands, the future of retail, as well as multifamily design standards coupled with how to meet housing needs. Mr. Clugston commented there have been about 6-7 redevelopment projects since these codes were adopted in 2006/2007. The pace of turnover is very small for a number of reasons. The developer could have proposed a mixed use building for this site but chose not to, believing that residential made more sense than mixed use. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the areas on the edges of the BD2 without Designated Street Front that have been filling in and said there may be opportunities to extend the vibrant business life. He asked if there were any ingress/egress parking standards in BD2, and if so, what were they and what provisions were made to go from a garage to an alley or from a parking lot to a public street. Mr. Clugston said the code does not want access onto the main streets and to have residents use the alley as much as possible. Buildings that do propose to use the alley need to ensure that access can occur safely. Ensuring that access occurs in a safe manner is reviewed with every with building permit. If a building went up to the rear lot line, Councilmember Tibbott asked if turning radius inside the building would be required, wide enough garage doors for sight distance, etc. Mr. Clugston referred to the post office where there is a gap in the wall from one of the drive aisles to allow drivers to see pedestrian on the sidewalks, or sometimes mirrors are used. There are a number of different ways that can be addressed. Councilmember Tibbott observed those standards are already in the code. Mr. Clugston agreed they were. Council President Olson said the overriding reason for standards is to protect other properties in the area, other homeowners in the area and the community as a whole. She thanked staff for this proposal which addressed something that was lacking and what they have brought forward makes a difference and will help with projects that fall into this gap. However, two significant things were not addressed that she hoped could be addressed, first the issue of accommodating loading/unloading on the property. This is 24 units that will have regular turnover, whether it is the tenants moving in and out or having furniture or appliances delivered. She was concerned with a building accommodating 24 families not designating an area for deliveries and felt it should be addressed in the code or be a design requirement. The loading Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 139 8.A.a zone could be the setback and provide additional space for people entering/exiting their garages from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin expressed concern that Council President Olson's question was very project related. She offered to speak in theory but not to the project itself as the proposed standards are applicable to all parcels in the BD2 zone. Council President Olson pushed back on that assertion, pointing out any buildings without setbacks on the alley would be in the same situation. Ms. Laughlin said there are temporary right-of-way permits for loading for this reason. There will be episodic loading needs in any urban environment, particularly for moving in/out of buildings. A requirement to accommodate a WB-67 moving truck would deem parking structures infeasible due to turning movements. Staff could look at what that would require and how much space it would take out of the programmatic area, requiring the developer to compensate in other aspects of the project to make that program work. The nature of an alley is that it is slightly utilitarian. Requiring a 25' width to allow a truck to unload would be a significant amount of space in the alley, pushing the alley to 44' wide. Council President Olson commented it would not increase the alley width, it would be on the property and made available for loading/unloading which can be expected to occur with some regularity. Ms. McLaughlin said that would need to be dimensioned out. The reason why that is not seen in any other city is because the curb space or alleys themselves are typically used for loading/unloading and moving. Council President Olson referred to the use of "urban" and pushed back, saying Edmonds is a suburban and not an urban environment and she hoped that was part of the planning. Use of the alley for ingress/egress to garages has been encouraged, and loading/unloading from the alley could block access which would have a huge impact. She was trying to assess if it was an option to require some setback from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin asked if her question was how to accommodate moving trucks onsite. Council President Olson answered it was related to moving trucks or delivery trucks. Ms. McLaughlin said the engineering/permitting team could answer that question better than she could and offered to provide further information. Council President Olson said her other issue was consolidating parcels, which is not mandated, and should be an opportunity for the City to get a concession that supports the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan says the City cares about light and not having huge, blocky structures, but this building on a slope which the building height assessed at that level, the center point would be in a different place on one of the parcels versus the consolidated parcel. Consolidating parcels has a negative impact in terms of light. When that is allowed, there should be a requirement for a step down or modulation in the roof line to provide breaks of light to everything around it. That should be required because the parcels are being consolidated and they are not currently allowed to be built on in that manner. If the lots were developed without consolidating them, there would be breaks between the buildings due to required setbacks. Ms. McLaughlin said State law exempts lot combinations from the subdivision law, essentially streamlining lot combination which is intended to ensure it is not a hinderance to meeting density goals. The City does have some discretion to ensure any lot combination meets the objectives within the comprehensive plan. Mr. Clugston explained there is no required setback between the parcels, if they are both zoned BD, they can be built wall to wall. The only time a setback is required is if it is adjacent to a residentially residential zoned parcel. As an example, he referred to a clump of parcels south of Main between 6'1i and Durbin where, in theory, one person could buy the approximately 8 parcels and construct one building on it. At the northeast corner of 6' & Main, one person could buy three parcels, combine them and develop one project on the site. Lot consolidation for projects happens all the time; if someone owns all the parcels, they can be combined and a larger project developed on it. That would also apply to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 140 8.A.a parcels on Yd and there are no setbacks between the parcels because they are not adjacent to an R zoned property. Even if one person did not own all the parcels, each property could be developed wall to wall. Mr. Clugston continued, the intent of the design standards is when there are two adjacent BD2 parcels that could have multifamily, private amenity space needs to be provided. One of the ways to do that is either move the building back to provide a balcony that projects out or create a balcony that is recessed into the building; either way provides some modulation. There are other ways to achieve that standard such as a rooftop desk. When there are no setbacks, buildings can be constructed right to the property line and that is the case with the overwhelming majority of the parcels in the BD zones. Council President Olson said that explanation clarified it for her. She asked if the City just got lucky with the architectural design of the first two parcels at 6th & Main that follow the slope. That makes a big difference and she was unsure if that occurred because the developer chose to be nice and cared about making the community look good, or if the City had it in code. Mr. Clugston said he was not familiar with the location Council President Olson was referencing. Council President Olson referred to the buildings on the north side of the street at 6t' & Main, the two largest parcels on the northwest corner of the intersection. Mr. Clugston answered those were zoned multifamily, not B132, and were built a number of years ago so he did not know what the code requirement was for height measurement at that time. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for a description of public amenity space. Mr. Clugston displayed the plan view, explaining the street -side amenity space has to be 5% of the lot area and must be provided between the building and the sidewalk, be open to the sky and must include landscaping, seating, art, or similar elements. He displayed the section view, identifying the street -side amenity space, the space between the sidewalk and the building front that acts like a setback that is activated through uses. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the map that illustrates the areas with and without designated street fronts, recalling Mr. Clugston's comment that the areas on the edges of B132 without designated street fronts were transitional areas. Mr. Clugston referred to the intersection of Main & 5t'', and the parcels radiating away from that, the BD 1 zone, the retail core. Just outside of that on all sides is the B132 zone, adjacent to the retail core and in some instances does not extend very far but in some areas it does. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what PRD 2002-102 means. Mr. Clugston answered it was a Planned Residential Development for single family development. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if loading/unloading spaces were required for any other residential type. Mr. Clugston answered not to his knowledge. Councilmember Chen said he had two questions, first, as the City grows, would the BD 1 zone need to be expanded into the BD2 zone. Ms. Mclaughlin said that is something that the needs analysis as part of the comprehensive plan update will consider, what are the City's commercial and retail demands and where should they be located, looking at the City and its activity centers as a whole, including the medical center, downtown and waterfront. She looked forward to doing a needs analysis and engaging the council in those discussions. Edmonds is unique in the sense that all the retail spaces are occupied which is a great sign. It was unclear where there was pent up demand; that will require some retail analysis. Councilmember Chen said his second question was whether the interim code only applied to residential or if it applied to both residential and mixed use, noting the current code allows both residential and mixed use. Mr. Clugston said there are existing design standards that apply to mixed use or commercial/office projects. This proposal would apply only to standalone multifamily buildings. Because this is residential only, the same amount of design analysis has not been done which is why these standards have been proposed. Ms. McLaughlin said that is the unanticipated gap; the intent is to fill that gap with these Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 141 8.A.a interim design standards specifically for multifamily. Staff is also working on multifamily design standards that would apply citywide. Councilmember Chen suggested the recommendations from the Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) be revisited and incorporated. Ms. McLaughlin agreed some of the CHC's recommendations were applicable to multifamily design standards and others will be applicable to the comprehensive plan update. Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has an issue with not being project specific when it was dealing with a project. This will be displacing 7-8 businesses, some of them women -owned, in the downtown business district. Acknowledging the council cannot consider project specifics, she asked if traffic, stormwater, or sewer impacts had been considered. As this will be a dense project with 24 - 48 extra cars, she asked if a traffic study had been done. She referred to the aging infrastructure, recalling a sewer break on 5' Avenue in the past. Ms. McLaughlin assured that was part of the permitting process which looks at everything that Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned including the need for traffic analysis, stormwater, existing utilities, what it can support and whether there is capacity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the timeframe for the citywide multifamily design standards. Ms. McLaughlin answered the senior planner that was leading the effort left the City. Recruitment is underway for that position and it may be expedited by moving to a consultant process; those options are being analyzed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussions at the Economic Development Commission about light and buildings next to each other and interest in setbacks. She recalled there were setbacks in Westgate and asked why no setbacks were being enforced to allow for light for adjacent buildings so they did not just look out on a wall. Ms. McLaughlin answered defining light and air can be fairly subjective. There could be a lighting/shadow study done on projects which was something she recommended. Oftentimes when there is an alley or street, particularly when the street is up to 25' wide, the light and air issue is mitigated by having that space in between buildings. Looking at historic downtowns within a tight urban fabric, the buildings are adjacent to each other like in Edmonds downtown core; the street provides light, air and separation. The same is seen in the development that is currently under review. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is plenty of density in the downtown area. Her issue is changing the mix of the BD zone, and making it more residential. She was aware it was allowed because it was not identified as a designated street front but she was still concerned that mixed use was not required. Council President Olson said this question was already answered but she wanted to be sure staff understood the question the way she intended; staff was saying no other condos or apartments were required to provide loading/unloading even if there is no parking lot associated with the complex. Ms. McLaughlin said in talking with Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien today about this issue, the only one he could recall was a project that requested a loading zone. Council President Olson said this comment was not related to the specific item but for all planning going forward, especially in downtown areas, when the building follows the slope like it does between 5t' & 6t' on the north side of Main, it is great and charming and although there are no setbacks on the side, it is so cute. She hoped that could be implemented in more places and made a priority in planning going forward. Councilmember Chen commented in terms of timing, the moratorium is expiring so there is some urgency. Ms. McLaughlin said in the interest of lifting the moratorium, given the magnitude of a moratorium on development and market dynamics, a public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled on April 5t''. These interim design standards will be returned to council on April 5t'; staff s recommendation is that the interim design standards be adopted and the moratorium would then be lifted on April 5tn With regard to the effective date of the proposed ordinance, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as currently drafted, it would not take immediate effect. Assuming it is adopted on April 5t'', it would not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 142 8.A.a take effect until April 15'. The ordinance could be drafted to take immediate effect, but it would require a majority plus one vote to pass. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was any risk with continuing with the current proposed timeline of a public hearing on April 5' and adoption of the interim design standards on April 5'. Mr. Taraday answered by his calculation if the ordinance is adopted on April 5" without an emergency clause, it would take effect on April 15th. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it would take effect on April 13'. Mr. Taraday said that was before the moratorium expired. Councilmember L. Johnson observed adding an emergency clause would allow the ordinance to take effect sooner if there was some benefit to that. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the benefit of have more than 5% public open space and what the timing would be to incorporate that change into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clugston answered given the short amount of time, it would be easier to stick with this proposal. That could be considered in the permanent multifamily design standards. Councilmember K. Johnson requested staff put that on the list of things to look at in the permanent standards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the setback standards for RM-1 weren't used such as in the BD4 zone. She recognized this was a transition zone and the intent is a standalone multifamily property. Mr. Clugston explained BD2 is mixed commercial adjacent to BD1. He displayed a map identifying the BD4 zone, downtown mixed residential, which is located in the southwest area of downtown and off by itself. In BD4, if a project is mixed use, there are no setbacks; if it is multifamily only, then RM-1.5 setbacks apply. The three sites that the DB4 zone covers are large, developed sites that were developed without designated street front standards. The RM setbacks are not appropriate for the BD2 zoned parcels which do not have side setbacks unless adjacent to residential which has a 15' setback requirement. With regard to adding an emergency clause to the ordinance, Council President Olson said if the effective date of the ordinance fit within the moratorium period without an emergency clause, how would an emergency be justified? Mr. Taraday said that was a good question; he did not want to rule out the possibility that an emergency declaration could be drafted that would be valid, but Council President Olson was correct that the ordinance would need to state the basis for taking emergency action. That basis is usually left to the discretion of the legislative body. If council or staff suggested a basis for an emergency, he would not eliminate that possibility, but she was correct that expiration of the moratorium was one basis that probably wouldn't satisfy the emergency clause. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 ECDC RELATED TO ADDRESSES FOR USE IN MAILED NOTICE Council President Olson explained the reason for notices is to make citizens and other stakeholders aware when there is a project that might influence their interests. The City has been made aware that notices are not always getting to the right people. The intent of this item is to determine how to change the code to resolve that via a code update. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this ordinance was requested by the council president. He tried to correct something that had been brought to her attention, that there are two different types of owner addresses held by Snohomish County, the taxpayer address and the owner address. Most often those addresses are the same, but it is possible for a property owner to contact the county and ask that tax statements be sent to a different address such as when someone owns property in the City but does not reside at the property and wants to receive mail elsewhere. The question is how to best provide notice to the public, in this case about development projects but it could be posed even more broadly. Mr. Taraday continued, because he did not involve City staff early enough, some issues were raised late in the game as this was going into the packet that have not yet been resolved. One such issue is that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 143 30 ft. max. 12 ft. min. SECTION CUT - STREET -FACING O T / l7ICVJJ LV I AREA 8.A.b PLAN VIEW - STREET -SIDE AMENITY SPACE �I Oam ml rl _ m ' D 10 ft max. GROUND FLOOR - �I PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE A D I 5 ft. min. 15 ft. min. setback setback PLAN VIEW - PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE RS-6 ROW LINE b FT. MIN. FENCE SCREENING PATIO loft. max. 5 ft. min. 15 ft. min. setback setback 8.A.b E M 4" 50% MAX Of 3 AMENITY SR 2 AS ROOFTOI S PRIVATE M AMENITY SF = 40 SQ. FT. � q _ aM .y d N_ Q M rt+ m D r _ T M E i 4) o a 0 N D _ c0 w C a! E •L d L 0 N t� t Q R L �J N r t x w 30 ft. max. 12 ft. min. SECTION CUT - ADJACENT PROPERTY 70 I0 8.A.b 8.A.c Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to extend the moratorium to Tuesday, April 19t' or Thursday, April 215t. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance states April 21'. He did that intentionally not knowing what may be on the April 19t1' agenda, and he wanted to provide additional time in the event the council needed to adjourn meeting to another night that week to finish its business. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating this should not have been as part of the agenda due to extending the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tern Olson said it was relevant because the council may want to give input to staff for further work in order to move quickly past moratorium. Mr. Taraday agreed from a parliamentary standpoint, it was not out of order. It is on the agenda and with only a short extension of the moratorium, it would be helpful for staff to receive feedback from the council sooner rather than later. Mayor Pro Tern Olson suggested limiting the discussion to feedback regarding how it could be improved. Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to provide last week's PPT again or just proceed to council discussion/questions. Councilmember L. Johnson said given the information the council heard earlier, it would be beneficial to have a shortened presentation. Mr. Clugston reviewed Interim Design Standards of Stand-alone multifamily building in BD2 zone, explaining the intent of the interim design standards was to apply them to the parcels on the edge of the BD2 zone outlined in red on the map that do not have a designated street front: !• Designated Street Front* - v h�3 9T EY Sz DALEY ]ST 802 ST BELL ST aoa 802 eoi I ❑nrro L x T MAPLE ST ry ALDER Si 4 a r� A - ^ ALDER 5T E rT WALNUT gY WALNUT S i t 80, Nd LL WAY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 148 8.A.c Standards are intended to apply to two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property Proposed design standards o Materials ■ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street -side amenity space ■ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ■ Section Cut - Street Facing - Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity area o Private amenity space ■ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases `eyes on the street' thereby improving safety ■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a roof top deck ■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10' Councilmember Paine said she did not have any trouble with most of the interim design standards, but wanted to understand the impact of removing CA, "A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity space may be provided as roof top deck. Deck railings may...". Mr. Clugston answered it would limit the ability of designers to provide private amenity space. They could probably do it in other ways such as a recessed balcony. The intent is to use the roof top as a gathering space for residents. Similar features are allowed to exceed the height in all zones such as elevator penthouses, chimneys, etc. This is an example of what could be on a roof top in a dense downtown area. Councilmember Paine said amenity space that was not on the roof would provide articulation and modulation on the building sides so it wasn't a giant mass and such a square. Grooves provide sightlines, a square does not. Having a roof top deck seems to shift that visual so it is not really community friendly. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 149 8.A.c Mr. Clugston said that is an option; other zones in Edmonds such as the General Commercial and Westgate Mixed Use allow roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said she was open to considering it in the multifamily design standards that will have a public process, but preferred to have the standards be tighter now and be more generous when there was a public process. Ms. McLaughlin said she could understand what Councilmember Paine was saying about having it be part of the required private amenity space and asked if she would be opposed to allowing roof top amenity space after they had met their standards. For instance, if the developer already met their private amenity space per the interim design standards and chose to do a roof top deck, would that be allowed. Councilmember Paine said she do not know how she felt about that, she has the square in her head. Ms. McLaughlin said that would be solved via the private amenity space; it was her understanding Councilmember Paine did not want the roof top deck to count toward that because she wanted further articulation. She could see that point of view but wanted to clear whether the desire was to prohibit roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said visual examples would be helpful. She hoped to avoid a block with people partying on top of the building. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with idea of maintaining the private amenity space and once that has been met, whether there is a roof top deck is inconsequential to the design standard. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis agreed with Councilmembers Paine and K. Johnson. She did not want people hanging out on decks, hanging over and looking and waving at people down on Main Street. There is nothing in the code that says decks on a roof top are considered open space. She wanted to be conscientious of that and not turn into Seattle where people hang out on decks waving at everybody walking by. She referred to a statement last week that a traffic analysis had been done, but now staff indicates no traffic analysis had been done and that it would come later. Ms. McLaughlin said at the last council meeting there was a question regarding the project development process for this particular project, specifically what types of studies are requested during project review and a traffic study was one of the questions. Traffic is typically evaluated in any project; in this project, which is not the subject of tonight's review, the traffic analysis yielded less than 25 PM peak hour trips. When a preliminary traffic analysis results in less than 25 PM peak hour trips, a full traffic study is not required because the impacts per hour on the street network are negligible. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis questioned 25 peak hour trips with the addition of at least 24 cars. Ms. McLaughlin answered international transportation engineering guidelines guide trip generation analysis. Public Works leads this process and the engineering team can provide more detail. It is a very standardized methodology for determining peak hour trips in different types of land use. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918 which is very explanatory about the design standards in BD zones but doesn't say anything about roof top decks. Mr. Clugston said he would need to look at the code and report back. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis asked if staff had spoken to the developer regarding mixed use versus fully residential since it is in a BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered this is a discussion on interim design standards for buildings in the BD2 zone. Councilmember Chen referred to an area outlined in red south of Main and east of 6t' on the map of designated street fronts and areas without designated street fronts. He asked if the Bellmont Building at 600 Bell was in the BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered that is in a multifamily zone. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the design standards and allowances for roof top decks or if the interim standards were allowing something that did not currently exist. She preferred to have that go through the more lengthy process with the overall multifamily design standards. She was concerned with adding something like that through these interim design standards if it did not already exist. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 150 8.A.c Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in the purpose of transition zones. There are very intensive uses in BD1, less intensive uses in BD3 and BD2 seems to be somewhat of a transition between those two. He asked the purpose of a transition zone and what the difference would be between mixed use and a mix of uses in BD2. Ms. McLaughlin answered the term transition zone is something that has used in staff s presentations. As the public mentioned, it is not found in the zoning code. In her professional judgment, transitional zones are meant to taper out the intensity of a mix of uses that are often found in a downtown core. It affords a larger variety for developers to choose from with regard to market demand. There is a typology that is more suited to a higher density retail core for in downtown core for mixed use buildings. With regard to a mix of uses, tapering away from the retail core, it allows for a variety of uses that still support, as stated in the comprehensive plan, the intensity that happens in the core and supports the retail and commercial uses by providing residences and other uses that help keep that space lively and vibrant. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photographs on packet page 107 of the North Sound Center and the post office building that have modulation and articulation in the rooflines and the sides. He asked staff to address how the articulation and design features help with good design for the City. Mr. Clugston said these buildings illustrate human scale. The lower buildings on Main Street are only 15' tall so they definitely have human scale but the Starbucks building on the corner and the post office buildings are definitely not monolithic blocks, they have elements that provide modulation, different eaves, etc. The Graphite building also has a lot going on and even on the North Sound building, there is modulation using colors, materials and windows to create human scale. Councilmember Tibbott said the proposed interim design standards for BD2 would be in line with this kind of modulation and natural materials and would help tie all the BD zones to downtown. Mr. Clugston agreed that was the intent. Ms. McLaughlin advised the proposed interim design standards would be used in combination with the existing design standards that talk about mimicking historic patterns, human scale, etc. and would not be used in isolation. The whole package of applicable design standards are in the council packet. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said if a roof top deck was included, she agreed it should be recessed from the edge so people could not look into windows on surrounding buildings, that was good input from the architect during the public hearing. She will listen to that public comment again to ensure she considered everything that was mentioned. She encouraged staff to consider that comment and other comments from the public. If councilmembers objected to the idea of a roof top deck, she suggested perhaps it could be allowed with a conditional use permit so the surrounding residents could weigh in. Councilmember Tibbott said it was clear from the council's discussion that clearer design standards were needed for a roof top deck. He asked what happened if a design was proposed that did not meet the design standards. Mr. Clugston said the developer would be sent back to the drawing board. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the proposal would be denied. Mr. Clugston said when staff or the ADB is reviewing a project, the goal is not to deny but to get them to something that is code compliant that also meets the design guidance in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they would need to meet the design standards before it was approved for construction. Mr. Clugston answered yes, or before it was conditionally approved. 2. 2022 PROS PLAN DRAFT REVISION PROPOSAL Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser said the final draft PROS Plan is currently under council consideration for approval. After robust public engagement and considerable public comment since the January 7t' draft release, the plan is in its last stage of council review and revision. Usually in this phase council has the option of approving the final draft as recommended by the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 151 8.A.d 3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2) Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed. Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the public at the April 5' meeting. Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the 50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2. Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck, even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to allow roof top decks as an amenity. Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 152 8.A.d Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on multifamily buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet. She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and further amendments can be made. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process. A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS. Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards. Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required modulation on the slope. Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists, it would not be a mandate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 153 8.A.d Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones. Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr. Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that; that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that lifts the moratorium. Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium, or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of the ordinance he sent council this afternoon. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 154 8.A.d COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point without reading what was emailed. Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested addressing the main motion. Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr. Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately. He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both; the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency. The motion was clarified as follows: Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read it quickly. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 155 8.A.d UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH. Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said the council tabled this item. Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda. Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head nods. Council President Olson restated her motion: TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the transparency hat on. Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the afternoon. He did not support the motion. Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday. Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 156 8.A.d Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said. There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting packet materials done and extending the moratorium. Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to review. Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like within a month as that is a much bigger study. Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable supporting that. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days, Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to take immediate effect. Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary. 4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES (Previously Item 8.4) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 157 8.A.e UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet. Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr. Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the ordinance in tonight's packet. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253. Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance. Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June 2nd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 158 8.A.e Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and step-down is one of the option. Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr. Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation. That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION." Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott asking about that relative to the post office building. Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant. Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SECOND FLOOR ONLY." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 159 8.A.e Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach into the setback were limited to the second floor and up. Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building; decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third floors can project a maximum of 5 feet. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 160 8.A.f ORDINANCE NO. 4256 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots that do not front on a designated street front; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on April 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and WHEREAS, the moratorium was intended to allow planning staff sufficient time to draft interim regulations for the BD2 zone; and WHEREAS, the six -day extension was afforded to allow planning staff and the city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD zones and the designated street front; and WHEREAS, with work continuing on the designated street front, it is proposed that these standards be adopted without lifting the moratorium and that the moratorium be lifted in conjunction with resolution of designated street front issues; and WHEREAS, planning staff have now completed a proposed set of interim design standards for the BD2 zone; and WHEREAS, planning staff continue to work on a permanent set of multi -family design standards, which could be ready for adoption in the next six -months; and WHEREAS, while the work referenced above continues, the city council desires to adopt the following interim standards to bring the BD2 regulation into closer harmony with the city's values and policy statements; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Interim ❑esign Standards. A new section 22.43.080, entitled "Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone," is hereby added Packet Pg. 161 8.A.f to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. Section 2. Duration of -Interim Design Standards. The interim design standards adopted by this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 3 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on May 17, 2022 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Declaration of EmeMencv. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this 2 Packet Pg. 162 8.A.f ordinance take immediate effect. Without taking immediate effect the interim regulations adopted by this ordinance would not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium, allowing for the possibility that building permit applications could become vested to the existing regulations, which are not consistent with the city's values and vision for the BD2 zone. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure that any building permit applications submitted would vest to the regulations set forth in this ordinance. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: MAY MIKE NELS N ATTEST/AUTHENTI TED: &JYXW,SCOtL!�4AEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Packet Pg. 163 8.A.f BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 28, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 19, 2022 PUBLISHED: April 21, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19. 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4256 4 Packet Pg. 164 8.A.f SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4256 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 191h day of April, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4256. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 191h day of April, 2022. �y CIT CL I %K, S c,6 SEY Packet Pg. 165 8.A.f Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publieation State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates 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 EDI1953211 ORMNIANCE 4255, 4256 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issuc(s), such publication commencing on 04/25/2022 and ending on 04/25/2022 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount o the fee for su publication is $37.84. Subsefted and sworn air.. day of ;,,,,,me on this Nof!aty Public in and for the State of Washington. Ciq• of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 SCOIT PASSEY + Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington MyAppoin.-,ent Expires 8!2912025 Commis„ion Number b417 .may Packet Pg. 166 8.A.f Classified Proof ORDINANCE SUMMARY gf the Cily0IEdmoods, Washington On the 2151 o[ Aprll, 2022, the City Council of fie City of Edmonds, passed Iha following Oronarmes, The Summaries of said ordinances consisting of titles are provided as fottoWS: ORpINAN� - NO.4255 AN ORDINANCE OF H CITY DMbNDS, WASHINGTON. EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMTT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT 00 NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254. ORDINANCE NO.425E AN ORDINANCE OF c�IDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. The full text of these Ordinances will be sent upon roquest. DATED Ihis 21st Day of ApnL 2D22 CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY Published: April 25, 2022. EDH953211 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 04/25/2022 01:18:20 pm Page: 2 Packet Pg. 167 8.A.f EXHIBIT A 22.43.080 Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone. A. Intent. To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of multiple dwelling residential units are compatible with the downtown area. B. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted by the Director or Architectural Design Board if they replicate the appearance of the preferred materials. C. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10% of the project's gross lot area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of the development. This standard can be met through a combination of balconies (cantilevered, recessed or semi - recessed), decks, patios or yards for individual dwelling units or the site as a whole. 1. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is provided, it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a minimum of 40 sq. ft. 2. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence may be over three feet in height. 3. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 5 feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet. D. Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists. E. Street -side amenity space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least 5% of the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or pedestrian area. This space must be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk and must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must be pedestrian -oriented and may include the following elements: 1. Landscaping 2. Seating area 3. A similar feature as approved by the Director or Architectural Design Board 4. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side amenity space or pedestrian area requirement. Packet Pg. 168 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2022 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review Extended Agenda Narrative Extended Agenda attached. Attachments: 07.21.2022 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 169 Extended Agenda July 13, 2022 August 2022 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change August 10 1. Joint Meeting with EDC — BD2 Designated Street Front 2. Tree Code Update 3. BD2 Design Standards Public Hearing August 24 1. Summer Break 5eptemoer lulz Sept 14 1. Joint Meeting with Tree Board — Tree Code Update 2. Wireless Continued Public Hearing Sept 28 1. BD2 Designated Street Front Public Hearing 2. CIP/CFP Introduction 3. Comprehensive Plan Update October 2022 October 12 1. Joint Meeting with Tree Board — Tree Code Update 2. Wireless Continued Public Hearing October 26 Packet Pg. 170 items ana vates are sui 9.A.a o change Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP For Future 2 Climate Action Plan update and public outreach Consideration 2022 3. Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design) 4. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis 5. Subdivision code updates 6. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 7. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners) 8. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates 9. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates 10. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies b. Parking standards 11. ADA Transition Plan (Parks) 12. CIP/CFP Recurring 1. Election of Officers (1St meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23) 3. Joint meeting with City Council —April or as needed 4. Development Activity Report r Q Packet Pg. 171