2024-04-11 Hearing Examiner MinutesI
2
�nC 189.J
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
RE: Port of Edmonds
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Design Review and Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit
PLN2023-0015 and PLN2023-
0016
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION
The Port of Edmonds requests approval of a shoreline substantial development permit
and design review to reconstruct and renovate an approximately 900-foot-long section of
deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (North Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and
repair a segment of seawall that extends between the Port of Edmonds Administration
Building and Olympic Beach due to significant deterioration. The applications are
approved subject to conditions.
The proposal did not attract any public participation. Overall the proposal will improve
public access to the shoreline and result in improved environmental compatibility by
resulting in a modest increase in aquatic habitat, replacement of creosote wooden pilings
with steel pilings and use of glass blocks for the new boardwalk to enable light
transmission to underlying waters. The only issues of concern are noncompliance with
setback standards. The new parking area does not conform to shoreline setbacks and is
SSDP and Design Review P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conditioned to do so. A new proposed bathroom facility may also not conform to the
shoreline setback and is similarly conditioned to conform.
TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview
of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as
Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
The staff report and its 26 attachments were entered as Exhibit 1 during the April 11,
2024 hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
Applicants/Appellant. The Applicant is the Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way,
rids WA 98020.
Hem. A hybrid hearing was held on April 11, 2024 at Edmonds City Hall.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The Port of Edmonds requests approval of a shoreline
substantial development permit and design review to reconstruct and renovate an
approximately 900-foot-long section of deteriorated waterfront boardwalk (North
Portwalk) at the Port of Edmonds Marina and repair a segment of seawall that extends
between the Port of Edmonds Administration Building and Olympic Beach due to
significant deterioration. The renovated boardwalk will provide upgraded public access to
the shoreline and enhance amenities along the waterfront. Two plazas will be added
adjacent to the boardwalk and will provide public gathering spaces and restroom access.
An Upper Plaza will be added in a segment of the existing esplanade between the
boardwalk and Arnie's Restaurant, and a Central Plaza will be added in an area currently
occupied by a parking lot and the Port of Edmonds Administration Building, which is to
be demolished. A new public restroom is proposed within the Central Plaza. (Attachments
1 — 6).
Existing creosote -treated timbers, timber piles, and timber lagging that support the east
side of the Portwalk will be replaced with galvanized steel piles. The upper timber section
of the seawall will be replaced with a steel sheet pile wall. The new Portwalk will follow
the same alignment but be elevated six inches to create increased separation from the
SSDP and Design Review p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adjacent fire lane and to improve accessibility. The parking lot will be reconfigured for
vehicular and pedestrian safety.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The adjacent sites to the north and south of the subject
site are also zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Olympic Beach Park is located on the
northern end of the project site which is zoned Public (P). The BNSF railroad right-of-
way is east across Admiral Way. East of the railroad is the Harbor Square development
and Edmonds Marsh.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal. Impacts are more specifically addressed below:
A. No Net Loss Caused by Project. The proposal will cause no net loss of shoreline
functions and values. The proposed development and associated public access will
not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or values as found in the
applicant's critical areas report (Attachment 11). The report was prepared by
professional consultants who fully evaluated the impacts of the proposal, including
impacts to protected species in the project area. The report concluded that there
would be no net loss of ecological function because the project would result in an
increase of 75 square feet of aquatic habitat and the new boardwalk will be composed
of glass blocks increasing light transmission and reducing the existing amount of
shading associated with the current overwater cover, reducing potential adverse
effects from the overwater structure. The report also includes mitigation measures,
imposed by this decision, that mitigate impacts during construction. .
B. Critical Areas Adequately Protected. As conditioned, the proposal will not adversely
affect any critical areas.
A critical areas determination was made under File No. CRA2021-015 5 for the parcel
containing the proposed development site. The critical area determination found the
site to contain or be adjacent to frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous
areas (seismic hazard), and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Puget
Sound).
Frequently Flooded Areas: The subject property is located within Flood Zone AE
according to draft FEMA floodplain maps. While the FEMA maps are draft, ECDC
23.70.010.13 allows the City of Edmonds discretion in using the most up-to-date
information in determining whether the site is within the floodplain and subject to
floodplain development restrictions. The City of Edmonds has determined that all
development applications within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones in the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map will be subject to the requirements
of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.07. This also has
implications for height calculations which are discussed below in Section XI.1.B of
this staff report. As subject to these development standards, the proposal adequately
mitigates against potential flood impacts.
SSDP and Design Review p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Seismic Hazard: The subject site is located within a mapped liquefaction hazard area.
A geotechnical report provided in Attachment 12 addresses the liquefaction seismic
hazard. The recommendations of the geotechnical report are imposed as conditions
of approval. As conditioned, the proposal adequately mitigates against seismic
hazards.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area: A significant amount of analysis has
been conducted on the project's impact and benefits on the fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. As previously noted, the applicants have provided a critical area
report . which determined the project would result in no net loss of ecological
function. The report also found that the proposal would not likely jeopardize
endangered species or designated critical habitat (Attachment 11).
C. Cultural Resources. The proposal will not adversely affect cultural resources. A
cultural resources assessment was conducted for the proposed development. Pursuant
to RCW 42.56.300 cultural resource assessments may be exempt from public
disclosure, so the assessment has not been provided as an attachment. In summary,
the assessment found:
During background research and field investigation, no archaeological
sites were identified at the project location. As currently defined, ground -
disturbing activities within the project location with the potential to
expose buried sediments are expected to take place within the fill deposits
and are not likely to expose buried relict surfaces or deposits. No
additional cultural resources investigation is recommended at this time.
If project activities result in the discovery of archaeological materials,
project staff should halt work in the immediate area and contact the
technical staff at DAHP and representatives of identified area Tribes, as
outlined in the inadvertent discovery protocol.
A Cultural Resources Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the project is provided in
Attachment 13.
D. Stormwater/Water Quality: The proposal will not create any adverse significant
stormwater/water quality impacts. Compliance with the City's stormwater
regulations assures that water quality will be treated to levels found legislatively
acceptable. To this end, the Applicant prepared a storm water drainage report as
Attachment 8. The City's stormwater engineer recommended the project be
approved to move into the Engineering Design phase and found the stormwater
report compliant with the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC (Attachment 23).
E. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and improved parking. The redesign
of existing parking lots aims to increase public safety for pedestrians and drivers by
shifting the parking lot layout to angled stalls and implementing one-way traffic.
SSDP and Design Review p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, all new buildings within the downtown business
area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet
of gross floor area of building. With a gross floor area of 667 square feet, at least two
parking spaces are required. 142 parking spaces are proposed, so the proposal
exceeds the minimum number of required on -site parking stalls.
Electric Vehicle Charging Capabilities are required with substantial improvements
are made to an existing development, pursuant to ECDC 17.115.040. For non-
residential uses, 40 percent of parking spaces are required to be "EV Capable" and
10 percent of spaces are required to have "EV Installed Parking Spaces".
Additionally, development activities are required to provide bicycle parking facilities
when substantial improvements are made to an existing development. Per ECDC
17.120, short-term bicycle parking is required at a rate of 1 per 12 vehicle parking
spaces for nonresidential uses. .
F. View Impacts. The proposal will not adversely impact views. According to the staff
report, the reconstruction of the boardwalk will result in the consolidation of five
existing viewing bump -outs to a larger single location to provide enhanced public
access, an enhanced gathering space, and better views of Puget Sound.
6. Public Access. The proposal will maintain improve public access to the shoreline as
that is its primary purpose. Pedestrian connections are maintained from Admiral Way
to the shoreline. The project proposes to widen the north section of the Portwalk by four
feet, allowing for increased pedestrian usage.
As to visual access, the Shoreline Master Program has specific requirements for view
corridors with the Urban Mixed -Use II shoreline environment. ECDC
24.40.040.B.I l.a.i requires a view corridor to be maintained across 30 percent of the
average parcel width. The parcel on which the development site is part of is over 1000
feet wide. Two buildings on the lot total 128 feet in width, approximately 13% of the
parcel, and thus consistent with the required 30 percent view corridor, leaving 87
percent of the parcel width for the view corridor (see Attachment 5, Sheet UD01.0).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The shoreline substantial development permit and
associated design review are classified as a Type III -A decision under ECDC 20.01.003.
ECDC 20.01.003(B) provides that the hearing examiner holds a hearing and makes a
final decision on Type III-B permits not held by the ADB. The shoreline and design
review permits are consolidated for examiner review as authorized by ECDC
20.01.002B.
SSDP and Design Review p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Substantive:
2. Zoning/Shoreline Designations. The zoning map designation is Commercial
Waterfront (CW). The upland portion of the project site is located within the Urban
Mixed -Use II shoreline designation of the Shoreline Master Program while portions of
the boardwalk and seawall are located in the Aquatic II shoreline environment
(Attachment 19).
3. Permit Review Criteria. ECDC 24.80.040A requires a shoreline substantial
development permit for all nonexempt projects within shoreline jurisdiction, which
includes any development within 200 feet of the Puget Sound shoreline. The proposal is
nonexempt and subject to shoreline review. ECDC 24.80.04013 outlines the criteria
applicable to shoreline substantial development permits, which requires conformance to
all shoreline master program regulations and substantial compliance with all shoreline
master program policies. .
8. Staff Report Shoreline Policy Findings and Conclusions Adopted by Reference. In
order to maintain some usable brevity to this Decision and to focus upon the significant
regulatory issues of the project, the findings of fact and conclusions of law related to
applicable shoreline policies outlined in the Staff Report are adopted by reference as if
set forth in full. Since shoreline policies are largely redundant of requirements
incorporated in the shoreline use regulations and they are only subject to substantial
compliance, this Decision limits is shoreline permit analysis to application of shoreline
use regulations and does not address the shoreline policies. Applicable shoreline
regulations are quoted in italics below and applied through corresponding conclusions of
law.
ECDC 24.40.010.13 Regulations (Archaeological and Historic Resources)
1. Where practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or
private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering
potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value
as identified by appropriate authorities.
2. The city may require that a site be redesigned or that development be postponed for
a definite or indefinite period if this is reasonably necessary to protect a historic site or
items of historic, archeological or cultural significance.
3. Upon receipt of application for a shoreline permit or request for a statement of
exemption for development on properties with 500 feet of a site known to contain an
historic, cultural or archaeological resource(s), the city shall require a cultural resource
site assessment; provided, that this requirement may be waived if the administrator
determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground
disturbing activities and will not impact a known historic cultural or archaeological site.
The site assessment shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist or historic
preservation professional, as applicable, to determine the presence of significant historic
SSDP and Design Review p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or archaeological resources. The fee for the services of the professional archaeologist
or historic preservation professional shall be paid by the landowner or responsible
party.
4. Whenever historic, cultural or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the
process of development on shorelines, work on that portion of the development site shall
be stopped immediately, the site secured and the find reported as soon as possible to the
administrator. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and
appropriate Native American Tribes. In such cases, the developer shall allow site
inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to
ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged. Work
should not resume until approval is obtained from the shoreline administrator.
9. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5F, a cultural resources
assessment was conducted for the proposed development. No significant cultural
resources were found. Compliance with the Applicants' cultural resource and monitoring
plan is required as a condition of approval and this will assure that development is stopped
as required by the criterion above if any cultural resources are discovered.
ECDC 24.40.020B. The city of Edmonds critical area ordinance, as codified in Chapters
23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026), is herein adopted as apart
of this program, except for the specific subsections list below in subsection (C) of this
section. All references to the city of Edmonds critical area ordinance in this program
are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds critical
area ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the
exceptions listed in subsection (C) of this section, shall apply to any use, alteration or
development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written
statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in
Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B of this master program), the
regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline
jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the city of Edmonds critical area
ordinance and this shoreline master program, provisions of the shoreline master
program shall prevail.
10. The criterion is met. City staff have assessed and found compliance with the City's
critical area regulations for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A and 5B. No
exceptions listed in Subsection C apply. Additional SMP critical area requirements are
addressed below.
ECDC 24.40.020.F. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Development in designated
geologically hazardous areas shall be regulated in accordance with the following:
1. New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause
foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the
life of the development.
SSDP and Design Review p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline
stabilization over the normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made
for instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no
alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result.
The stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline
stabilization.
3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures,
are found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure,
stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures
may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then only if no
net loss of ecological functions will result.
11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposal is
designed to prevent any adverse public safety impacts due to geologic stability issues. The
proposed development is not triggering the need for new structural stabilization.
ECDC 24.40.020. G Critical Saltwater Habitat
1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when
all of the conditions below are met:
a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the
proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020.
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or
location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to
accomplish the same..
c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological
functions associated with critical saltwater habitat.
d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species
recovery...
12. The criterion is met. The shoreline surrounding the elevated walkway qualifies as a
critical saltwater habitat. Mitigation sequencing and plans for unavoidable impacts to
wetlands, waterways, and associated buffers are provided in Section 5.0 of the Critical
Area report. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will result in no net
loss of ecological functions to this saltwater habitat. Reconstruction and renovation of
the boardwalk and underlying seawall were deemed necessary due to significant
deterioration. The project includes unavoidable work in water and in adjacent upland
habitats.
ECDC 24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction
Development within the shoreline environment is required to meet the standards and
provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas as provided to areas of special flood
hazard in the current edition of the International Residential Code and International
Building Code, as adopted in Title 19 ECDC. The subject property is located within a
SSDP and Design Review P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frequently flooded area and subject to the requirements of the International Building
Code amendments in ECDC 19.00.025.P (Attachment 34).
ECDC 24.40.030.13 also notes that development and redevelopment shall be located and
designed to prevent the need for structural flood hazard reduction measures. The
proposed development does not require new structural flood hazard reduction measures.
13. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5B.
ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views
ECDC 24.40.040.13.1 Except as provided in subsections (B)(2) through (4) of this
section, shoreline substantial developments or conditional uses shall provide public
access where any of the following conditions are present:
a. Where the use or modification will create increased demand for public access to the
shoreline, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
ECDC 24.40.040.B.5 Shoreline development by public entities, such as local
governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, should provide
public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is
shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline.
ECDC 24.40.040.B.8 Easements Recorded. In each case where public pedestrian
access is required, whether it is physically available at the end of development or
deferred until a later date, all owners of the subject property must record a public
pedestrian easement, in a form approved by the city attorney, establishing the right of
the public to access, use and traverse that portion of the subject property.
ECDC 24.40.040.B.10 Shoreline uses, modifications and activities shall be designed
and operated to avoid blocking, reducing or adversely interfering with the public's
existing physical and visual access to the water and shorelines.
ECDC 24.40.040.B.13. Public access sites shall be connected directly to the nearest
public street and shall include provisions for disabled and physically impaired persons,
where feasible.
14. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
Pedestrian connections are maintained from Admiral Way to the shoreline. The project
proposes to widen the north section of the Portwalk by four feet, allowing for increased
pedestrian usage.
ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a.i Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor
must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor
must be in one continuous piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas,
and landscaping will be allowed; provided, that they do not obscure the view from
adjacent public right-of-way to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must
be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest
view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has
shoreline frontage in excess of 1, 000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third
of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south
SSDP and Design Review P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of
the Puget Sound.
15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No.6.
ECDC 24.40.060B Water quality, storm water, and nonpoint pollution
3. All development approved under this shoreline master program shall be designed
and maintained consistent with the city's stormwater comprehensive plan, all codes
related to stormwater, and engineering design standards.
4. New development is encouraged to employ low impact development principles and
practices such as setbacks, retaining land cover, and reducing impervious areas, and
using special caution to avoid infiltration of stormwater in shoreline areas along
marine bluffs.
16. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5D.
ECDC 24.40.080 Shoreline development permitted by area designation
ECDC 24.40.080 identifies the allowed uses in the various shoreline area
designations.
17. The criterion is met. ECDC 24.40.080 identifies the allowed uses in the various
shoreline area designations. The proposed project is a mix of recreational use, shoreline
stabilization, and transportation use, all of which are permitted through a shoreline
substantial development permit process.
ECDC 24.40.090 Shoreline bulk and dimensional standards
The bulk and dimensional requirements for recreation within the Urban Mixed Use
II and Aquatic II shoreline environmental in ECDC 24.40.090 are detailed in the table
below:
Shoreline
Shore
Building
Maximum
Maximum
Parking
Buffer
Designation
Setback
Setback
Height
Coverage
Urban Mixed -Use II
15 feet
N/A
N/A
30 feet
None
60 feet
Aquatic II
N/A
N/A
N/A
15 feet 4
N/A
N/A
Z See ECDC 24.40.040(B)(11) for view corridor requirements.
SSDP and Design Review P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3 No side setback is required from adjacent commercial property. A minimum 15-foot setback is
required from the lot line adjacent to shoreline residential environments. The area must be
fully landscaped and include a minimum six -foot -high fence or hedge.
4 Above ordinary high-water mark.
In the urban mixed -use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced
by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080(D)(2)(c) and (D)(3)(c).
is Side setbacks determined by the underlying zoning. No required side setback in the BD2, CG, or
MP2 zones. Five-foot side setback in the OR zone.
The bulk and dimensional requirements for parking within the Urban Mixed -Use II shoreline
environment in ECDC 24.40.090 are detailed in the table below:
Shoreline
Shore
Building
Buffer
Designation
Setback
Setback
Urban Mixed -Use II
15 feet 7
N/A
N/A
In the urban mixed -use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced
by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080(D)(2)(c) and (D)(3)(c).
18. The criterion is met. The new public restroom structure is located approximately
13.5 feet landward from the bulkhead (Attachment 5). ECDC 24.90.050 defines the shore
setback as the distance from the ordinary high water mark. It's unclear if the bulkhead
serves as the ordinary high water mark for the proj ect site. A condition of approval requires
that the public restroom be located 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark. No side
setbacks are required as the site is not adjacent to any shoreline residential environments
and the proposal is consistent with the view corridor requirements of ECDC
24.40.040.13.11. The elevation views on Sheets M-04 and M-05 of Attachment 5 indicate
the structure will be approximately 12 feet tall to the top of the roof (see height discussion
in Section XI.1.B above).
The reconfigured parking is located approximately 8 feet from the seawall and 16 feet from
the mean high-water mark (See Attachment 5, Sheet UD01.0). If the existing parking is
nonconforming within setbacks, it can be replaced and maintained, but not expanded into
the minimum required setbacks, per ECDC 17.40.020. ECDC 24.60.080.D.3 authorizes a
setback reduction to 40 feet if there is more than 20 feet of waterward boardwalk, which
is provided by the project. However, the setback may not be reduced to less than 40 feet
with this 20 foot allowance. The minimum setback, as reduced by the maximum amount
allowed by ECDC 24.60.080.D.3, is found to be 40 feet. The proposed setback for the
new parking will have to be increased from 16 feet to 40 feet.
ECDC 24.50.010.13 General Shoreline Modification Regulations
4. Proponents of shoreline modification projects shall obtain all applicable federal and
state permits and shall meet all permit requirements.
SSDP and Design Review P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5. Best Available Science. All reports prepared in support of a shoreline modification
shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of shoreline environment
and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used.
19. The criterion is met. The proposal does not involve shoreline modifications. The
critical areas report, attachment 11, is heavily referenced with credible scientific studies
and is based upon best available science.
ECDC 24.50.020.D.5 Shoreline Stabilization Regulations
existing bulkhead or other shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a
filar structure if there is a demonstrated need to protect principal uses or structures
n erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves.
20. The criterion is met. The Criteria Compliance Narrative provided (Attachment 4)
addresses the need for the bulkhead replacement due to deteriorating timber from a
previous structural assessment and feasibility study conducted in 2020, with the
recommendation for replacement in a 5-to-10-year timeframe. The proposed reconstruction
and renovations do not trigger the need for new shoreline modifications. The Critical Area
Report details the conservation (Attachment 11).
ECDC 24.60.060.0 Recreational Development Regulations
2. Recreational facilities shall make adequate provisions for:
a. Vehicular and pedestrian access, both on site and off site;
b. Vehicular traffic, both inside and outside the facility;
c. Vehicular parking;
d. Water supply, sewage disposal, and garbage collection;
e. The prevention of overflows and trespasses onto adjacent properties;
f. Screening, buffer strips, fences, and signs to prevent park overflow and to protect
the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private or public properties;
g. Security; and
h. Maintenance.
21. The criterion is met. Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access meeting city standards
as outlined in Finding of Fact 5E and the staff report and are to be provided for on -site.
The reconfiguration of the existing parking area aims to increase safety and accessibility.
Screening is provided with the improved landscaping proposed with the redevelopment.
Security is provided for with adequate lighting and maintenance will be provided by the
Port of Edmonds.
ECDC 24.60.080.0 Transportation and Parking Regulations
SSDP and Design Review p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1. Transportation and parking facilities shall be planned, located, and designed so that
routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features,
will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing
or planned water -dependent uses.
6. Parking facilities are not a water -dependent use and shall only be permitted within
the shoreline to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are
no feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline.
7. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate
the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject
property. Specific parking standards for uses are identified in the Chapter 17.50 ECDC,
as now or hereafter amended.
8. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space
necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Parking
should not be located between the building(s) on the subject property and the shoreline.
Exterior parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units, must be attractively
landscaped with vegetation that will not obstruct view of the shoreline from adjacent
public areas or adjacent public rights -of -way.
22. The criterion is met. The parking associated with the development is consistent
with Chapter 17.50 ECDC as outlined in Finding of Fact 5E and supports an authorized
water -oriented shoreline use. Site design strategies include placing a majority of the
parking stalls to the side (east) of the Portwalk to minimize their presence as much as
possible and to maximize the public view corridor. The parking lot will be landscaped
consistent with the landscaping requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Safe pedestrian
routes are provided through the parking area connecting the waterfront to Admiral Way._
DESIGN REVIEW
The findings and conclusions of the Design Review Board, Att. 25 and 26, are adopted
by this reference as if set forth in full.
DECISION
As conditioned, the shoreline substantial development permit and design review
applications comply with all applicable review criteria for the reasons outlined in the
Conclusions of Law above. The applications are approved subject to the following
conditions: .
1. Accept conditions put forth by the Architectural Design Board;
2. The proposal shall be subject to the recommendations of the Applicant's studies
admitted into the record, including the critical areas report, geotechnical report,
stormwater report and cultural resources monitoring and discovery plan.
3. All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the site shall be screened to
mitigate impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural
elements, landscaping, and/or fencing;
SSDP and Design Review p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with the conditions of all
related federal, state, and local permits.
5. The proposed new parking areas shall be setback 40 feet from the ordinary high water
mark.
6. The new public restroom shall be setback 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
Dated this 25th day of April 2024.
e-
Pluff A. Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
The shoreline permit is Type III -A decision subject to appeal to the Washington State
Shoreline Hearings Board as required by ECDC 20.01.003 and Chapter 90.58 RCW. The
design review decision is a Type III -A decision subject to judicial appeal under the Land
Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. LUPA appeals must be filed and served
within 21 days of issuance of the design review decision as governed by RCW 36.70C.040.
Appeals of the shoreline permits must follow the procedures specified in RCW 90.58.180,
which requires the filing of the appeal within 21 days of the "date of filing" as defined in
RCW 90.58.140(6). .
Reconsideration may be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as
required by ECDC 20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
SSDP and Design Review p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision