Ordinance 30140006.150.104
WSS /mis
2/13/95
ORDINANCE NO. 3 014
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE ENACTMENT
AND REENACTMENT OF THE EDMONDS CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.15B OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENT OF SAID CHAPTER, AND EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.15B.120
THEREOF TO REPLACE CURRENTLY PERMITTED
ALTERATIONS TO GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREA
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS WITH STAFF REDUCTIONS TO
TEN FEET IF JUSTIFIED BY A GEOLOGICAL REPORT,
AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE 20.150.010 TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL OF STAFF
DECISIONS ON BUFFER REDUCTIONS, AMENDING
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION
20.15B.070(A)(3)(c) TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A
STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA FROM A 30% SLOPE TO A
40% SLOPE, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.15B. 120(D) AND
20.15B.120(E)(5) TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES IN THE
DEFINITION OF STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS AND
REFERRING THESE AMENDMENTS AND A DIRECTIVE TO
REINVESTIGATE WETLANDS CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FOR ACTION BY MAY 1,
1995 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, it was asserted that the City of Edmonds may not have properly
adopted an extension of the sunset date of Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, the Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance, and
93945.1 -1-
WHEREAS, an emergency ordinance enacting and reenacting the Edmonds
Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development
Code, was adopted by the City Council in December 1994, and
WHEREAS, the City Council established in accordance with provisions of state
law a hearing date of January 17, 1995, such date being within 60 days of the date of the
adoption or readoption of the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, at such hearing, testimony was given to the Council which suggested
amendment of the Critical Areas Ordinance in order to review the provisions relating to steep
slopes and the administration of such provisions as well as a suggestion that the process for the
categorization of wetlands be amended, and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it appropriate to make revisions to the
Interim Critical Areas Ordinance in order to provide the staff with greater discretion to grant
administrative waivers based upon the objective assessment of a qualified geotechnical expert
in steep slope and similar environments where no evidence of harm to the public or risk to
private properties is shown, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the issue relating to the amendment of
the categorization of wetland could be the subject of a detailed and scientific assessment which
requires further study, and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Attorney has recommended the amendment of the
provisions of the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance in order to provide for staff waivers and a
format geotechnical and other experts reports which can be utilized under the provisions of
ECDC Chapter 19.05 to avoid duplicative costs, and
93945.1 -2-
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt and incorporate by reference the
legislative findings of King County from whom the original structure of the Critical Areas was
derived as well as reports developed by the City's consultant in the original process in order to
incorporate those legislative findings into its record to support the adoption of the staff waiver
and to provide additional background for the City Council's original adoption and re- enactment
of the Ordinance, NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Edmonds hereby adopts and
incorporates by reference certain legislative findings adopted by King County and set forth in
the adoption of the King County Critical Areas Ordinance as well as the recommendations of
the City's consultant. The King County findings for the King County Critical Areas Ordinance
is attached as Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth
in full, and the following findings are specifically adopted by the City Council: Findings 5, 7,
8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. The recommendations of the Edmonds consultant in the Critical
Areas process are hereby adopted as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
following:
Section 2. 20.15B.070(A)(3)(c) is hereby repealed and replaced with the
C. Steep Slope Hazard Areas. "Steep slope hazard areas"
means any ground that raises at an inclination of 40% or
more within a vertical elevation change of at least 10 feet
(a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of
horizontal distance). A slope is delineated by establishing
93945.1 -3-
its tow and top and measured by averaging the inclination
over at least 10 feet of vertical relief.
Section 3. Section 20.15B. 120(B) of the Edmonds Community Development
Code is hereby repealed. Sections 20.15B. 120(C), (D), (E) and (F) are hereby renumbered as
Sections 20.15B. 120(B), (C), (D) and (E) of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
respectively. 20.15B. 120(A) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby repealed
and replaced with the following:
A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be
50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native
vegetation, and where appropriate, be placed within the
Critical Areas tract. This fifty foot buffer requirement may
be reduced to ten feet by the Director or his /her designee
upon the review of a Critical Area study prepared pursuant
to Section 20.15B. 150(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code by a licensed geologist or geotechnical
engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed
buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site,
the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall
include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as
defined by Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Such report shall be certified in a
form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County
Recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this
Chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of
Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development
Code. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer
reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the
provisions of Section 20.105.010(A)(4).
Section 4. Section 20.105.010(A)(4) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to provide for appeal and review of staff decisions under
the provisions of Chapter 20.15B to read as follows:
93945.1 -4-
20.105.010 APPEALABLE DECISIONS
A. Staff Decisions.
4. Environmental (SEPA) decisions in accordance with
the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.15A as the
same as exists or is hereafter amended and staff
decisions made in accordance to the provisions of
Chapter 20.15B to exempt any action from erosion,
landslide hazards, steep slope or seismic activity
buffering requirements.
Section 5. 20.15B. 120(D) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
repealed and replaced by the following:
D. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located
on slopes less than 40 % shall only be approved to be
altered if both of the following provisions are met:
1. Proposed development will not decrease
slope stability on any adjacent property, and
2. The landslide hazard to the project and
adjacent properties is eliminated or mitigated
such that the proposed development on the
site is certified as stable by a licensed
professional geologist or geotechnical
engineer.
Any landslide hazard area and its buffer combined which are
greater than one acre in size, shall be placed in a Critical Area
tract for any proposed Master Plan Development, subdivision,
short- subdivision, or Planned Residential Development, pursuant
to Section 20.15B.170. Where alterations are authorized City staff
shall determine whether the remaining portion(s) of the landslide
hazard area shall be placed within a Critical Area tract.
93945.1 -5-
Landslide areas located on slopes greater than 40% shall be
regulated pursuant to Section 20.15B. 10(E).
Section 6. 20.15B. 120(E)(5) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby
repealed and replaced with the following:
5. Steep slopes of 40% or greater but with a vertical change
of 20 feet or less may be exempted from the provisions of
this Section based on City staff review of a report prepared
by a licensed geologist or a geotechnical engineer which
demonstrates that no adverse impacts will result from the
proposed actions.
Section 7. The provisions of the Edmonds Critical Areas Ordinance as amended herein
are hereby referred to the Edmonds Planning Board for review and the adoption of a regular
Critical Areas Ordinance. Such ordinance shall be presented to the City Council for adoption
on or before May 1, 1995. In the event that the ordinance cannot be ready for review, the
Planning Board is requested to provide reasonable notice so that the City Council may consider
further extensions or adoptions of Interim Critical Areas Ordinances until such time as the
Planning Board can bring its recommendation forward through the normal hearing and review
process. The Planning Board is asked particularly to consider the amendments contained in this
ordinance to the buffering requirements for steep slope, seismic erosion and landslide hazard
provisions as well as the public recommendation to amend the classification structure for
wetlands presented to the City Council at its public hearing on adoption or readoption of the
Interim Critical Areas Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
93945.1 -6-
PPP
IN NJ
i
�.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED :
C Y CLERK, ONDA J. MARCH
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 3 /16 / 9 5
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 3/21/95
PUBLISHED: 3/26/95
EFFECTIVE DATE: 3/31/95
ORDINANCE NO. 3 014
93945.1 -7-
ti
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
i
EXHIBIT "A"
August 29, 1990
SA0EDIT2.KC
Derdowski, Sims, .
Gruger, Sullivan
Introduced by: North. Laing
Proposed No.: 89 -199
ORDINANCE NO. -
AN ORDINANCE related to zoning; adding and
amending the definitions and regulations for
protection of environmentally sensitive areas;
amending the grading code and the shorelines
management code to conform to the sensitive areas
regulations; and providing for clearing permits;
amending ordinance 1161, Section 10; Ordinance
1488, Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 23; Ordinance 1711,
Section 1; Ordinance 2537, Section 1; Ordinance
2909, Section 201; Ordinance 2910, Section 4
(part); Ordinance 3108, Section 1; ordinance
3688, Sections 105, 403, 503, 5060 603; Ordinance
4099, Sections 1, 9; Ordinance 4365, Sections 1,
2, 3, 6; ordinance 4461, Section 2; Ordinance
4569, Section 4; Ordinance 6254, Section 2;
Ordinance 7990, Section 19; ordinance 8330,
Section 29; and Resolution 25789, Section 2802;
all as amended; and, K.C.C. 14.30..020; 14.44.010;
14.46.010; 14.46.090; 16.82.010; 16.82.020;
16.82.040; 16.82.050; 16.82.060; 16.82.130;
20.24:080; 21.04.225; 4.345; 21.03.775;
21.04.915; 21.04.920; 8.020; 23.08.110;
23.12.010; 25.04.050 .6.030; 25.20.030;
25.24.030; 25.20. 30.020; adding new
sections to K.C.0 ; 21.04; 21.54 and 27.12;
repealing Ordinan,- .527, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8; Ordinance .28, Sections 1, 2; Ordinance
2985, Sections 11, ordinance 3718, Sections
1, 2, 4; Ordinance ':82, Section 1; Ordinance
3952, Sections 1, 2, 30 4, 5: Ordinance 4365,
Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; Ordinance
4462, Section 15: Ordinance 5061, Section 3; and
Ordinance 7990, Sections 40, 41, 42, 43; and,
K.C.C. 21.04.415: 21.04.420; 21.54.010 -.190 and
prescribing penalties.
PREAMBLE:
THE COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS THAT:
1. King County is experiencing rapid growth, both in its
cities and in unincorporated King County. The
development of residences, businesses, shopping areas
and other structures, and the clearing of land for
accommodation of livestock and for such development
all have the potential of impacting the county's
natural environment. These activities have been
identified as having the potential to cause excessive
and adverse impacts particularly on certain types of
environmental features.
2. The environmental features identified as sensitive
areas which require regulation by King County are:
coal mine hazard areas, landslide hazard areas,
seismic hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, volcanic
hazard areas, steep slopes, floodplains and streams
and wetlands.
3. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance will implement the goals
and policies of the 1985 King County Comprehensive
Plan.
(?/ /^t
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
4.
9614,
The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved ESHB
2929 (1990 Wash. Laws 17) which mandates that certain
counties and cities within those counties address the
protection of critical areas. Critical areas as
defined in ESHB 2929 correlate generally with the King
County definitions and categories of sensitive areas.
This Sensitive Areas Ordinance is designed to meet the
challenges and satisfy the requirements of this act
with regard to all critical areas except aquifer
recharge areas, which will require a different
regulatory approach.
S. Regulation of the use of sensitive areas benefits
Property owners by preventing and avoiding activities
which would have adverse impacts on property.
6. Abandoned mining activities pose a hazard in certain
identified areas of King County and require special
consideration prior to development.
7. Filling or building in floodplains reduces the flood'
storage capacity of a stream or river system and
increases flooding upstream and peak flow rates
downstream.
S. Development in erosion hazard and landslide hazard
areas present a danger to the development on the site
as well as neighboring sites and natural resources,
and require special design, construction and site
development measures to minimize risks from these
hazards.
9. Kind County is an earthquake prone region subject to
ground shaking, subsidence,- landslide and liquefaction
and special building design and construction measures
are necessary to minimize risk from this hazard.
10. Some portions of King County have also been identified
as having volcanic hazards associated with Mt.
Rainier. This hazard requires some unique protection
for the portions of the county which could experience
mudflows during a volcanic episode.
il. Development on slopes 40% or greater can result in
soil erosion and sedimentation, landslide, slippage,
excess surface water runoff, destruction of wildlife
habitat, increased costs of building and maintaining
roads and public facilities and increased need for
emergency relief and rescue operations.
12. Wetlands and streams are environmentally sensitive and
serve numerous natural functions and values which are
critical. These functions include wildlife and
fisheries habitat, water quality protection, flood
protection, shoreline stabilization-, stream flow, and
ground Water recharge and discharge. In many
situations these functions cannot be adequately
replicated or replaced.
13. The King County Council in enacting this ordinance has
relied on extensive scientific documentation and
testimony concerning these sensitive areas and the
appropriate methods and mechanisms for their
protection. This documentation is set out more fully
in the staff reports to the King County Growth
Management Committee meetings, particularly for the
dates of June 26, July 3 and July 10, 1990 and in the
bibliography which was also prepared for the Council's
consideration, entitled sensitive Areas Bibliography
and dated May 1990.
SAOCOIT2.CC - August 29, 1990 —3—
961
1
14. The process for public review and comment on this
2
ordinance has been extensive and exhaustive. The
3
ordinance was transmitted to the Council by the
4
Executive.in March of 1989, and was subject to two
5
formal public hearings in 1989, 7 public meetings held
6
in the community in 19900 10 committee meetings, and a
7
final public hearing in August of 1990. The ordinance
8
was redrafted several times in response to the
9
extensive testimony before the King County Council and
10
the Growth4Management Committee.
11
15. It is the legislative judgment of the King.County
12
Council that the standards set out in this ordinance
13
are the minimum necessary to accomplish the purposes
14
of the ordinance.
15
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
16
I. PURPOSE, SCOPE, GENERAL PROVISIONS
17
SECTION 1. Ordinance 1527, Sections 1 through 8;
18
Ordinance 1528, Sections 1, 2; Ordinance 2985, Sections 11, 12;
19
Ordinance 3718, Sections 1, 2, 4; ordinance 3782, Section 1;
20
Ordinance 3952, Sections 1 through 5; Ordinance 4365, Sections
21
8 through 14; Ordinance 4462, Section 15; Ordinance 5061,
22
Section 3; Ordinance 7990, Sections 40 through 43; and
23
K.C.C. 21.04.415, K.C.C. 21.04.420 and K.C.C. 21.54.010 through
24
21.54.190 are each hereby repealed.
25
NEW SECTION. SECTION 2. There is hereby added to
26
K.C.C. 21.54 a new section to read as follows:
27
Purpose.
28
The purpose of this ordinance is to identify
29
environmentally sensitive areas and to supplement the
30
development requirements contained in the various use
31
classifications in the King County Code by providing for
32
additional controls without violating any citizen's
33
constitutional rights.
34
Coal mine, erosion, flood, landslide, seismic, steep slope
35
and volcanic hazard areas, and streams, wetlands and protective
36
buffers, all as defined in K.C.C. Title 21, constitute
37
environmentally sensitive areas that are of special concern to
38
King County. The standards and mechanisms established in this
39
ordinance are intended to protect these environmentally
40
sensitive features in King County. By regulating development
41
and alterations to sensitive areas this ordinance seeks to:
SAOCOIT2.CC - August 29, 1990 —3—
EXHIBIT "B"
ISSUE PAPER #2
CITY OF EDMONDS
INTERIM CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
This Issue Paper provides an overview of the first draft (January 2, 1992) of the
Edmonds Interim Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). The overview is intended to provide insight
to some of the key issues within the CAO, and to point out areas where the draft differs slightly
from the guidance provided within the GMA.
Note that this Issue Paper is meant as a very quick overview of some of
issues/differences/details provided in this draft It is not intended as a detailed discussion to
illuminate the rationale of language or choices within this draft, but more to provide a quick
insight into what is contained within the draft CAO.
The Draft CAO - covers all the Critical Areas in the City of Edmonds: the proposed
language may be more restrictive than some of the existing regulations and/or policies now in
place at the City. The proposed draft attempts to address all the Critical Areas in one package
and in a way that is consistent with other such regulations in the area.
This first draft CAO is modeled on the following adopted or draft ordinances:
King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance #9614
Snohomish County Aquatic Resource Protection Proposed Policies
City of North Bend Draft Wetland Ordinance
City of Snoqualmie Sensitive Areas Ordinance
City of Winslow's Draft Environmentally Sensitive Areas
1. Brief Summary of the Ordinance
Section 1: Legislative Findings: the goals and objectives are outlined;
Section 2: definitions are provided;
Section 3: describes when the regulation is applicable and where-,
Section 4: outlines actions or activities which are exempt from the ordinance;
Section 5: provides a sequence of actions which both an applicant and city
staff are required to proceed through;
Section 6: requires a pre - application meeting between staff and the applicants
understand the implications of the requirements of the chapter
before making a permit application;
Section 7: provides the classification of the critical areas as is required by the
GMA;
Section 8: activities which are regulated are detailed;
Section 9: - outlines general standards or conditions of development which will
be applicable to every critical area;
January 2, 1992
Section 10:
provides detailed conditions of development for flood zones;
Section 11:
provides detailed conditions of development for geologic hazards;
Section 12:
provides detailed conditions of development for streams;
Section 13:
provides detailed conditions of development for wetlands;
Section 14:
provides detailed conditions of development for wildlife habitats;
Section 15:
requirements for detailed studies, timing, qualified consultants;
Section 16:
requirements for mitigation, timing, and sequencing;
Section 17:
authority to require critical area tracts; and
Section 18:
general administration, appeals, variances, etc.
2. Staff should look at the definition for "development proposal" and make sure all the
applicable permits from the City are listed. This is the list of the development/permit
application processes which will "trigger" the implementation of the CAO.
3. How this CAO Draft Differs from the GMA General Guidelines:
a. Additional definitions have been provided on multiple specific topics including,
but not limited to:
• best management practices;
• compensatory mitigation;
• critical areas: has been changed to include streams and remove "fisheries"
from the area identified in the GMA as: fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas;
• functions;
• geologically hazardous areas has been expanded to more specifically include
erosion hazard, seismic hazard, landslide hazard, and steep slopes;
• qualified critical areas consultant;
• restoration;
• species of local importance;
• surface water design manual; and
• wetlands functions.
b. Rather than just classifying and designating critical areas, this draft goes the next
step and recommends regulatory language for the effective implementation of land
use restrictions adjacent to and within critical areas. Therefore, this draft
language includes recommendations for buffers, minimum standards for when
alteration of resources such as streams or wetlands will be allowed, and what
compensation will be required if alteration to certain critical areas is authorized.
C. Fisheries has been removed from the catch -all phrase of "fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas ". Instead, streams have been clearly called out and added to
the list of critical areas, and therefore fisheries issues are addressed under streams
and wetlands sections.
d. Wildlife habitat conservation areas, therefore, deal only with upland habitat areas,
as non -upland habitat is addressed under wetlands and streams (riparian zones).
2 January 2, 1992
e. Wildlife habitat conservation areas are subdivided into critical habitats: those for
rare, endangered, etc. species and salmonids; and significant habitats: habitats
for species of local significance such as migratory waterfowl. -
4. Natural Resource Areas have been removed entirely from the Draft as it was determined
that the City does not have any lands, nor do you intend to annex any lands, which
would qualify for that designation. -
5. Aquifer Recharge Areas have been removed from the list of Critical Areas as the City
does not get any potable water from aquifers, nor are there any known aquifers within
the City's planning area.
6. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Detailed language and standards for these areas has been
taken out of the King County SAO as the standards and conditions were provided in
more detail and clarity to provide direction for staff and applicants alike.
7. Ordinance Format. The CAO has been set-up to provide as much guidance as feasible
within the Ordinance format. You'll note that there is a sequencing section (5.0.0) and
the requirement for a Pre - application meeting between the applicant and City staff. This
requires the City to sit with an applicant and explain the details of the CAD in relation
to the applicants proposal prior to the applicant submitting detailed plans.
8. Administrative Rules. The CAO grants the city the authority to draft Administrative
Rules to provide further details and direction for staff and applicants regarding the
implementation of the ordinance. The Rules provide a format for details and specifics
which are too detailed to be appropriate within an ordinance text, but which can be
crucial to staff and applicants to carry out the ordinance in a consistent and directed
manner. The Administrative Rules will contain Critical Area studies contents
requirements, mitigation plan contents, and procedural directions for staff.
9. Buffers. Suggested buffer dimensions are provided for streams and geologically
hazardous areas. Until further details are provided for habitat areas, buffers have not
been drafted.
10. Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. This area is the most ambiguous of all the critical
areas, therefore establishing standards for development is far more challenging. Staff
will need to discuss the goals and intent of the City in attempting to regulate these areas,
and provide some guidance for proposed restrictions if any.
11. This CAO references the King County Drainage Manual for state of the art drainage
engineering specifications. Staff should determine whether that reference is appropriate.
12. The staff should look at Section 9.6.0 regarding Density Credits and determine if the
City wants to consider this option, and whether it belongs in the CAO or in the Zoning
code.
3 January 2, 1992
Critical Areas Ordinance Issues Summary
From staff review and testimony provided during the first meetings on the ordinance,
we have summarized the following major issues for discussion:
The term "Adjacent"
§2.0.0
• This term is defined as "within 500 feet of a Critical Area"
• The term is used to define within what areas the staff may apply this
ordinance
• Issues: Is a distance threshhold appropriate?
If so, is 500 feet the appropriate distance.
Buffers and Building Setbacks
§9.1.0, §9.2.0
Buffers are set in the ordinance for different critical areas:
§12.2.0 Geologically hazardous areas 50 feet
§13.7.0 ,Streams 10, 25, and 50 feet
§14.3.0 Wetlands 50, 100 and 150 feet
• Building setbacks are 15 feet ( §9.2.0) and are in addition to the required
buffer.
• Issues: Is the buffer size appropriate?
Is the building setback appropriate?
Density Credits
§9.6.0
• A sliding scale of density credits for undeveloped land is included in the
draft ordinance. The section allows for the transfer of density within a
site on a sliding scale, with the additional provision that single family lot
sizes may be reduced below the minimum for that zone to accommodate
the transfer (similar to a PRD).
• Issue: Is increased density on the developed portion of the site
acceptable to the community or necessary to allow reasonable
use of the property?
Is the sliding scale in the draft too much of a credit?
Consultant Selection & Review
§15.4.0, §15.5.0
• Similar to SEPA and Meadowdale reviews, these sections allow the city
to approve and participate in the consultant study of a project site.
• Issue: What is the best way to assure the accuracy and objectivity of
consultant studies?
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3014
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 21st day of March, 1995, the City Council of the City of Edmonds
passed Ordinance No. 3014. A summary of the content of said ordinance,
consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, MAKING
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE
ENACTMENT AND REENACTMENT OF THE EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS
ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 20.15B OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF SAID CHAPTER,
AND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.156.120
THEREOF TO REPLACE CURRENTLY PERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREA BUFFER REQUIREMENTS WITH
STAFF REDUCTIONS TO TEN FEET IF JUSTIFIED BY A GEOLOGICAL
REPORT, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
20.150.010 TO PROVIDE FOR APPEAL OF STAFF DECISIONS ON BUFFER
REDUCTIONS, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 20.15B.070(A)(3)(c) TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF A STEEP
SLOPE HAZARD AREA FROM A 30% SLOPE TO A 40% SLOPE, AMENDING
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.15B.120(D)
AND 20.15B.120(E)(5) TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES IN THE DEFINITION
OF STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS AND REFERRING THESE
AMENDMENTS AND A DIRECTIVE TO REINVESTIGATE WETLANDS
CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD FOR ACTION BY
MAY 1, 1995 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
, DATED this 21st day of March, 1995.
ITY CLERK, HONDA J. MARCH
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
rs.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH,
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3014
of the City f Edmonds, Washington
On the 21st day of March, 1995, the City Council of the'City'
of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3014. A summary of the
content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
MAKING LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS REGARDING A PUBLIC
HEARING AND THE ENACTMENT AND REENACTMENT OF
THE' EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS .ORDINANCE- CHAPTER.
SLOPE HAZARD 'AREAS, AND REFERRING- THESE
AMENDMENTS AND A DIRECTIVE TO REINVESTIGATE
WETLANDS CLASSIFICATIONS TO THE' EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD FOR ACTION BY MAY 1, 1995 AND
,
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE, SAME SHALL "BECOME EF-
FECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 21st day of March, 1995.
RHONDA J. MARCH, City Clerk
Published: March 26, 1995.
B -2 -1
Affidavit of Publication
IteCEIVED
APR 04 JLERIK
EDMONDS 01
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper
printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish,
and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of
general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ......... ...............................
Summary of Ordinance No. 3014 11 .................................. .............. ........... . . . . ..
City of Edmonds
................................................................................ ............................... ...................
.................................................................... ...... ................ .... . . . .. ... ...............................
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
March 26, 1995
....................................................................................................... .... ..................... ......
..................................................................... ................. ............ .. ...... ..................... ......
and that said " riews -taper was regularly distributed t41 its ubscribers
during °'ail of sai,_l period.
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this...... 2 t h
..............
day,J
, March.... a. .................. 19.........
df .................... 9 5
_..
Notary Public in and for the State f Washington,
residing at Everett, Snohomish - County.
4 ` J 'qC
Q �SSION ZEN
.�
Qi fzt•
e OTARk
6
•�% 5.1� -98 �
OF WAE'