Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-06-13 Planning Board Packet
o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 J U N E 13, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of May 23, 2018 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Draft Housing Strategy 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Critical Areas Ordiance Update - Wetlands 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda June 13, 2018 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/13/2018 Approval of Draft Minutes of May 23, 2018 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: Draft May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 23, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Megan Livingston, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director's written report, but there were no comments from the Board. RECOMMENDATION FOR DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Director Hope advised that the Board has received all of the materials for the draft UFMP, except a slightly revised draft is still in process. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Board to discuss the key points of the plan and potentially forward a recommendation on to the City Council. She reminded the Board that the UFMP is intended to be a policy guide and not an environmental impact statement or scientific study. It is similar to plans in other jurisdictions, but with some information that is unique to Edmonds. The plan provides background information about the value of trees and outlines some of the challenges Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a of trees. It also describes the City's current forest management program and explains how resources are currently being allocated to this effort. Director Hope advised that the draft plan identifies 21 objectives that include continuing to work with the Tree Board, encouraging partnerships with other organizations in the City, and identifying things the City can do to better manage its tree inventory on public lands. She pointed out that there are over 1 million trees in Edmonds, and doing a tree inventory for the entire City would be cost prohibitive. However, the City recognizes the need to have a better record of the trees that are located in parks, along trails, within rights -of -way and other public properties. The City has already started work to update its codes relative to trees. In addition to talking about how to manage trees in public spaces, the objectives speak to the need to encourage, education and incentivize the planting of trees on both private and public properties and to work together on future updates of the UFMP. Director Hope reviewed that there has been a series of meetings and open houses relative to the draft UFMP. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 91 and received a number of comments from citizens, both written and oral. Some revisions were made to the plan based on Planning Board and public comments. For example, the map called "Priority Planning Areas" was not intended to imply that trees needed to be planted in all of the red areas, which tend to be view corridors, too. The plan was modified to clarify that these are opportunity areas, but view and other matters will need to be considered. An additional statement was also included about the need to plant the right trees in the right places. Director Hope said that following the Board's recommendation, the draft plan will move on to the City Council for further consideration, a public hearing, and ultimate adoption. Board Member Rubenkonig said she compared the proposed 22 objectives in the plan to urban forest management plans from other jurisdictions. A lot of the objectives in the City's proposed plan lineup well with the other plans, but she identified some outstanding concerns that may already be included in the plan but perhaps need further clarification. She reviewed these items as follows: Support partnerships with utilities, districts, the Edmonds School District, parks with adjoining City property and other public and private institutions (such as interested churches) operating in Edmonds to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy. The plan addresses trees on public properties and rights -of -way, but there is more that needs to be included. For example, the plan should address city -owned buildings and campuses, as well as school and church campuses. Perhaps the City should look at partnering with these other entities for future actions that could benefit the tree canopy. Director Hope suggested that this concept is covered in Community Goal #C3, which calls for "coordinating efforts of the City staff, Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board and other interested groups to participate in and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events. " In addition, Action Item A calls for "collaborating and partnering with City departments (especially Parks, Public Works and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups for tree replacement and improvements to landscapes. " Also, Action Item D calls for `partnering with Snohomish County PUD, other City departments, non profits and other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when possible. " Although churches and the Edmonds School District are not specifically called out, they would be included in this objective. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions stress the importance of partnerships, and she felt that was missing from the draft plan. • Determine the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope expressed her belief that this was already part of the plan. • Establish tree planting and maintenance guidelines. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems a lot was addressed around this concept, but there is not a specific objective. Director Hope advised that this information is already contained in the City's Street Tree Plan, which will be updated in the near future. • Conduct public outreach regarding tree regulations. Director Hope advised that a number of objectives in the plan address public outreach, including public information and education about the City's tree regulations. The objectives not only address the need to educate the public on the tree regulations, but also on what trees to plant where, how to avoid hitting utility lines, etc. She felt that this concept was adequately covered in the objectives. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 • Further develop the urban forestry program. Director Hope pointed out that this concept was built into the document, specifically calling for further development of the UFMP system for the City. • Provide adequate public tree maintenance resources. Director Hope expressed her belief that this issue is adequately addressed in the plan. In addition, resources for tree maintenance will be addressed as part of the City's annual budget process. • Quantify the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope advised that the plan includes an objective that addresses this issue. • Dedicate resources for ongoing public outreach and education (Heritage Tree Program, etc.). Board Member Rubenkonig said this objective would be different than the Tree Board's efforts. The intent is to imply additional resources are needed for staff support. Director Hope said one outcome of the plan will be budgeting priorities and resources to implement the action items contained in the plan. • Develop annual reports/annual work plans with tracking and performance measures. Director Hope advised that the plan already calls out the need for annual reports. • Update and maintain public tree inventories. Director Hope advised that the plan also calls for doing an inventory of public trees. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that what other jurisdictions call out for partnerships is a bit different than what the draft plan calls out. Director Hope suggested that it is the same idea of working with a variety of partners. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that partnerships present a great opportunity for the City to augment its tree canopy, and she welcomes the idea of specifically identifying the other groups that could benefit from additional vegetation on their properties, such as the Edmonds School District and churches. Board Member Rosen voiced appreciation for the staff and consultant's hard work, as well as all of the touch points the public and Board have had to review the document. He also appreciates the reality check of what it means to do an inventory. As called out in the plan, there are at least 10 benefits that trees provide; some are global and others are very geographically specific to a microlevel. These benefits include: • Improved air quality • Carbon sequestration • Increased property values • Increased revenue in shopping districts • Reduced stormwater runoff • Noise buffering • Soil stabilization • Habitat • Promote walkability and increase healthiness • Food source Board Member Rosen said some of these benefits are more important in very specific places. For example, preventing stormwater runoff and hill stabilization is not true everywhere, but very true in some places. It is for that reason that he would encourage the Board to consider the following points: Prioritize data collection. You can only make good decisions if you have good information. When it comes to stabilization or runoff, the City needs to know where it is vulnerable and what kinds of things are necessary. This needs minimum standards and priority attention. He believes that an inventory is necessary. 2. Be bolder when it comes to trees on public versus private properties. Nearly every code the City has could be considered an invasion of private property rights. There are times when the City has a responsibility to require that Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a certain standards be met in order to ensure a hillside is stabilized. This is just one situation where the City should insert itself when it comes to safety in private areas. They should not fear crossing the line to work with the private sector to address these types of issues. 3. Find another way, beyond no net loss, as a goal setting. While it is a nice baseline to say that they should have no net loss, it is based on what they have now. Having no other reference point, he doesn't know if the City should be scared or very proud of what they have. The City needs a canopy and vegetation that achieves all of the 10 benefits and is also appropriate for the City's specific needs. 4. Make the objectives more geographic specific. The objectives could talk about runoff or stabilization or people wanting to spend more money because they are walking amongst the trees in a shopping area. They should set goals that are appropriate for the very specific geographic needs the City has. 5. Make the beginning the public education process a priority. It is important for everyone to have a common understanding of the benefits and importance of trees. Public education creates a favorable environment and a support for how the City and its citizens care for tree vegetation of all kinds. Director Hope pointed out that the City already has specific requirements for trees located on steep slopes. Trees cannot be removed from critical areas such as steep and/or hazardous slopes without a permit and under special circumstances. However, the City does not require that all private property owners must to have their backyards be forested. Board Member Crank asked if the routine update called out in the plan as every 5 to 10 years is an average based on what other jurisdictions have done. Director Hope said some jurisdictions try for five years, but the reality is it is hard to do. She recalled that a number of other plans in the City are 6-year plans, and the Comprehensive Plan is an 8-year plan. It's a matter of time and resources as to how often the plan is updated, and that is why the plan identifies a range. Board Member Crank referred to the objective that calls for establishing a tree bank and asked if the City currently charges in - lieu -of fees for anything else around housing and development. Director Hope answered that there are no other in -lieu -of fee programs currently. This would be a new program and would require some coaching as the new program is drawn up. Board Member Crank commented that she previously lived in a community that had a lot of in -lieu -of fees related to affordable housing, trees, common space, etc. One of the pitfalls in the beginning was that there was a lot of collection, but not necessary doing something with the funds until many years later. She understands that the plan will be a living document, and it should be treated as such. However, her hope would be that by the time they get to the first round of update, the in -lieu -of fee program will be part of that. The City should do whatever it can to circumvent getting to year 6, 7 or 8 of collecting in -lieu -of fees without doing anything with the funds. She recognized that Edmonds is a tree city, and she doubts it would get that far, but she cautioned that it could get to a point where developers get so used to paying the fee so they can do what they want to do, but the fees start to pile up. Director Hope expressed her belief that would not happen in Edmonds. There are a lot of needs and a number of people who are interested in trees. In addition, the City will do annual reports. Chair Monroe asked if Board Member Crank is concerned that developers would bake the in -lieu -of fees into their price and not see it as a deterrent or is the fear that the City would not spend the funds in a timely manner. Board Member Crank said her concern is a bit of both. If developers have a vision, it is sometimes more beneficial to pay the in -lieu -of fee and move forward with their project. On the flip side, she is concerned about the City collecting the fees without having a proactive approach for replanting trees. It is important to have a check and balance system in place as part of the tree bank program. Board Member Cloutier observed that the objective section includes a lot realistic and easily -understood goals, and each one has a set of actions. He is not concerned that the objectives and actions are unsuitable, but he is very concerned with the amount of effort and resources it will take to implement them. They need to figure out the cost benefit associated with each action to help determine how much they can do. Director Hope said she had hoped to provide this additional information, but it is still a work in progress. She cautioned that the intent is not to say exactly how much each action will cost, because it will change from year to year. You have to know more about how each project will be scoped out before you can decide the cost. However, the intent is to provide a lower level of information (i.e. low, medium and high cost) in the next draft. She added that the Board's ideas relative to priorities would also be taken into account when the plan is presented to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Chair Monroe clarified that before the plan is presented to the City Council there will be a cost range on the sidebar. Director Hope answered affirmatively, but not in actual dollars. She cautioned that it takes a lot of work and more information to create cost estimates in actual dollars. Board Member Robles commented that "what you don't measure, no one pays attention to." If the City wants to regulate trees like an asset, then they need to be counted. There are ways to do this without counting every tree or involving the City at all. For example, people can account for their own trees as they grow and produce canopy. Their ability to leave a tree in place for many years creates the canopy the City finds desirable. When they decide to cut down a tree, perhaps there should be a credit against all of the canopy they produced. In the public comment letters, people are treating trees as assets that block views, increase or decrease property values, hold up slopes, etc. When trees are categorized as assets, they warrant some attention in terms of classification or quantification. However, it does not have to be a count of every tree. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that as she reviewed the very fine UFMP, (including public, Board and staff comments), some key points seemed to have priority to her. She recommended that the plan stand, but that the Board's recommendation to the City Council specifically call out the following: • We agree the UFMP is a foundational planning document necessary for establishing action to benefit our urban forest and tree canopy of Edmonds. • We agree with the premise the tree canopy coverage needs to be increased rather than a no -net -loss approach to benefit the urban forest. Director Hope suggested the Board keep in mind that a 1% increase is about 1,300 more trees planted. If they are serious about trying to increase the canopy, they should think about where these additional trees would go. We agree the approach to determine a goal for the tree canopy coverage to be either: unique to Edmonds or a weighted number reflecting the legislated tree canopy goals of selected cities. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not recommending a figure at this time, and she would prefer that the City Council provide focus for that particular goal. She does not think that staying put at 30.3% is good given that there has been a reduction in tree canopy since 2005. Director Hope emphasized that the reduction is a "perceived reduction" that is not based on a specific scientific study. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would look towards increasing tree canopy into the future rather than maintaining status quo. We agree to the request to better define the tree canopy and its vegetative makeup. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there was confusion at the public hearing that perhaps Douglas Fir were being proposed as potential street trees for downtown Edmonds. There was also concern expressed by the Board that not all trees need to be tall trees to benefit a tree canopy. What seems to be most important is the preservation of mature trees (at least 17 years old) because that is the point in which they become very effective. They need to look further at the definition of what makes up the tree canopy. Director Hope asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is implying that private property owners should not be allowed to remove trees that are more than 17 years old. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that she isn't addressing public versus private at this time. The tree canopy seems to refer to that which exists in the City of Edmonds and not just the tree canopy on public properties. • We agree that the City must attend to reviewing and reorganizing those sections of the code to reduce negative impact to the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that staff has already advised that the various City departments are starting to meet and coordinate efforts. • We agree that the City must continue departmental efforts to streamline the administrative processes impacting the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this effort has already started. However, she felt the Board should make it clear that this is a priority. • We agree that the City, through a revision of the City Code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify measures/actions/plans/programs to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy through the efforts of our City government and the City's property, including but not limited to, Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a parks, rights -of -way, capital projects and public buildings and their campuses. Board Member Rubenkonig felt this statement would help clarify all of the possibilities that exist for public properties. • We agree that the City, through a revision of the City code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify those incentives to preserve, maintain and increase tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that, at this time, the Board does not know what these incentives will be. They have heard about some that work elsewhere, and they are on the right track towards coming up with incentives. • We agree that without the addition of an arborist or City staff tasked with enforcement responsibility to carry out future proposed actions, the City is in a weak position to provide support to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. • We agree that incentives can be created to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy in the private and public sector. • We agree that incentives to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy can be considered for reduction of stormwater management costs to citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that she agrees with the objectives laid out in the draft UFMP. However, when the plan is moved to the City Council with a recommendation, the Board should provide focus about what they have gained from their discussions and what they think the priorities should be. Vice Chair Cheung commented that, at this point, it is hard to say how the City is doing as far as tree canopy. If they are actually doing an amazing job and have more tree canopy than most cities, he is not sure they should push an increase. He suggested it is important to maintain the existing tree canopy while they figure this out. He does not want happened in Seattle, where property owners clear cut large numbers of trees to increase views, to happen in Edmonds. If the goal is to increase the tree canopy by 1% every year, the City will eventually become a forest. He reminded the Board that they are also working to address the issue of housing affordability. Chair Monroe said he is having a difficult time prioritizing the objectives without having cost estimates. Director Hope said she had anticipated that some information relative to cost would have been available for the Board, but the consultant is still working on this element of the plan. However, implementing some of the objectives would be fairly low cost. For example, having every department with a tree responsibility meet on a regular basis to review tree issues would not require new resources. On the other hand, updating the Street Tree Plan could be costly, depending on how extensive the updates are. Chair Monroe expressed his desire that the City should focus on education and giving citizens access to resources. He is not sure that hiring an arborist is the right way to go given the cost implications. Director Hope advised that the cost would be roughly $100,000 per year. Chair Monroe said the question is how busy that person would be. Once hired, he/she would find things to do, and it could become a spiral effect. Chair Monroe commented that while educating the citizens is good, incentivizing may be a bit of an overreach for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would love to receive a discount on her stormwater management bill for all of the trees she has on her property. She maintains a number of large trees, yet other property owners have been allowed to not have trees. That means she is paying a greater cost for stormwater management, and she would like something better than a handshake. She would like to be rewarded for the contribution she makes. There will always be a segment of people who are resistant to change regardless of the incentives and benefits that trees provide. Chair Monroe countered that he wants to live in a city where people want those changes but are not forced to make those changes. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that, although there is a segment of residents who are not interested in tree preservation, there is also a segment who are very interested and would like to do more. An incentive program could target the latter group. Chair Monroe pointed out that a lower stormwater bill for one person would mean a higher bill for someone else. Director Hope explained that there is a certain cost for managing stormwater throughout the City right now, regardless of how many trees there are. Those costs are not going to go down because some property owners maintain their trees. In order to offer incentives to some property owners, the costs would have to be shifted elsewhere. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Board Member Robles observed that the goal is to produce canopy for the benefit of the City of Edmonds. If that is something the City wants, they must become "farmers" of canopy. Some properties must provide canopy so that other properties do not have to. Those who maintain their tree canopy have to clean their roofs more, etc. Again, he commented that what does not get measured, does not get attention. The point of measuring the tree canopy is to actually see the value that trees provide. Board Member Crank said she does not necessarily disagree with the points raised by Board Members Rubenkonig and Lovell (see email). However, it is important to recognize that this is a new thing they are doing, and they should not be "trying to put so much "meat on the skeleton" this early in the process. There are some who are very passionate and highly invested in the tree canopy, but the UFMP will not really apply to others. She recommended that they think about the UFMP as the "first layer of paint" or what makes sense to move forward from draft to an actual plan. Chair Monroe referred to the points raised by Board Member Rosen earlier in the conversation and said the three that stuck out to him were the need to prioritize data, public education and establishing no -net -loss. In addition, the Board seemed interested in pursuing a fee -in -lieu -of program. Beyond that, the plan implies more detail than the Board currently has. He suggested that the Board offer these few points to the City Council as part of their recommendation. When the UFMP is reviewed again in five years the City should have the correct data to address the other issues that have been raised. Director Hope emphasized that, if adopted, the implementation of the UFMP would be subject to budget decisions. Most of the objectives will not be implemented in the immediate future. They will be implemented over a number of years as the resources become available. Board Member Lovell referred to the email he forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, noting that he developed the five bulleted items because he felt the Board still does not know enough about where the City stands with respect to trees. Furthermore, he expressed his belief that the comments and feedback from the public so far is only the tip of the iceberg. His recommendations were designed to identify the elements that are addressed in the plan but emphasize the need for further consideration and study to be undertaken by the City Council regarding each one. In addition to his five bullet points, he suggested that the data contained in the plan related to software, data points, analogue modeling, and statistics should be included in an appendix format so that the average reader can better understand the document. Ultimately, the goals and strategies are the key to the plan, and implementation of the goals and strategies has yet to be developed by the City as led by the City Council. The list he prepared was intended to gather the substance of the comments they heard, but also some of the main objectives in producing the plan in the first place. Director Hope referred to the 111 bulleted item and suggested that collecting height/spread data could be costly and time consuming, and she knows of no other city that has collected this specific data. Board Member Lovell said perhaps the City Council will find that this information is unnecessary. However, he found a number of comments that were repeated by citizens. For example, citizens have raised concern about tall trees that grow to block views, street trees interfering with infrastructure, and shrubs and other vegetation overgrowing from private properties onto public sidewalks. Director Hope agreed that more could be added about ensuring that sidewalks are kept safe and educating the public about what and where to plant. However, the Board should keep in mind that the Street Tree Plan update is intended to be the next step following adoption of the UFMP. The UFMP is intended to be a general citywide plan for tree management, and the Street Tree Plan will identify the types of trees that should be planted on each street, as well as the planting methods that should be used. Rather than trying to figure all of these situations now, the UFMP is intended to set some general parameters and prioritizes the need for an updated Street Tree Plan. Board Member Lovell summarized that his recommendation is intended to point out that, in their review of the plan, the City Council needs to figure out what must be done to meet the objectives and goals in the plan. They should stay away from naming or listing a bunch of specific actions at this time. In general, he is in favor of collecting information that will guide the implementation of the plan's objectives. Board Member Rosen emphasized that additional data is needed in order for the City to make better decisions, and that is why he suggested that data collection should be a very high priority. What to count is the first thing that needs to be decided, followed by how to accomplish the count. However, he agreed that the UFMP should not get into the specifics of what should be counted. Secondly, he suggested that the objective for data collection should not be for public education. There are many more things they want to educate the public about. Public education should be a separate point of emphasis. Vice Chair Cheung asked if consideration was given to the impact of tree canopy on solar access. Director Hope agreed this is an important point in the sense that trees can present obstacles for people who want to grow gardens or have solar arrays to Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a improve energy efficiency. They discussed these tradeoffs and that is why the UFMP does not say exactly what each property owner should do. The intent is to education and provide information so property owners can make the best decisions relative to trees. Board Member Robles commented that data collection does not have to be all that expensive if homeowners provide their own inventories to the City. The ratio of existing trees to the ratio of trees that would be cut down should determine the cost of the permit. Collecting the data is possible as long as the program provides value to the property owners. The costly part comes in processing and retaining the data that is collected. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the City of Philadelphia is crowdsourcing its inventory. Board Member Robles said crowdsourcing is a way to build the social fabric and get people involved in their community. Board Member Rosen said he understands the goal of maintaining the existing 30.3% tree canopy but is concerned that it is not specific to any needs. The City could meet the goal, but still not meet any of the objectives. He recommended that the goal be specific to the City's needs as opposed to a simple number that has no reference point. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that there are a number of objectives that are not related to the canopy. None of the objectives should be thought of as goals by themselves. The plan is to do a package of actions that touch on all of the goals, but they cannot "eat the whole elephant at once." Rather than picking a random number, they should identify what to tackle first that has the most "bang for the buck" or to test drive the City's ability to actually do something. The implementation plan should touch on all of the objectives, and not just those related to tree canopy. While no -net -loss should be one of the objectives of the plan, it must be in context with everything else. The City does not currently have the ability to measure for no -net -loss, but the actions taken moving forward should be consistent with the overall goal of no -net -loss in mind. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the draft plan is fine, and the objectives are good. However, at the moment, she does not have a clear understanding of what the Board is tasked to do. She felt the Board would benefit from continuing the discussion to the next meeting so staff could provide some additional information and direction based on the Board's discussion. She has not heard any objection to the objectives identified in the plan, but there is an interest in possibly re -prioritizing them. When the Board moves its recommendation to the City Council, she suggested that they provide some focus of attention pertaining to the 30.3% tree canopy retention, data collection, etc. In particular, she felt the responsibilities of a City "arborist" should be clarified as they pertain to both private and public properties. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not concerned that increasing the tree canopy would prevent the development of affordable housing. That is not how development works. Currently, other jurisdictions require about 30% tree coverage for development and incentives are offered. For example, perhaps units can be smaller if a developer protects a grove of existing trees. Director Hope commented that these types of details would be addressed as part of the plan's implementation, which will come at a later time. The UFMP is intended to set the stage for coming back and doing more work to get to the specifics. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that there are too many issues that she would like to have additional time to think about before formulating a recommendation for the City Council. Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the UFMP is intended to be a plan and not an execution document. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan, which provides policy direction but not regulations. For example, no one builds a lot based on what is in the Comprehensive Plan, but the rules for building on the lot must be derived from the principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He cautioned against getting too caught up in defining all of the steps for implementation before the plan is even adopted. Approval of the plan means that the City is agreeing to a set of goals and objectives. At this time, the Board should focus on the goals and objectives that are important for the City, without getting into the specifics of prioritization and implementation. The plan is intended to present a vision for how the City wants to handle urban forest management going forward, and the next step will be to develop a set of implementation actions using the UFMP as the guiding principles. At this time, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on the draft UFMP, which contains higher -level goals and principles for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft plan identifies a 30.3% tree canopy without any clarification. It appears that this number is being used as a no -net -loss figure. Board Member Cloutier referred to Urban Forest Asset Goal #UA1, which calls for maintaining the citywide canopy coverage, but it does not identify a specific level the City should achieve. However, the "rationale" statement makes it clear that Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The first action item under Goal #UAl Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a is to develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds. The plan outlines how the concern can be addressed, but it does not provide a specific implementation plan. He emphasized that implementing the plan is a separate process, and the plan provides the principles and higher -level goals that will guide future implementation. The Board could recommend approval of the plan, with an attached recommendation that implementation of some of the objectives move forward quickly. Chair Monroe suggested that, along with their recommendation, they need to provide the City Council with a summary of the consensus they have heard from the public. In addition, the Board would be remiss if they didn't also add their own input. He agreed that they should not get into specific details of implementation, but they could highlight some particular points. Director Hope cautioned against the Board trying to summarize the public input. The City Council will receive all of the documents pertaining to the Board's hearing and discussion. Chair Monroe agreed and suggested that the Board could select the public input germane to the topic so the City Council is aware of the concerns that were raised over and over again. Chair Monroe summarized that the Board has highlighted the following points for potential inclusion in its recommendation: 1. With regard to data collection, knowing the target will be very important. 2. The public education objectives are important. Currently, people do not understand enough about the benefit of trees. 3. Adding cost ranges for each of the objectives is important. 4. No -net -loss is something that needs to be discussed further and understood better. Board Member Cloutier felt that the four issues are already addressed in the plan as it stands. The plan sets forth objectives, but how the objectives are implemented and how much it will cost will be addressed when the action items are implemented. Chair Monroe said the intent of the four points he made above was to add emphasis to things already covered in the plan that the Board wants to emphasize based on public comment and Board discussion. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the objectives in the plan address all of the issues and concerns raised by the public. As the action items are implemented at some point in the future, staff can provide a reference to the public comments that are applicable. He emphasized that the objectives in the plan do not fix any of the public concerns until the City moves forward with implementation of the action items. Board Member Crank pointed out that postponing their recommendation until June 13' would create a delay in when the plan is presented to the City Council. The Board did not express concern about delaying the process for a few weeks. Again, Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Goal #UA1 calls for determining a goal for tree canopy. Chair Monroe suggested that while determining what the goal should be, the City should operate on the premise that it is not going to be less than 30.3% or no -net -loss. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the intent of no -net -loss is already captured by the action items in Goal #UA1. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if incentives for private property owners is addressed in the objectives contained in the plan. Board Member Cloutier clarified that this would involve a code amendment and should not be an objective. The intent of incentives is not to reward citizens; it is to protect the overall tree canopy. Incentives may be one action the City takes to support increased canopy coverage, but the goal of the plan should not be to provide incentives. He referred to Goal #UA2, which calls for identifying places where more trees are needed. Once this has been identified, the plan leaves it open for whatever needs to happen to accomplish the objective. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board needs to address the tension people have voiced about not wanting to be told what to do with their properties. But she would also like to work with those who want to make a difference. Again, Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the goal is to have more trees or to maintain the existing tree canopy, and the plan provides a list of different ways to accomplish the goal. It is not intended to be an action plan. Chair Monroe pointed out that each of the objectives include a list of actions. Board Member Cloutier agreed. However, he clarified that, similar to the Comprehensive Plan, none of the action items are being done by adopting the plan. It simply outlines potential actions for accomplishing each of the objectives. Director Hope emphasized that adoption of the plan does not mean the end of the effort. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than identifying a certain percentage of land for parks, commercial, residential, etc., the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the goals that are important to the City and then the development codes implement these goals and policies. One of Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a the challenges is that the City cannot always solve tension and words do not necessarily do that. She agreed there is an underlying tension, which can sometimes come from people who haven't even read the plan. These people may not be soothed by words the Planning Board adds to the plan. All of the issues will be worked out on an ongoing basis using the principles outlined in the plan. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE ITS DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE JUNE 13TH MEETING. AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY STAFF BASED ON THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH FAILED 2-4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS RUBENKONIG AND ROBLES VOTING IN FAVOR, BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, CHEUNG, CLOUTIER AND CRANK VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED MAY 20, 2018 BE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 2-5, WITH BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, LOVELL, CRANK, CLOUTIER, AND CHEUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES AND RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote) INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope advised that tonight's presentation is intended to be an introduction to the draft Housing Strategy. The Board has already provided input, some of which was incorporated into the document. She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan includes an action step that calls for developing a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would help increase the supply of housing that is affordable to a range of incomes and to meet diverse housing needs. A Housing Strategy Task Force was formed and has been working on some recommendations to help further some of the ideas and to bring the expertise of housing professionals into the recommendations. She referred the Board to the draft Housing Strategy, noting that it has not been formatted or finalized at this point. She introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting, who was available to present the draft plan to the Board. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income -restricted housing. A goal of producing more housing is enabling more people to live in the community of all different incomes and backgrounds. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, noting that there are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost -burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AML AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost -burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the need. Mr. Ramsey explained that one reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a AMI). He provided a chart showing the average rental costs in Edmonds, noting that people earning $50,000 per year or less cannot afford the average rents in Edmonds. Mr. Ramsey advised that commuting patterns were analyzed and found that a substantial number of workers are commuting very long distances to get their jobs in Edmonds. Most commute from more affordable communities. While the chart illustrates the situation for very low and low wage workers, the problem also exists for the moderate wage workers. It is estimated that about 2,400 people are commuting long distances into Edmonds, and this creates traffic, pollution, and high transportation costs. Mr. Ramsey provided a chart comparing the existing housing stock in Edmonds to the current housing needs. The study found a shortage of smaller housing types. Over 70% of households have only 1 or 2 members, but only 11 % of the housing units have one or less bedrooms. There is a significant mismatch between the size of the units and size of households. This is likely due partly to empty nester households living in larger single-family homes, etc. This is to be expected in a lot of communities, particularly those with aging populations. One solution is to provide more small -sized units so households who want or need to downsize can stay in their community. Mr. Ramsey reviewed each of the six objectives included in the draft Housing Strategy as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing. There is currently a high level of need for low and moderate -income workforce housing for those who live in Edmonds as well as those who have to commute long distances to get to Edmonds for work. When there is limited land area in a community, apartments and condominiums can efficiently provide a lot of new housing in limited land area. Actions associated with this strategy include: encouraging transit -oriented development by leveraging transit corridors and focusing higher -density development in those areas to take advantage of the transit service; allowing for greater flexibility in multifamily zones, such as reduced parking and unit size requirements and greater height limits; and providing for a fast, predictable, and user- friendly permitting process. Currently, the permitting process in Edmonds is more time-consuming and there is a bit more uncertainty in it when compared to other communities, and this creates a disincentive to doing more housing development in Edmonds. Developers who participated on the task force suggested that the permit process could be streamlined without lowering design and safety standards. City staff is already looking for these opportunities. Example: The City of Portland, Oregon, has goals of encouraging more infill development in traditionally single- family areas and allowing for a greater diversity of housing options. The intent is to ensure that the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character without putting up permitting barriers. They brought together community members and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet the regulations and design standards. If a developer uses one of the prototypes, a project can get through the permitting process more efficiently. The program has been successful and is currently being expanded. 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle." Currently, there are few housing options other than single- family (63%) and larger multifamily (30%) units. There is very little in the "other" category of duplexes, townhouse, etc. That means there are not a lot of opportunities for moderate and middle -income people who want to get into the ownership market. The single-family homes are generally too costly for people at that income level. Potential actions for this goal include identifying single-family areas in Edmonds that might be appropriate for infill development such as townhomes and duplexes that are done in a way that meet the community character but also allow for more types of housing. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) is also a type of housing that could be very useful in Edmonds. ADUs allow for more affordable housing options in existing single-family areas with minimal impacts on community character. They provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing costs. Currently, the City's has significant restrictions for ADUs, and it is difficult for many households to take advantage of this option. Modifications may be appropriate to encourage ADUs as a housing option. Example: The City of Mountlake Terrace encourages ADUs via more flexible requirements and providing guidance materials and outreach for homeowners. The intent is to make the process more transparent and get the word out about the benefits of ADUs. They have seen a lot more permits in recent months, which indicates there is a demand for this housing type in the area. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing. Many workers and families in Edmonds cannot afford market -rate rents. The current supply of subsidized housing is extremely modest compared to the level of need. This strategy is aimed at what can be done to provide more opportunities for these workers to live in Edmonds, as well. Potential actions include contributing City dollars to support an affordable housing project for 30% AMI or below. When a non-profit housing developer is seeking to pull together grant funding and other sources to make an affordable project work, having some investment from the City helps with grant competition and making projects pencil out. Other potential actions include expanding developer incentives to include affordable units in market -rate development and reducing or eliminating fees for affordable housing projects. The City currently has a multifamily exemption program that could be expanded to become more effective at incentivizing affordable production in return for abatement from property tax. Example: The Highpoint is a 1,600-unit master planned development in West Seattle. About half of the units are subsidized and/or income -restricted units for low-income households, and the other half is market -rate housing. The project was developed via a mix of private and public funding and offers a diversity of housing types for a mixture of incomes. This is a successful example of a level of density that might be appropriate for Edmonds. 4. Identify and adopt strategies to reduce homelessness. Homelessness is a growing problem in Snohomish County, and data indicates there are 260 students attending schools located in Edmonds that are homeless or housing insecure. The City can play a more proactive role in addressing barriers to the development of housing for the homeless. Potential actions include exploring partnerships with current service providers and county health and youth services and looking at ways to reduce barriers (code restrictions) to the development of permanent supportive housing. The City should also explore opportunities for cheaper and quicker solutions such as tiny houses and single -room occupancy housing. This latter option has been proposed by at least one church in Edmonds. Example: Othello Village in Seattle is a city -authorized homeless encampment with 28 tiny homes. The village includes shared kitchen and shower facilities and is intended to be a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. 5. Support the needs of an aging population. About 20% of the population in Edmonds is over 65, and a significant amount of the population falls within the 50 to 65 range. In the next 10 years, these individuals will be reaching the senior status of 65 plus. These people will have unique housing needs and a wide spectrum of incomes. Potential actions to address this goal include playing a more active role in partnerships that support aging in place, examining how property tax and utility rate relief programs can be expanded and reducing the barriers to the development of more group homes and other housing solutions for seniors so that people can stay within the community when their housing needs change. 6. Provide protection for low-income tenants. As housing costs rise, renters are at the most risk of displacement. The City can take more actions to help ensure that laws around fair treatment of low-income tenants are abided by and that tenants have full information about what their rights are. Potential actions include creating requirements to provide fair housing information and creating anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. Director Hope said the intent of tonight's presentation is to solicit initial feedback from the Board. Staff will come back with a more augmented draft for a public hearing on June 13'. Following the public hearing, the Board will have an opportunity for additional discussion prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. The Task Force will also meet on May 251' to identify any additional changes to the draft document prior to the public hearing. There will be additional opportunities for public comment prior to the City Council's final adoption of the strategy. An implementation process will follow final adoption. Board Member Robles commented that the draft Housing Strategy is fantastic. The consultant and staff really listened to the input provided. The plan is very modern and represents a convergence of ideas that even addresses short term temporary housing. Board Member Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, he requested more information about the City's recent contract with Cohn Consulting. Director Hope advised that in 2017, the City Council allocated funding to study the issue of homelessness in Edmonds, and Cohn Consulting was hired to do a more detailed assessment. This is separate from the Housing Strategy. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City's current decision -making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.a similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers from the text. • Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.a ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27' without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 2.A.a Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the Board's deliberations always benefit the City Council when looking at the subject in hand, and she appreciates all the time that was put into preparing the information. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the May 16t' Economic Development Commission meeting. He noted that Mary Monroe was appointed as the Commission's new chair and Nicole Hughes is the vice chair. The Commission had a lengthy discussion about setting up subcommittees to work on a variety of subjects throughout the year, and a list was developed. The Dayton Street project was of particularly concern given that the street will be closed for a long period of time due to major reconstruction and utility work. There was also talk about the Edmonds Marsh, Firdale Village, ground floor ceiling height in the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone and a number of other items relative to economic opportunities that will be researched and reported on by the Commission. He announced that he would be unavailable to attend the Commission's June 20t1i meeting, and he recommended another Board Member attend in his absence. �I11111711u_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 16 Packet Pg. 18 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/13/2018 Public Hearing on Draft Housing Strategy Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Prepared By: Denise Nelson Background/History Housing that is affordable or attainable for people is often a challenge, especially in these days of rising housing prices and growing Puget Sound population --regardless of whether someone is purchasing or renting. In addition, diverse needs should be considered --including for seniors and people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of housing affordable for a range of incomes and to meeting special housing needs. The draft Strategy is being considered now. A Housing Strategy Task Force, consisting primarily of housing experts, was appointed in the summer of 2017 to make recommendations for City actions that could be incorporated into a Draft Housing Strategy. The Draft Strategy would then be considered as part of a larger public process. So far, the public process has included: Special website, with information updated periodically regarding both the Housing Strategy project and the Task Force (see: button on http://www.edmondswa.gov/) Press releases Articles in local news publications Discussion of housing issues at several Planning Board meetings Public Open house on May 21, including oral and written comments Introduction to Discussion Draft of Housing Strategy at May 23 Planning Board meeting Official public notices posted and published for Planning Board's June 13 public hearing Written comments received so far are consolidated into one set. (See Attachment 4.) Staff Recommendation Ask any questions and listen to public input. NOTE: No decision is expected at this time. Narrative A housing strategy has been developed to help the City increase the supply of housing affordable to a range of income levels and to meet diverse housing needs. While the City's Comprehensive Plan called for development of this strategy by 2019, the work has been expedited, recognizing the significant housing needs and challenges in our community and region. A brief overview of housing needs and objectives is the basis of Attachment 1. This was distributed as a hand-out at the Open House on May 21 and posted on the City website. Packet Pg. 19 6.A Attachment 2 is the Draft Housing Strategy recommended by the Housing Strategy Task Force. Except for a brief Executive Summary, the Strategy starts out with information about housing numbers, household sizes, income levels, and related housing needs in Edmonds. It then summarizes pertinent policy direction from the Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Strategy identifies numerous actions the City can take to address housing needs. Even actions that are not specific to lower income housing can be helpful overall if they increase housing supply and reduce cost pressures from demand. The recommended actions are meant to provide broad guidance and inspiration and would take additional detailed work before implementation. The recommended actions are grouped under six priority objectives: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle" 3. Support the needs of an aging population 4. Increase the supply of income -restricted housing 5. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Attachment 3 is an appendix to the Draft Housing Strategy. It describes and compares numerous housing tools, recognizing that different tools are helpful for different types of needs and goals. At the Planning Board's May 23 meeting, the draft Strategy (prior to final wording and formatting changes) was introduced. Next Steps On June 13, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing for the draft Strategy to be presented and to consider public input. No decision is expected. Other Planning Board and City Council meetings will follow. The next currently scheduled meeting is by the Planning Board on June 27. The Planning Board may propose changes to the Strategy and/or, when ready, may recommend action for the City Council to take. The City's website on the Housing Strategy (https://www.edmondshousingstrategy.org/, also available directly from the City's home page) will be updated on an ongoing basis to show public meetings and new information. After the Planning Board completes its review and recommendation, the Draft Strategy will continue through the public process and be considered by the City Council. The City Council is the body that makes a final decision. Even after adoption of the Housing Strategy (with any changes), the work will not be over. Detailed implementation options and efforts would follow up next, as quickly as resources and priorities allow. At this more detailed level in the near future, City efforts would be subject to further consideration of information and public input. Attachments: Att. 1—Housing Hand-out Att. 2—Draft Housing Strategy Att. 3_Appendix to Housing Strategy Att. 4—Written Comments (Consolidated) Packet Pg. 20 n_" a n M111i E D M 0 N D S HOUSING STRATEGY Share YguffjnWt Edmonds is facing a housing affordability crisis. With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in Edmonds is strong. As more and more people move to the Puget Sound region, the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of many long-term residents. Signs of this housing crisis are all around us: • Nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds are cost -burdened, including over 4,600 low- and moderate -income households' • At least 2,400 low-income workers commute long distances to jobs in Edmonds' • 260 students attending schools in Edmonds are homeless' The City is developing a Housing Strategy for addressing this crisis. To inform this strategy, the Mayor convened a Task Force of housing specialists and community representatives to recommend actions the City can take to address housing needs. The City is also seeking input from residents. 1 Source: HUD CHAS (based on Census American Community Survey 2010-2014 5-year estimates) 2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, 2015 3 Source: Edmonds School District, 2017 Cost -burdened Households Versus Subsidized Housing Inventory Households 2,500 Total Households 2,045 2,000 Cost -burdened 1,500 Households 1,570 1,000 500[Subsidized ousing Units Total Households 2,250 Total Households 1,945 Total Households 1,690 Cost -burdened Households 1,490 Cost -burdened Households 1,075 Subsidized Itsubsidized Cost -burdened Housing Units Housing Units HouseholdsSs 520 Bill Anderson Compass Housing Alliance Rev. M. Christopher Boyer Good Shepherd Baptist Church Chris Collier Alliance For Housing Affordability Mark Craig Henbart, Llc. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Edmonds City Council Jamie Reece Reece Homes Real Estate Mark Smith Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County Rob Van Tassell Catholic Housing Of Western Washington Anne Wermus Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition Total Households 9,510 Cost -burdened Households 1,170 Extremely Low -Income Very Low -Income Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income (<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100% AMI) Not Calculated Not Cost Burden ■ Cost -Burdened Household spenc more than 30% c monthly income housing costs ■ Severely Cost -Burdened Household spenc more than 50% c monthly income housing costs Sources: HUD CHAS (based ACS 2010-2014 5 estimates); Housing Consortium of Evere and Snohomish Cou 2018; AMI = HUD, Median Family Inco, a Images: 1 https://www.portioncloregon.gov/bps/articlel223718 2 http://www.orchhousing.org/ 3 State of Housing in Portland Report, January 2018(https://www.portlancloregon.govlphbl) Puguc packet Pg. 21 6.A.a am nn Q1r9 E D M O N D S Objectives HOUSING STRATEGY IDENTIFY AND ADOPT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However, Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. Image: Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village shelters in Seattle for the homeless. SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share is expected to grow significantly during the next ten years. Edmonds needs to support the needs of seniors who choose to "age in place" in their homes, while also providing more options for seniors who wish to downsize or require assisted living. Image: Mixed -use 3-story building with 1-bedroom affordable rental apartments for extremely low-income seniors at Coostside Senior Apartments in California. Project Timeline • July 2017 Mayor Earling appoints Housing Strategy Task Force • Nov. 2017 — May 2018 Evaluation of housing needs and potential actions • May 21, 2018 Public Open House • May 23, 2018 Planning Board discussion • June 13, 2018 Draft Housing Strategy presented to Planning Board • July — Aug. 2018 City Council to consider Housing Strategy for adoption Task Force Meetings: 9/27, 10/26, 1 1 /30, 1 /25, 4/ 12, 5/25 BUILD MORE HOUSING AND EXPAND HOUSING CHOICES Edmonds has diverse range of households at various income levels and life -stages, from young single workers, to families, to retirees. There are many more people who work in Edmonds but cannot afford to live here. Meeting these needs requires building more housing and a greater diversity of housing types. The City can support this by providing more flexibility or incentives to develop the types of housing that are in greatest need. Image: Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live -work - play architecture. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING A large share of the Edmonds workforce does not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing. To meet the needs of these community members Edmonds must work in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies to build more subsidized affordable housing. Image: Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is an apartment community that serves residents with incomes between 40-80% AMI. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS LOW-INCOME TENANTS Low-income tenants may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds should identify short- and long-term solutions to address these needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing in the community. Image: Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a tent camp for the homeless. 1 Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http://www.seattle.gov/council/adu-e 2 https://lihi.org/tiny-houseslothello-village/ 3 Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswo.govl2Ol 1-07-21- 22-31-43/highway-99-planning-project. html 4 https://www.mercyhousing.org/ca-coostside-senior 5 http://quixotevilloge.com/ r Q Pu" Packet Pg. 22 M IN 03 ►I 901\ 1 mkt ''.77 ,fl� Mmm 1 r.' ' 'I'll C .. ,. d�•1•galFx��J 6.A.b Cover Photos Top Row (Left) Townhomes in Seattle. https://wwwredf n.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294 (Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live - work -play architecture. Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http.//www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis (Right) Mixed -use, mixed -type, and mixed -income housing in the Westlawn Gardens neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI. https://planning. orq/awards/2018/westlawn/ Second Row (Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low- income and market rate housing —it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half being affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point offers a variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and civic amenities. Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_ poge/high-point/ (Center) Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village shelters in Seattle for the homeless. https://lihi. orq/tin v-houses/othello-vill age/ (Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five -story apartment community that serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income. Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99- planning-project.html Third Row (Left) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current housing units —such programs could include home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. Edmonds Senior Center, https//www.facebook.com/E`dmondsSeniorCenterl (Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle financed through a multifamily tax exemption program. Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99- planning-project.html (Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island. HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/cosestudies/study_102011 2.html Bottom Row (Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a tent camp for the homeless. http://guixotevillage. com/ (Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in collaboration with local economic development organizations, service provider networks, and other affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood serves households earning 50% of area median income. https://www capitolhillhousing.orq/ourproperties/buildings/flemin. php and https.-Ilwwwapartments.com/ fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/ (Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low -incomes to rent market -rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low - incomes live in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them within their means. Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily housing development in Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers. https://www. kcho. orq/housinq/property aspx?PropertvlD=1 Packet Pg. 24 6.A.b Acknowledaements DRAFT Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force BILL ANDERSON Compass Housing Alliance REV. M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER Good Shepherd Baptist Church CHRIS COLLIER Alliance For Housing Affordability MARK CRAIG Henbart, Llc. ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS Edmonds City Council JAMIE REECE Reece Homes Real Estate MARK SMITH Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County ROB VAN TASSELL Catholic Housing Of Western Washington ANNE WERMUS Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition City of Edmonds Staff SHANE HOPE Development Services Director BRAD SHIPLEY Associate Planner DIANE CUNNINGHAM Planning Administrator Consultant Team: BERK Consulting KEVIN RAMSEY Project Manager ANDREW BJORN Policy Specialist JESSIE HARTMANN Layout and Information Designer MELANIE MAYOCK Analyst 3 Packet Pg. 25 6.A.b Q Packet Pg. 26 6.A.b Executive Summa Edmonds is facing urgent housing affordability challenges that are impacting communities across the Central Puget Sound Region. To a great extent, these challenges are caused by rapid job and population growth that is outpacing the production of new housing near job centers. With so many new people and families competing for a limited supply of housing, prices get pushed increasingly higher. This results in a widening gap between housing costs and what is affordable to low, moderate, and even middle -income households. In Edmonds, nearly 6,000 households are "cost burdened" and struggling to afford rising housing costs. Over 4,000 of these cost -burdened households are low-income. Additionally, at least 2,400 low-income workers are commuting long distances to jobs in Edmonds from homes in more affordable communities. Housing affordability is an issue that impacts all Edmonds residents. Rising housing costscan leadtothedisplacementoflong-term residents, uprooting lives and undermining the stability of neighborhoods. When workers in Edmonds are not living close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to their workplace. This increases traffic congestion on local streets, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation costs. A lack of affordable housing also makes it difficult to hire and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Maintaining a healthy and sustainable city means that Edmonds will need to build more housing and different kinds of housing to meet the diverse needs of our population and workforce. While the City has already taken some important steps to address critical housing needs and contribute to regional housing solutions, additional actions are both necessary and urgent. This report presents a multi -part strategy for increasing the supply affordable housing options in Edmonds to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. This strategy recognizes that both market rate and subsidized housing production will play a role in meeting the housing needs of Edmonds residents and workforce. The strategy includes six' objectives: 1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing. Ensuring that there is sufficient supply of apartments and condominium housing in Edmonds is essential to reduce upward pressure on housing costs and providing more options for small households who do not need a lot of space. Edmonds should allow and 1 These objectives are not presented in rank order. DRAFT Why is Edmonds Developing a Housing Strategy? The City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes an Implementing Action to "[d]evelop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs" 5 Packet Pg. 27 6.A.b 91MAIIIIJ044 RM DRAFT EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 What is Affordable Housing? encourage more multifamily housing production in targeted areas across the city to address this need. A home is generally considered to be affordable if the household 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle". We need is paying no more than 30 a wider range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of percent of their income on different households at various income levels and stages in their housing costs. A healthy housing market includes a variety of life -cycle, ranging from young one -person households to retirees. housing types that are affordable Edmonds should allow and encourage the development of to a range of different household income levels. "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, The term "affordable housing" is duplexes, and townhomes to meet these needs. often used to describe income- 3. Support the needs of an aging population. One out five restricted housing available only to qualifying low-income Edmonds residents is over the age of 65, this share will continue households. Income -restricted to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the housing can be located in public, nonprofit, or for -profit housing housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. Managing developments. It can also include these needs will require supporting the desire for some residents households using vouchers to to "age in place" in their homes, while accommodating other help pay for market -rate housing. residents in assisted living and nursing home facilities. In this report, "affordable housing" refers to any housing 4. Increase the supply of income -restricted affordable housing. that is affordable to the household that is occupying A large share of the Edmonds workforce and current population it, whether market rate or do not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing. subsidized. Edmonds should support and encourage more affordable housing See Appendix C for a glossary of development in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies housing terminology used in this to meet the needs of these community members. report. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However, Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. The City is also pursuing a separate and more detailed study into the needs of homeless populations in Edmonds and options for addressing those needs. 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Low-income tenants may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds should identify short and long-term solutions to address these needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing in the community. 6 Packet Pg. 28 6.A.b Contents Introduction Housing Needs in Edmonds Homeless Persons and Families 12 Workforce Housing 13 Senior Housing 16 Housing Strategy Overview 17 1. Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing 19 2. Expand Housing Diversity in the "Missing Middle" 22 3. Support the Needs of an Aging Population 24 4. Increase the Supply of Income -Restricted Affordable Housing 25 5. Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce Homelessness 29 6. Provide Protections for Low-income Tenants 31 Appendices. 33 Appendix A. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment 35 Household Incomes in Edmonds 35 Housing Supply in Edmonds 36 Housing Needs by Household Type 41 Special Needs Populations 44 Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds 49 Appendix C. Glossary of Housing Affordability Terminology 51 Appendix D. Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools 55 DRAFT r a Packet Pg. 29 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Exhibits Exhibit 1 Cost -Burdened Households and Current Subsidized Housing Inventory 11 Exhibit 2 Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds 14 Exhibit 3 Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded) 15 Exhibit 4 Median Family Income 35 Exhibit 5 Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure 36 Exhibit 6 Edmonds Housing Inventory 36 Exhibit 7 Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes 37 Exhibit 8 Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017 39 Exhibit 9 Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need 40 Exhibit 10 Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018 40 Exhibit 11 Low -wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to Jobs Located in Edmonds 42 Exhibit 12 Renter Households with Incomes 30-50% of AMI (Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 43 Exhibit 13 Renter Households with Incomes 50-80% of AMI (Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 43 Exhibit 14 Edmonds Population by Age Range 44 Exhibit 15 Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level 45 Exhibit 16 Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District 46 8 Packet Pg. 30 6.A.b Introduction With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in Edmonds is strong. As more people move to the Puget Sound Region, the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of many long-term residents. Rising housing costs impact the quality of life for all Edmonds residents. When workers in Edmonds can't live close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to work: increasing their transportation costs as well as traffic congestion on local streets and greenhouse gas emissions. A lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to recruit, hire, and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Students in families struggling with housing insecurity often have increased challenges in school and require greater attention and resources. Housing affordability is essential to quality of life, environmental sustainability, and community resiliency. To maintain a healthy and thriving city, Edmonds needs more housing in a variety of formats to meet the housing demand from our diverse population and workforce. Also, with a large population of older residents, Edmonds needs to make more space foryounger community members who can contribute to our city's economic and civic vitality. This requires different kinds of housing that meet the needs of diverse lifestyles. This is important because not everyone needs the same type of housing: some families prefer a large detached housing with a large yard, while others are happy with a small house and small yard. Still, others want the option to live in an apartment, townhome, condominium, or something else. When we provide opportunities for different types of housing to be built, people have more choices. This also enables us to support the housing needs of community members across their entire life cycle, from younger adults living alone, to new families, and to retirees looking to downsize. The City of Edmonds is committed to addressing housing affordability challenges. In recent years, Edmonds has taken several actions: • Adopted a multifamily tax abatement program that applies in some locations when at least 20 percent of the new housing is dedicated to low and moderate -income households. • Adopted reductions in park and transportation impact fees for low-income housing projects. DRAFT 9 Packet Pg. 31 6.A.b DRAFT EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 • Set aside $250,000 for a fund that will assist with homeless needs and began a new study to assess those needs Joined the Alliance for Housing Affordability, a multi jurisdiction organization that is looking to contribute funds toward selected affordable housing projects. • Adopted a plan and regulations that allow more housing in the Westgate and State Route 99 areas. While these steps show progress, more actions are necessary. Therefore, the 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City to develop and implementa Housing Strategy by2019. In 2017the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force to make recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. The Task Force is composed of nine local housing developers, policy experts, and civic leaders representing the public, nonprofit, and for -profit sectors. This group has met on five occasions to review an analysis of the local housing supply and housing needs, identify best practice solutions for addressing housing needs, and evaluate potential actions that the City can take to most effectively address housing needs in Edmonds. Some of these actions the City could tackle alone, while others would be most effectively pursued in collaboration with Snohomish County, neighboring communities, and other partners through coordinated regional strategies. This report presents the Housing Strategy, including actions recommended by the Task Force. The strategy addresses the need to increase the production of both market rate and subsidized affordable housing to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. 10 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.b Housina Needs in Edmonds The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing. One indicator of need is cost -burdened households. A cost -burdened household is spending over 30 percent of their income on housing costs, while a severely cost -burdened household is spending over 50 percent of income on housing. Between 2010 and 2014 there were nearly 6,000 cost -burdened households in Edmonds. This includes over 4,600 low- and moderate - income households. These needs have very likely grown in the years since this data was collected. Between 2011 and 2018 average monthly rents in Edmonds have increased by over $600, or 4.6 percent per year.2 As shown in Exhibit 1, the current inventory of income -restricted subsidized housing is small and inadequate compared to the level of need. EXHIBIT 1 Cost -Burdened Households and Current Subsidized Housing Inventory Households 2,500 Total Households 2,045 Total Households 1,945 2,000 ' Cost -burdened 1,500 Households Cost -burdened 1,570 Households 1,490 it 1,000 Subsidized 500 Subsidized Housing Units Housing Units Total Households 2,250 Cost -burdened Households 1,075 Subsidized Housing Units DRAFT What is Area Median Income (AMI)? Analyses of housing affordability typically group all households by income level relative to area median family income, or the median income of all family households in the metropolitan region or county. Median income of non -family households is typically lower than for family households. In this report AMI refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income. In Snohomish County, AMI is $96,000. Total Households 9,510 Total Households 1,690 Cost -burdened Households 1,170 1W Cost -burdened Households 520 Extremely Low -Income Very Low -Income Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income (<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100% AMI) Not Calculated ■ Cost -Burdened ■ SeverelyCost-BurdenedSources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 Not Cost Burdened Household spends more than 30% Household spends more than 50% 5-year estimates); Housing Consortium of of monthly income on housing costs of monthly income on housing costs Everett and Snohomish County, 2018 2 Source: BERK analysis ofZillow Rent Index data for City of Edmonds, March 2011—March 2018. Q 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that match a diverse array of different household types and income levels. This chapter provides a summary of housing needs in Edmonds. A more detailed assessment of the Edmonds housing supply and community needs is available in Appendix A: Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment. Homeless Persons and Families Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons, from 344 to 515 in 2017.3 Chronic homelessness has increased at an even faster rate, from 135 persons in 2013 to 313 persons in 2017. There are 260 students attending schools in Edmonds that are homeless.4 There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs, disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and criminal records. Housing strategies must often be coordinated with support services to help homeless residents address the underlying causes of housing insecurity. The City is currently conducting a more detailed analysis of the needs of its homeless population. Housing Strategies for Homeless Persons and Families • Winter and emergency shelters for short-term needs • Transitional housing (particularly for women and children) • Flexible low-cost housing formats that can be built quickly to address targeted needs on a temporary basis • Permanent supportive housing with coordinated services 3 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23, 2017 httt)s://snohomishcountywo.you/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/41603 4 This includes students who are in temporary housing situations such as "doubled -up", or staying with friends or family due to lack of housing. 12 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.b Workforce Housing Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.' The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail, accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries are typically low wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual -income household. This helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace. As shown in Exhibit 2 on the following page, nearly 1,100 low -wage workers commute more than 25 miles, and nearly 1,300 additional workers commute more than 10 miles from their homes outside of Edmonds. EXAMPLE: Home Health Aide Living Alone A home health aide in Edmonds earns around $26,000 per year. At this income, she could afford a monthly rent of $840 per month. The average rent for a studio apartment in Edmonds is over $1,000 per month and studios are in very limited supply. It is unlikely that a home health aide living alone could find a suitable home in ,.� Edmonds, affordable or otherwise. -- The most effective way to meet the needs of very low-income workers is increasing Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics production of subsidized income -restricted affordable housing. However, increasing the supply of market -rate small apartments or "micro -housing" can also help to provide more low-cost housing options for workers living alone in Edmonds. 5 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015). DRAFT 13 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.b EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXHIBIT 2 Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds Very Low Waqe Workers Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250 Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375 93F Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work 435 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work DRAFT 11518 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work ow Wage Workers >nthly Wage': up to $3,333 ix Affordable Monthly Rent': up to $1,000 658 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015, BERK, 2077 (1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket. 14 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.b EXAMPLE: Single Parent Working as a Receptionist A single parent working as a receptionist in Edmonds earns an average of about $34,000 per year. At this wage the family could afford $960 per month in rent, whereas 1-bedroom apartments rent for at least $1,200 in Edmonds Image: Shutterstock, Alena Vasko and they are in very short supply. Increasing the supply of smaller apartments and reducing restrictions to other home types like accessory dwelling units could help to address the needs of working single parents. Increasing the supply of subsidized housing is needed to meet the needs of low-income households. L. DRAFT EXAMPLE: Teacher Supporting a Family of Four A family of four with one parent employed as an �1 elementary teacher earns f an average of $62,000 per year, or about 65 percent of AMI. At this wage the family could afford up to $1,550 in rent. The average three -bedroom apartment Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics in Edmonds rents for almost $1,700 per month. Homeownership options are generally far out of reach. Moderate -income family households like this one need more "missing middle" housing options such as townhomes, duplexes, or detached accessory dwelling units to provide more rental and ownership housing opportunities. Exhibit 3 shows cost -burdened non -senior households by household type and income level. It shows there are household struggling with housing costs across the entire income spectrum. The greatest need is among small families (2-4 members) and non -family households, which are typically people living alone or with unrelated housemates. EXHIBIT 3 Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded) Large Family 80 50 10 0 10 Small Family 170 Non -family 215 150 380 330 245 645 1,770 270 340 110 210 1,145 Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates) Workforce Housing Solutions • Subsidized multifamily housing. Increased production of small market rate apartments, including studios, efficiencies, and micro -housing. More "missing middle" housing formats like ADUs, duplexes, and townhomes. 15 Packet Pg. 37 6.A.b 91MAIIIIJ044 RM DRAFT EDMOND�- HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXAMPLE: Senior Housing Supporting Affordable Aging in place for One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and over Edmonds Seniors 7,000 residents age 55-65 will become seniors within the next 10 years.6 Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age in lace may require additional support services such as home g p Y q pp modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or _ care management and counseling. While many senior households in Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and services, many others will not. Image: Unspash, Sam Wheeler Indicators of Need Frank is a 74-year-old widower 3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI. who has lived in a single-family home in Edmonds for 46 years. 422 cost -burdened renters' households. He loves his community and Over 1,500 cost -burdened homeowners. wishes to stay in Edmonds. However, the cost of maintaining his large home is becoming Senior Housing Solutions unmanageable. So, Frank would like to build a detached accessory Subsidized and market -rate senior living facilities with coordinated dwelling unit (DADU) in the large support services. yard and rent the main building to a young family who cannot afford Detached and attached accessory dwelling units. to buy a home in Edmonds. A DADU would be the perfect size Support services to facilitate aging in place. for Frank and could be designed with accessibility in mind so that he can stay in the home as his mobility declines. The rent from the primary home would be more than enough to cover the loan to build the DADU. It could also provide Frank enough income to cover the costs of other services like transportation, grocery delivery, gardening, and occasional visits from a home health aide. Currently DADUs are not allowed by Edmonds code. A key element of this strategy is to relax these kinds of restrictions to enable more housing solutions for seniors and others. 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 2011-2015 16 Packet Pg. 38 6.A.b Housing Strategy DRAFT Overview The Edmonds Housing Strategy charts a course for supporting a sustainable, inclusive community with a range of housing types for households with different income levels and housing needs. It includes six objectives for improving access to affordable housing across the full range of housing types. The strategy is focused on reducing costs of development, increasing housing production, and addressing the specific needs of special populations in the city. The 2016 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following 10 goals related to housing in the community to achieve this strategy's mission: 1. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. 2. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. 3. Provide for special needs populations —such as low income, disabled, or senior residents —to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment. 4. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community. 5. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents. 6. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. 7. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. 17 Packet Pg. 39 6.A.b DRAFT EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 9. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. 10. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. The development and implementation of the Housing Strategy is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also proposes that the City track and report the development of housing over time, with a target of 112 additional dwelling units per year to reach 21,168 units by 2035. This target rate of growth is faster than Edmonds has seen in recent years. Between 2010 and 2017 Edmonds added an average of 68 units per year. More recently, since 2014, the City has added 107 units per year. To achieve the growth target, Edmonds will need to continue increasing its rate of new housing production. Considering the content of the Comprehensive Plan, this Housing Strategy is structured around six priority objectives to achieve these goals: 1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle" 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing 4. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness 5. Support the needs of an aging population 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants For each of these strategic objectives, this Housing Strategy provides a description of the general focus and intent with respect to housing in Edmonds, a list of potential actions to achieve each objective, and next steps for implementing these actions. 18 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.b Edmonds needs to aggressively increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing such as apartments or condominiums to provide a greater variety of housing options and reduce upward pressure on housing costs. This can be facilitated by easing requirements and providing new market -based incentives. These actions typically focus on units appropriate for smaller households with one to two members and between 60 and 120 percent of AMI, including some low- and middle -income workers. Recommended Actions 1.1 Support transit -oriented development along current and future transit corridors. Some areas which have higher levels of transit service can support transit -oriented development (TOD). This can include not only targeted rezoning and code refinement for more intensive development, but also support for a mix of residential, retail, and service offerings, multi -modal transportation options, and parking management that can support walkability and transit use. The City should coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to identify current and future areas for TOD and review potential schedules for implementation. Finally, the City should explore combining this action with an expanded multifamily tax exemption (Action 4.5) inclusionary zoning program (Action 4.6) to encourage affordable housing development. 1.2 Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones Providing more flexibility for new development, including greater building heights or densities on a site allows more units to be accommodated on available land in areas zoned for multifamily development. This not only increases potential housing supply in Edmonds, it can also spur redevelopment of older, obsolete housing by permitting larger projects that would be more economically feasible to develop. The City should identify targeted areas where increases building heights or density levels would be appropriate and supportable by local infrastructure and services. 1.3 Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted areas. Reducing the number of parking stalls required for each new housing unit allows for lower development costs by reducing the amount of land necessary to accommodate parking spaces and the need to DRAFT 19 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.b DRAFT EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 01 Smaller houses that better fit existing neighborhoods (top), more housing options for people's changing needs (center), clear and fair rules for narrow low development (bottom) EXAMPLE: Portland's Infill Design Project Policymakers in the City of Portland wanted to encourage building a greater variety of housing types (such as duplexes and townhomes) in its residential neighborhoods and reduce the costs of development. But it also wanted high design standards to avoid impacting community character. To do this they brought together community stakeholders to design a series of housing prototypes that meet City regulations and design objectives and are feasible from a market perspective. The purpose is to make it easier and faster for builders to develop the kinds of new housing that meet community objectives. For more information see Portland's Infill Design Project Overview. Source: City of Portland, Planning and Sustainability accommodate parking within a residential building. This can also make market -rate projects more feasible by allowing for more of a site to be used for development. The City should explore where it makes sense to reduce parking requirements, particularly in areas well served by transit to facilitate TOD. 1.4 Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process. The City should work to improve the development permitting process and related reviews. Faster permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an easy to understand process and requirements would reduce the administrative and carrying costs for development projects in the community. This may be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by increased department staffing during busy cycles, clear and informative reference materials, public reports on actual permit review times, and "one window" access for applicants. 1.5 Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside income - restricted units. The City should identify locations where increases in density or building heights could be allowed, in exchange for a percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing fund. This program would be a voluntary incentive to encourage more multifamily housing production as well as income -restricted housing production. As an alternative, the City could consider a mandatory inclusionary zoning program as described in Action 4.6. 1.6 Explore the application of "micro -housing" style developments. "Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily buildings with very small 20 Packet Pg. 42 6.A.b efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate housing with private rooms and shared kitchens and other facilities. Micro -housing projects can provide lower -cost options for one or two -person households that do not need significant amounts of living space. Modifications or relaxations of zoning and code requirements should be explored to determine the feasibility of micro -housing in key locations. Note that although this discussion is focused on workforce housing, code amendments could be explored in conjunction with those for flexible housing options for homeless residents detailed in Action 5.1. Additional Actions 1.7 Advocate for state legislation to promote condominium development. The Washington State Condominium Act is interpreted to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for constructions, which has provided a disincentive for condo production in the market. Edmonds should work with other cities when possible to encourage the state legislature to revise the Act. 1.8 Coordinate communication and outreach to the development community. Providing public information about city regulations and incentives, especially those designed to encourage specific housing types, should be used to support the use ofthese programs in Edmonds. This can include web and hard -copy informational handouts, city email newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches. Next Steps • Review developable lands and the status of developed single- family areas in Edmonds to determine potential areas for upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential development. • When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. • Coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to determine appropriate locations for new and expanded transit - oriented development and coordinate long-range land use and transit planning for these locations. • Continue to streamline the process for permit reviews and other associated project reviews for new development and maintain a DRAFT 21 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 clear and transparent system to allow the public to understand the process. Provide information resources as necessary to educate stakeholders about the development review process. Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to assess potential obstacles to the development of different micro -housing options, determine the expected uptake of micro - housing units, and provide recommendations for changes to the Codes that would help to achieve housing goals. • Coordinate with the PSRC, Snohomish County, other local governments, and key stakeholders to lobby the legislature to address issues with the Condominium Act. Compile available information on the development process in Edmonds, and provide the public with clear, easy to understand guides to the process to improve transparency. The housing market in Edmonds is primarily composed of single- family homes and apartments. The development of a wider variety of housing products is essential to meet the diverse needs of different populations. Households at various income levels and stages in their life -cycle (ranging from young one -person households to retirees) will have different space needs and financial capacities. This range of conditions can be addressed more efficiently in the market by providing units in "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes. Market -based approaches to expand opportunities for these developments can encourage a more diverse and flexible housing supply that better meets the needs of the community. Recommended Actions 21 Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units and backyard cottages. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence (e.g., basement unit) or detached from the primary residence. The City should promote the development of ADUs by modifying requirements 22 Packet Pg. 44 6.A.b that prevent or discourage homeowners from adding a unit to an existing property. This may include more flexible parking requirements, changing owner occupancy requirements, allowing unrelated households to reside in these units, and so forth. The City should also explore the impacts of allowing some ADUs to be used for short-term rentals as a source of income for local homeowners, including impacts on the surrounding community and long-term rental housing supply. 2.2 Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family areas. Most households cannot afford to live in a single-family home. In locations near transit and commercial centers, it may make sense to allow for a greater variety of housing types that still fit the character of the surrounding community. These could include townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing, or small -lot single-family units. Targeted rezones to allow more flexibility can help to promote a wider diversity of housing types on the market to meet the needs of a wide range of household types and income levels. Next Steps • Review existing provisions within the Community Development Code and determine the changes necessary to address major obstacles in the development of accessory dwelling units and other small housing formats. • When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. • Review developable lands and the status of developed single- family areas in the community to determine potential areas for rezoning to allow "missing middle" housing development, such as duplexes and townhouses. • Explore the wider application of form -based codes that could support the development of "missing middle" housing in other neighborhoods. • Compile available information that would be able to support the development of community land trusts in the city. DRAFT EXAMPLE: Encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units The cities of Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood and Everett all impose less constraints on the development and use of ADUs when compared to Edmonds. The City of Mountlake Terrace promote the development of ADUs and detached ADUs on their website and provide a clear guide for homeowners considering adding an ADU to their property. Planners in Mountlake Terrace report a significant increase in the number of ADU permits in recent years as awareness of concept grows in the community. .It Source: City of Mountlake Terrace, via city website 23 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Over 20 percent of Edmonds residents are over the age of 65. Demographic trends indicate this share will continue to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. For those that decide to "age in place" in their current housing units, there will be challenges in accessing appropriate health and social services as well as managing the ongoing costs of housing with fixed incomes. For those that choose assisted living options or care in nursing homes land use requirements should allow sufficient options to be built affordably for their needs. Recommended Actions 3.1 Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current housing units. Such programs could include home modification, shared housing, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. This may be best pursued in partnership with another organization involved with elder care, such as Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County. 3.2 Examine property tax relief and utility rate/tax relief programs. Low-income homeowners, especially seniors, can be at risk of economic displacement when property tax or utility charges increase. Snohomish County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior and disabled persons as well as propertytax deferral program for limited income homeowners. The City could expand participation in these programs through increased outreach and education. Additionally, the City could develop similar programs to provide relief for the cost of utilities to provide support to seniors and other groups. Additional Actions 3.3 Reduce barriers to group homes and housing for seniors. Housing in retirement and assisted living communities in Edmonds, including nursing homes or memory care facilities, may have certain code requirements (e.g., vehicle parking) that are less applicable to the needs for seniors or other group home residents. Modifications or relaxations of code requirements can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing for seniors and other special needs populations. 24 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.b DRAFT Next Steps • Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations involved with elder care to coordinate a "aging in place" plan for city services and land uses that will support residents of Edmonds as they age. Review options for property tax and utility rate relief programs for seniors to determine the expected uptake, fiscal implications, and relative impacts of such a program. Coordinate a forum with local and regional developers of care facilities and nursing homes to review requirements for developing these uses in Edmonds, and potential innovations to reduce the costs of these projects. EXAMPLE: For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI or Shoreline Density Bonus below, it is unlikelythatthe marketcan provide housing that is affordable. Actions should be taken by the City to support and encourage the Under the Shoreline Municipal development of income -restricted housing through direct funding, code, density bonuses are provided in multifamily areas, reducing costs to build new affordable housing projects, and incentives with up to a 50 percent increase to include affordable units in new market -rate developments. The City in density provided for units can also encourage innovative private or nonprofit financing tools for affordable for households with incomes up to 80 percent AMI. housing types that are more difficult to finance in the traditional market. covenants are registered on the These actions can be most effectively pursued in partnership with other property to retain this affordable agencies and nonprofits such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish housing on the site for a 30-year period. County, Housing Hope, YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Verdant. Recommended Actions 41 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for affordable housing development. The City should assess its inventory of surplus and underutilized parcels and develop an inventory of other public- or nonprofit -owned that can potentially support affordable housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through the direct donation of parcels or through funding from the sale of city owned land that is less suitable for affordable housing development. 4.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing development targeted at 0-30 percent AMI. The City should allocate Y a 25 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.b EC HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXAMPLE: Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing in Everett Affordable housing projects for households of 50 percent AMI or less in Everett may apply for a transportation impact fee exemption, which is granted on a case -by -case basis. An exemption requires the developer to register a covenant on title to ensure the site remains in use for affordable housing. Fees for development permits may also be waived at the discretion of the planning director if a landowner agrees to register a covenant on title to retain affordable units on the site for a 30-year period. DRAFT funding to directly support an affordable housing project targeted for extremely low-income households. In addition to providing resources for local affordable housing, a contribution by the City can greatly improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant funding, particularly Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants that are administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Funding from the City could be used to pursue projects in Edmonds in partnership with a nonprofit housing developer, or pooled to contribute to regional housing solutions through the Alliance for Housing Affordability. 4.3 Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations. A major source of support that can help low-income households access housing on the private market is the Section 8 voucher program, funded by the federal government and administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds should work proactively with the Authority to secure additional project -based vouchers for developments within the city where possible. This should be done in cooperation with third - party nonprofit organizations where applicable. 4.4 Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for affordable housing development. The City should provide support and funding to nonprofit developers interested in receiving financial support from the state and federal governments. Among the available programs, federal Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) can provide tax credits for 10 years of up to about 9 percent of the qualified basis of a building and are administered through the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Additionally, the State Department of Commerce administers the Housing Trust Fund for the construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, preferably for households with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. 4.5 Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a voluntary incentive provided by the City. Under this program, private multifamily housing developments in certain designated districts are exempted from property taxes for upto12 years if income -restricted units are maintained in the development. This program is currently applied to the SR-99 Subarea and the Westgate Mixed -use District. It should be expanded as appropriate to spur the development of affordable housing in other locations. 26 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.b 4.6 Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning program. Possible changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code should be explored that would permit greater residential building heights and densities in certain targeted areas, in exchange for a percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing fund. This can either be voluntary (as described in Action 1.5), where affordable units are necessary for additional capacity, or mandatory, where affordable units are required for any development on the site. Since inclusionary zoning must be implemented as part of an increase in development capacity, this should be explored as part of other strategies involving upzoning, such as Action 1.2 and Action 1.3. 4.7 Reduce development fees for low-income housing. Fees for development in the City of Edmonds include impact fees to finance capital spending for community infrastructure, utility connection fees to fund new connections with city services, and permit fees to cover administrative costs of processing applications. Some discounts are currently provided for low-income housing, and further reductions should be explored to improve the financial feasibility of the development while maintaining necessary funding for these services. Additional Actions 4.8 Support community land trusts. Community land trusts (CLTs) are a way to promote affordable home ownership by keeping the ownership of the land with a separate nonprofit community organization and providing renewable leases and portions of the total equity to homeowners. Although these arrangements are not typically implemented by local governments, the City can provide support for a new CLT recently formed in Snohomish County ("Homes and Hope"), including direct funding or the provision of surplus public lands. 4.9 Expedite the permitting process for affordable housing. The City can prioritize the processing of permits for affordable housing projects, which will reduce the time spent in the permitting process and the associated costs with holding the property. Although this could be used for high priority projects, the short-term focus should be to provide overall support for streamlining the permitting process. 4.10 Support the use of Historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate DRAFT 27 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 older buildings for use as low-income housing. Although this may be applicable in individual cases, it is unlikely that this could be applied generally to properties within Edmonds. 4.11 Coordinate with organizations to address special housing needs in the community. This housing strategy focuses on general community housing needs, as well as the needs of seniors, low-income households, and the homeless. However, other groups in Edmonds may have needs beyond the scope of this overall strategy. For instance, some communities, such as artists, may benefit from affordable housing that provides appropriate live/work spaces to facilitate in home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding community. The City should maintain a dialogue with community organizations to determine how planning regulations and affordable housing programs can provide the flexibility to consider specific needs for housing and explore partnerships for new affordable housing development. Next Steps • Research the implications of expansions to the MFTE program to new neighborhoods, including the expected low-income and market -rate housing yields resulting from such a program, and develop recommendations for changes to the MFTE to reach the goals of this Strategy. • Review existing land use capacity and expected impacts on market -rate and affordable unit development from different inclusionary zoning policies to provide recommendations for inclusionary zoning policies to incorporate into the Community Development Code. • Evaluate the fiscal impacts and expected benefits from further reductions in development fees for affordable housing. • Compile available information to support applications for grants and tax credits by developers interested in low-income affordable housing, including how-to guides for completing applications and relevant city data that can be used to support the rationale. • Coordinate a dialogue with relevant community organizations to understand what specific needs may existing for affordable, flexible housing options. 28 Packet Pg. 50 People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. The City can and should coordinate with nonprofit and regional partners to identify roles it can play in helping to tackle these problems. One of these roles could be identifying and eliminating barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. The City is also conducting a separate assessment of the needs homeless populations as well as options for addressing those needs. This study should be used to refine and prioritize the implementation of the options that are identified and may include one or more of the potential actions below. Potential Actions 5.1 Explore partnerships with the County and nonprofit service providers. Work with nonprofits and/or regional partners to identify opportunities to acquire and/or operate facilities that provide both transitional housing and social services for the purpose of helping homeless people overcome barriers to productive livelihood. 5.2 Support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent supportive housing. The City could partner with nonprofits or regional partners to develop new permanent supportive housing intended to provide stability and integrate services that attend to necessities like food and shelter without preconditions such as sobriety, treatment, or service participation requirements. 5.3 Reduce barriers to single room occupancy housing. Options for permanent or semi -permanent housing for low-income and formerly homeless individuals can include individual room rentals with shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. Certain code requirements in Edmonds may limit this kind of housing, and modifications or relaxations of the building code can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing to these residents. Note that this could be implemented in conjunction with efforts in Action 1.5 to allow the development of micro -housing. DRAFT EXAMPLE: Tiny Homes in Seattle Othello Village is a city - authorized homeless encampment with 28 96-square foot tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is intended as a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. The village shares a kitchen, shower trailer, donation hut, and security booth. The city pays about $160,000 per year to supply water, garbage services, and counseling on -site. Donations from individuals, foundations, an other organizations have recentl allowed all Othello Village tiny houses to install heat and electricity. The Village is owned and operated by the Low-Incom Housing Institute (LIHI), which also provide case management services. Donations to LIHI also fund the materials for the tiny houses, which cost about $2,20 per house; construction is mostl courtesy of volunteers. Seattle has five other similar encampments. These are permitted for 12 months with the option to renew for a second 12 months. m L 0 s a 29 Packet Pg. 51 DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 5.4 Reduce barriers to the development of temporary shelters such as tiny home villages. New permanent housing can take several years or more to develop. The City could explore whether to relax or remove barriers to the creation of authorized homeless encampments in temporary shelters such as tent camps or tiny home villages (see sidebar example). This could allow for a flexible and low-cost temporary housing strategy targeted at populations who are notyet able to access more permanent housing options. 5.5 Explore partnerships to develop winter shelter programs. The City could work in partnership with nonprofits to develop emergency overnight shelter programs that operate during the winter months. Such programs can also help connect homeless individuals with services and other resources, including support services provided by the City and the broader region. Next Steps Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to identify obstacles to development of emergency shelter beds, affordable housing options, and low barrier, permanent supportive housing. Assess examples of alternative housing options to provide flexibility with housing unit development and determine necessary changes to implement these housing options. Explore partnerships with local and regional organizations working with homeless populations to develop and implement a "housing first" program, winter shelters, safe parking lot use, and other targeted strategies to address both short and long-term needs in the community. 30 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.b Low-income tenants may be impacted by different issues in the market that affect their ability to find safe and stable housing. To address these concerns, the City should work to provide protections that help ensure tenant safety, discourage discrimination, and aid those facing displacement. Although these initiatives do not increase the housing supply or address housing affordability, they can contribute to a more sustainable base of renters in the city. They can also promote long- term connections to the community. Recommended Actions 61 Create requirements to provide fair housing information. The City should work to pass ordinances that require property managers to provide information to all tenants regarding tenant rights and property manager responsibilities under federal fair housing law. 6.2 Create anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. The City should work to pass ordinances to affirm that discrimination against prospective tenants based on source of income, race, ability, or other factors is not permitted, and provide protections against discriminatory behavior by landlords. Additional Actions 6.3 Provide rental housing inspection programs. The City could provide for an ordinance or program to educate property owners, managers, and renters about City housing codes. This could also include requirements for owners to register all rental units and verify their properties meet building standards. Note that this would require additional City resources and should be assessed to determine the capacity needed for implementation. 6.4 Develop a tenant relocation assistance program. The City could also develop a program to provide financial assistance and services to households that are physically displaced due to the demolition or renovation of rental units. This program would be financed through charges on the owners of the demolished units but would need to be tailored to ensure that it would have a benefit to tenants while not significantly increasing the costs of development. DRAFT 31 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.b DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Next Steps • Develop a fair housing ordinance for review by Council that requires the distribution of relevant fair housing information at the time of a residential lease. • Create a fair housing information packet to be distributed to residential tenants upon the lease of a housing unit. • Develop a housing anti -discrimination ordinance for review by Council which affirms that the City of Edmonds prohibits anyone from being denied housing, evicted unfairly, or otherwise discriminated against based on race, ancestry, color, age, religion, sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, source of income, or national origin. • Develop public information for distribution to ensure that the public is informed about the anti -discrimination ordinance and the process for reporting discrimination in housing. • Examine the expected costs, benefits, and impacts on development resulting from options for tenant relocation programs and outline recommended program characteristics. 32 Packet Pg. 54 MINIM MINIM me M m 46 03 ►I 901\ 1 6.A.c Cover Photos Top Row (Left) Townhomes in Seattle. https://wwwredf n.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294 (Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live - work -play architecture. Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http.//www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis (Right) Mixed -use, mixed -type, and mixed -income housing in the Westlawn Gardens neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI. https://planning. orq/awards/2018/westlawn/ Second Row (Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low- income and market rate housing —it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half being affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point offers a variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and civic amenities. Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_ poge/high-point/ (Center) Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village shelters in Seattle for the homeless. https://lihi. orq/tin v-houses/othello-vill age/ (Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five -story apartment community that serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income. Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99- planning-project.html Third Row (Left) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current housing units —such programs could include home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. Edmonds Senior Center, https//www.facebook.com/E`dmondsSeniorCenterl (Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle financed through a multifamily tax exemption program. Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99- planning-project.html (Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island. HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/cosestudies/study_102011 2.html Bottom Row (Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a tent camp for the homeless. http://guixotevillage. com/ (Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in collaboration with local economic development organizations, service provider networks, and other affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood serves households earning 50% of area median income. https://www capitolhillhousing.orq/ourproperties/buildings/flemin. php and https.-Ilwwwapartments.com/ fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/ (Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low -incomes to rent market -rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low - incomes live in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them within their means. Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily housing development in Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers. https://www. kcho. orq/housinq/property aspx?PropertvlD=1 Packet Pg. 56 6.A.c Acknowledaements DRAFT Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force BILL ANDERSON Compass Housing Alliance REV. M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER Good Shepherd Baptist Church CHRIS COLLIER Alliance For Housing Affordability MARK CRAIG Henbart, Llc. ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS Edmonds City Council JAMIE REECE Reece Homes Real Estate MARK SMITH Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County ROB VAN TASSELL Catholic Housing Of Western Washington ANNE WERMUS Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition City of Edmonds Staff SHANE HOPE Development Services Director BRAD SHIPLEY Associate Planner DIANE CUNNINGHAM Planning Administrator Consultant Team: BERK Consulting KEVIN RAMSEY Project Manager ANDREW BJORN Policy Specialist JESSIE HARTMANN Layout and Information Designer MELANIE MAYOCK Analyst 3 Packet Pg. 57 6.A.c a+ a Packet Pg. 58 6.A.c Executive Summa Edmonds is facing urgent housing affordability challenges that are impacting communities across the Central Puget Sound Region. To a great extent, these challenges are caused by rapid job and population growth that is outpacing the production of new housing near job centers. With so many new people and families competing for a limited supply of housing, prices get pushed increasingly higher. This results in a widening gap between housing costs and what is affordable to low, moderate, and even middle -income households. In Edmonds, nearly 6,000 households are "cost burdened" and struggling to afford rising housing costs. Over 4,000 of these cost -burdened households are low-income. Additionally, at least 2,400 low-income workers are commuting long distances to jobs in Edmonds from homes in more affordable communities. Housing affordability is an issue that impacts all Edmonds residents. Rising housing costscan leadtothedisplacementoflong-term residents, uprooting lives and undermining the stability of neighborhoods. When workers in Edmonds are not living close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to their workplace. This increases traffic congestion on local streets, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation costs. A lack of affordable housing also makes it difficult to hire and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Maintaining a healthy and sustainable city means that Edmonds will need to build more housing and different kinds of housing to meet the diverse needs of our population and workforce. While the City has already taken some important steps to address critical housing needs and contribute to regional housing solutions, additional actions are both necessary and urgent. This report presents a multi -part strategy for increasing the supply affordable housing options in Edmonds to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. This strategy recognizes that both market rate and subsidized housing production will play a role in meeting the housing needs of Edmonds residents and workforce. The strategy includes six' objectives: 1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing. Ensuring that there is sufficient supply of apartments and condominium housing in Edmonds is essential to reduce upward pressure on housing costs and providing more options for small households who do not need a lot of space. Edmonds should allow and 1 These objectives are not presented in rank order. DRAFT Why is Edmonds Developing a Housing Strategy? The City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes an Implementing Action to "[d]evelop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs" 5 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 What is Affordable Housing? encourage more multifamily housing production in targeted areas A home is generally considered to be affordable if the household is paying no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. A healthy housing market includes a variety of housing types that are affordable to a range of different household income levels. The term "affordable housing" is often used to describe income - restricted housing available only to qualifying low-income households. Income -restricted housing can be located in public, nonprofit, or for -profit housing developments. It can also include households using vouchers to help pay for market -rate housing. In this report, "affordable housing" refers to any housing that is affordable to the household that is occupying it, whether market rate or subsidized. See Appendix C for a glossary of housing terminology used in this report. across the city to address this need. 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle". We need a wider range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of different households at various income levels and stages in their life -cycle, ranging from young one -person households to retirees. Edmonds should allow and encourage the development of "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes to meet these needs. 3. Support the needs of an aging population. One out five Edmonds residents is over the age of 65, this share will continue to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. Managing these needs will require supporting the desire for some residents to "age in place" in their homes, while accommodating other residents in assisted living and nursing home facilities. 4. Increase the supply of income -restricted affordable housing. A large share of the Edmonds workforce and current population do not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing. Edmonds should support and encourage more affordable housing development in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies to meet the needs of these community members. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However, Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. The City is also pursuing a separate and more detailed study into the needs of homeless populations in Edmonds and options for addressing those needs. 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Low-income tenants may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds should identify short and long-term solutions to address these needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing in the community. M Packet Pg. 60 6.A.c Contents Introduction Housing Needs in Edmonds Homeless Persons and Families 12 Workforce Housing 13 Senior Housing 16 Housing Strategy Overview 17 1. Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing 19 2. Expand Housing Diversity in the "Missing Middle" 22 3. Support the Needs of an Aging Population 24 4. Increase the Supply of Income -Restricted Affordable Housing 25 5. Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce Homelessness 29 6. Provide Protections for Low -Income Tenants 31 Appendices. 33 Appendix A. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment 35 Household Incomes in Edmonds 35 Housing Supply in Edmonds 36 Housing Needs by Household Type 41 Special Needs Populations 44 Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds 49 Appendix C. Glossary of Housing Affordability Terminology 51 Appendix D. Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools 55 DRAFT Packet Pg. 61 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Exhibits Exhibit 1 Cost -Burdened Households and Current Subsidized Housing Inventory 11 Exhibit 2 Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds 14 Exhibit 3 Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded) 15 Exhibit 4 Median Family Income 35 Exhibit 5 Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure 36 Exhibit 6 Edmonds Housing Inventory 36 Exhibit 7 Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes 37 Exhibit 8 Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017 39 Exhibit 9 Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need 40 Exhibit 10 Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018 40 Exhibit 11 Low -wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to Jobs Located in Edmonds 42 Exhibit 12 Renter Households with Incomes 30-50% of AMI (Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 43 Exhibit 13 Renter Households with Incomes 50-80% of AMI (Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded) 43 Exhibit 14 Edmonds Population by Age Range 44 Exhibit 15 Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level 45 Exhibit 16 Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District 46 8 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.c Introduction With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in Edmonds is strong. As more people move to the Puget Sound Region, the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of many long-term residents. Rising housing costs impact the quality of life for all Edmonds residents. When workers in Edmonds can't live close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to work: increasing their transportation costs as well as traffic congestion on local streets and greenhouse gas emissions. A lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to recruit, hire, and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Students in families struggling with housing insecurity often have increased challenges in school and require greater attention and resources. Housing affordability is essential to quality of life, environmental sustainability, and community resiliency. To maintain a healthy and thriving city, Edmonds needs more housing in a variety of formats to meet the housing demand from our diverse population and workforce. Also, with a large population of older residents, Edmonds needs to make more space foryounger community members who can contribute to our city's economic and civic vitality. This requires different kinds of housing that meet the needs of diverse lifestyles. This is important because not everyone needs the same type of housing: some families prefer a large detached housing with a large yard, while others are happy with a small house and small yard. Still, others want the option to live in an apartment, townhome, condominium, or something else. When we provide opportunities for different types of housing to be built, people have more choices. This also enables us to support the housing needs of community members across their entire life cycle, from younger adults living alone, to new families, and to retirees looking to downsize. The City of Edmonds is committed to addressing housing affordability challenges. In recent years, Edmonds has taken several actions: • Adopted a multifamily tax abatement program that applies in some locations when at least 20 percent of the new housing is dedicated to low and moderate -income households. • Adopted reductions in park and transportation impact fees for low-income housing projects. DRAFT 9 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.c DRAFT EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 • Set aside $250,000 for a fund that will assist with homeless needs and began a new study to assess those needs Joined the Alliance for Housing Affordability, a multi jurisdiction organization that is looking to contribute funds toward selected affordable housing projects. • Adopted a plan and regulations that allow more housing in the Westgate and State Route 99 areas. While these steps show progress, more actions are necessary. Therefore, the 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City to develop and implementa Housing Strategy by2019. In 2017the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force to make recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. The Task Force is composed of nine local housing developers, policy experts, and civic leaders representing the public, nonprofit, and for -profit sectors. This group has met on five occasions to review an analysis of the local housing supply and housing needs, identify best practice solutions for addressing housing needs, and evaluate potential actions that the City can take to most effectively address housing needs in Edmonds. Some of these actions the City could tackle alone, while others would be most effectively pursued in collaboration with Snohomish County, neighboring communities, and other partners through coordinated regional strategies. This report presents the Housing Strategy, including actions recommended by the Task Force. The strategy addresses the need to increase the production of both market rate and subsidized affordable housing to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. 10 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.c Housina Needs in Edmonds The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing. One indicator of need is cost -burdened households. A cost -burdened household is spending over 30 percent of their income on housing costs, while a severely cost -burdened household is spending over 50 percent of income on housing. Between 2010 and 2014 there were nearly 6,000 cost -burdened households in Edmonds. This includes over 4,600 low- and moderate - income households. These needs have very likely grown in the years since this data was collected. Between 2011 and 2018 average monthly rents in Edmonds have increased by over $600, or 4.6 percent per year.2 As shown in Exhibit 1, the current inventory of income -restricted subsidized housing is small and inadequate compared to the level of need. EXHIBIT 1 Cost -Burdened Households and Current Subsidized Housing Inventory Households 2,500 Total Households 2,045 Total Households 1,945 2,000 ' Cost -burdened 1,500 Households Cost -burdened 1,570 Households 1,490 it 1,000 Subsidized 500 Subsidized Housing Units Housing Units Total Households 2,250 Cost -burdened Households 1,075 Subsidized Housing Units DRAFT What is Area Median Income (AMI)? Analyses of housing affordability typically group all households by income level relative to area median family income, or the median income of all family households in the metropolitan region or county. Median income of non -family households is typically lower than for family households. In this report AMI refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income. In Snohomish County, AMI is $96,000. Total Households 9,510 Total Households 1,690 Cost -burdened Households 1,170 1W Cost -burdened Households 520 Extremely Low -Income Very Low -Income Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income (<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100% AMI) Not Calculated ■ Cost -Burdened ■ SeverelyCost-BurdenedSources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 Not Cost Burdened Household spends more than 30% Household spends more than 50% 5-year estimates); Housing Consortium of of monthly income on housing costs of monthly income on housing costs Everett and Snohomish County, 2018 2 Source: BERK analysis ofZillow Rent Index data for City of Edmonds, March 2011—March 2018. a 11 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that match a diverse array of different household types and income levels. This chapter provides a summary of housing needs in Edmonds. A more detailed assessment of the Edmonds housing supply and community needs is available in Appendix A: Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment. Homeless Persons and Families Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons, from 344 to 515 in 2017.3 Chronic homelessness has increased at an even faster rate, from 135 persons in 2013 to 313 persons in 2017. There are 260 students attending schools in Edmonds that are homeless.4 There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs, disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and criminal records. Housing strategies must often be coordinated with support services to help homeless residents address the underlying causes of housing insecurity. The City is currently conducting a more detailed analysis of the needs of its homeless population. Housing Strategies for Homeless Persons and Families • Winter and emergency shelters for short-term needs • Transitional housing (particularly for women and children) • Flexible low-cost housing formats that can be built quickly to address targeted needs on a temporary basis • Permanent supportive housing with coordinated services 3 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23, 2017 httt)s://snohomishcountywo.you/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/41603 4 This includes students who are in temporary housing situations such as "doubled -up", or staying with friends or family due to lack of housing. 12 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.c Workforce Housing Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.' The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail, accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries are typically low wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual -income household. This helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace. As shown in Exhibit 2 on the following page, nearly 1,100 low -wage workers commute more than 25 miles, and nearly 1,300 additional workers commute more than 10 miles from their homes outside of Edmonds. EXAMPLE: Home Health Aide Living Alone A home health aide in Edmonds earns around $26,000 per year. At this income, she could afford a monthly rent of $840 per month. The average rent for a studio apartment in Edmonds is over $1,000 per month and studios are in very limited supply. It is unlikely that a home health aide living alone could find a suitable home in ,.� Edmonds, affordable or otherwise. -- The most effective way to meet the needs of very low-income workers is increasing Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics production of subsidized income -restricted affordable housing. However, increasing the supply of market -rate small apartments or "micro -housing" can also help to provide more low-cost housing options for workers living alone in Edmonds. 5 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015). DRAFT 13 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.c EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXHIBIT 2 Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds Very Low Waqe Workers Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250 Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375 93F Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work 435 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work DRAFT 11518 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work ow Wage Workers >nthly Wage': up to $3,333 ix Affordable Monthly Rent': up to $1,000 658 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015, BERK, 2077 (1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket. 14 Packet Pg. 68 6.A.c EXAMPLE: Single Parent Working as a Receptionist A single parent working as a receptionist in Edmonds earns an average of about $34,000 per year. At this wage the family could afford $960 per month in rent, whereas 1-bedroom apartments rent for at least $1,200 in Edmonds Image: Shutterstock, Alena Vasko and they are in very short supply. Increasing the supply of smaller apartments and reducing restrictions to other home types like accessory dwelling units could help to address the needs of working single parents. Increasing the supply of subsidized housing is needed to meet the needs of low-income households. L. DRAFT EXAMPLE: Teacher Supporting a Family of Four A family of four with one parent employed as an �1 elementary teacher earns f ' an average of $62,000 per year, or about 65 percent of AMI. At this wage the family could afford up to $1,550 in rent. The average three -bedroom apartment Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics in Edmonds rents for almost $1,700 per month. Homeownership options are generally far out of reach. Moderate -income family households like this one need more "missing middle" housing options such as townhomes, duplexes, or detached accessory dwelling units to provide more rental and ownership housing opportunities. Exhibit 3 shows cost -burdened non -senior households by household type and income level. It shows there are household struggling with housing costs across the entire income spectrum. The greatest need is among small families (2-4 members) and non -family households, which are typically people living alone or with unrelated housemates. EXHIBIT 3 Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded) Large Family 80 50 10 0 10 Small Family 170 Non -family 215 150 380 330 245 645 1,770 270 340 110 210 1,145 Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates) Workforce Housing Solutions • Subsidized multifamily housing. Increased production of small market rate apartments, including studios, efficiencies, and micro -housing. More "missing middle" housing formats like ADUs, duplexes, and townhomes. Packet Pg. 69 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXAMPLE: Supporting Affordable Aging in place for Edmonds Seniors Image: Unspash, Sam Wheeler Frank is a 74-year-old widower who has lived in a single-family 1 home in Edmonds for 46 years. He loves his community and wishes to stay in Edmonds. However, the cost of maintaining his large home is becoming unmanageable. So, Frank would like to build a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU) in the large yard and rent the main building to a young family who cannot afford to buy a home in Edmonds. A DADU would be the perfect size for Frank and could be designed with accessibility in mind so that he can stay in the home as his mobility declines. The rent from the primary home would be more than enough to cover the loan to build the DADU. It could also provide Frank enough income to cover the costs of other services like transportation, grocery delivery, gardening, and occasional visits from a home health aide. Currently DADUs are not allowed by Edmonds code. A key element of this strategy is to relax these kinds of restrictions to enable more housing solutions for seniors and others. Senior Housing One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and over 7,000 residents age 55-65 will become seniors within the next 10 years.6 Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age in place may require additional support services such as home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. While many senior households in Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and services, many others will not. Indicators of Need • 3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI • 422 cost -burdened renters' households. • Over 1,500 cost -burdened homeowners. Senior Housing Solutions • Subsidized and market -rate senior living facilities with coordinated support services. • Detached and attached accessory dwelling units. • Support services to facilitate aging in place. 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 2011-2015 16 Packet Pg. 70 6.A.c Housing Strategy DRAFT Overview The Edmonds Housing Strategy charts a course for supporting a sustainable, inclusive community with a range of housing types for households with different income levels and housing needs. It includes six objectives for improving access to affordable housing across the full range of housing types. The strategy is focused on reducing costs of development, increasing housing production, and addressing the specific needs of special populations in the city. The 2016 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following 10 goals related to housing in the community to achieve this strategy's mission: 1. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. 2. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. 3. Provide for special needs populations —such as low income, disabled, or senior residents —to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment. 4. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community. 5. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents. 6. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. 7. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. 17 Packet Pg. 71 6.A.c DRAFT EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 9. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. 10. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. The development and implementation of the Housing Strategy is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also proposes that the City track and report the development of housing over time, with a target of 112 additional dwelling units per year to reach 21,168 units by 2035. This target rate of growth is faster than Edmonds has seen in recent years. Between 2010 and 2017 Edmonds added an average of 68 units per year. More recently, since 2014, the City has added 107 units per year. To achieve the growth target, Edmonds will need to continue increasing its rate of new housing production. Considering the content of the Comprehensive Plan, this Housing Strategy is structured around six priority objectives to achieve these goals: 1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle" 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing 4. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness 5. Support the needs of an aging population 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants For each of these strategic objectives, this Housing Strategy provides a description of the general focus and intent with respect to housing in Edmonds, a list of potential actions to achieve each objective, and next steps for implementing these actions. 18 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.c Edmonds needs to aggressively increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing such as apartments or condominiums to provide a greater variety of housing options and reduce upward pressure on housing costs. This can be facilitated by easing requirements and providing new market -based incentives. These actions typically focus on units appropriate for smaller households with one to two members and between 60 and 120 percent of AMI, including some low- and middle -income workers. Recommended Actions 1.1 Support transit -oriented development along current and future transit corridors. Some areas which have higher levels of transit service can support transit -oriented development (TOD). This can include not only targeted rezoning and code refinement for more intensive development, but also support for a mix of residential, retail, and service offerings, multi -modal transportation options, and parking management that can support walkability and transit use. The City should coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to identify current and future areas for TOD and review potential schedules for implementation. Finally, the City should explore combining this action with an expanded multifamily tax exemption (Action 4.5) inclusionary zoning program (Action 4.6) to encourage affordable housing development. 1.2 Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones Providing more flexibility for new development, including greater building heights or densities on a site allows more units to be accommodated on available land in areas zoned for multifamily development. This not only increases potential housing supply in Edmonds, it can also spur redevelopment of older, obsolete housing by permitting larger projects that would be more economically feasible to develop. The City should identify targeted areas where increases building heights or density levels would be appropriate and supportable by local infrastructure and services. 1.3 Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted areas. Reducing the number of parking stalls required for each new housing unit allows for lower development costs by reducing the amount of land necessary to accommodate parking spaces and the need to DRAFT 19 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.c DRAFT EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 01 Smaller houses that better fit existing neighborhoods (top), more housing options for people's changing needs (center), clear and fair rules for narrow low development (bottom) EXAMPLE: Portland's Infill Design Project Policymakers in the City of Portland wanted to encourage building a greater variety of housing types (such as duplexes and townhomes) in its residential neighborhoods and reduce the costs of development. But it also wanted high design standards to avoid impacting community character. To do this they brought together community stakeholders to design a series of housing prototypes that meet City regulations and design objectives and are feasible from a market perspective. The purpose is to make it easier and faster for builders to develop the kinds of new housing that meet community objectives. For more information see Portland's Infill Design Project Overview. Source: City of Portland, Planning and Sustainability accommodate parking within a residential building. This can also make market -rate projects more feasible by allowing for more of a site to be used for development. The City should explore where it makes sense to reduce parking requirements, particularly in areas well served by transit to facilitate TOD. 1.4 Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process. The City should work to improve the development permitting process and related reviews. Faster permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an easy to understand process and requirements would reduce the administrative and carrying costs for development projects in the community. This may be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by increased department staffing during busy cycles, clear and informative reference materials, public reports on actual permit review times, and "one window" access for applicants. 1.5 Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside income - restricted units. The City should identify locations where increases in density or building heights could be allowed, in exchange for a percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing fund. This program would be a voluntary incentive to encourage more multifamily housing production as well as income -restricted housing production. As an alternative, the City could consider a mandatory inclusionary zoning program as described in Action 4.6. 1.6 Explore the application of "micro -housing" style developments. "Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily buildings with very small 20 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.c efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate housing with private rooms and shared kitchens and other facilities. Micro -housing projects can provide lower -cost options for one or two -person households that do not need significant amounts of living space. Modifications or relaxations of zoning and code requirements should be explored to determine the feasibility of micro -housing in key locations. Note that although this discussion is focused on workforce housing, code amendments could be explored in conjunction with those for flexible housing options for homeless residents detailed in Action 5.1. Additional Actions 1.7 Advocate for state legislation to promote condominium development. The Washington State Condominium Act is interpreted to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for constructions, which has provided a disincentive for condo production in the market. Edmonds should work with other cities when possible to encourage the state legislature to revise the Act. 1.8 Coordinate communication and outreach to the development community. Providing public information about city regulations and incentives, especially those designed to encourage specific housing types, should be used to support the use ofthese programs in Edmonds. This can include web and hard -copy informational handouts, city email newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches. Next Steps • Review developable lands and the status of developed single- family areas in Edmonds to determine potential areas for upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential development. • When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. • Coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to determine appropriate locations for new and expanded transit - oriented development and coordinate long-range land use and transit planning for these locations. • Continue to streamline the process for permit reviews and other associated project reviews for new development and maintain a DRAFT 21 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 clear and transparent system to allow the public to understand the process. Provide information resources as necessary to educate stakeholders about the development review process. Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to assess potential obstacles to the development of different micro -housing options, determine the expected uptake of micro - housing units, and provide recommendations for changes to the Codes that would help to achieve housing goals. • Coordinate with the PSRC, Snohomish County, other local governments, and key stakeholders to lobby the legislature to address issues with the Condominium Act. Compile available information on the development process in Edmonds, and provide the public with clear, easy to understand guides to the process to improve transparency. The housing market in Edmonds is primarily composed of single- family homes and apartments. The development of a wider variety of housing products is essential to meet the diverse needs of different populations. Households at various income levels and stages in their life -cycle (ranging from young one -person households to retirees) will have different space needs and financial capacities. This range of conditions can be addressed more efficiently in the market by providing units in "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes. Market -based approaches to expand opportunities for these developments can encourage a more diverse and flexible housing supply that better meets the needs of the community. Recommended Actions 21 Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units and backyard cottages. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence (e.g., basement unit) or detached from the primary residence. The City should promote the development of ADUs by modifying requirements 22 Packet Pg. 76 6.A.c that prevent or discourage homeowners from adding a unit to an existing property. This may include more flexible parking requirements, changing owner occupancy requirements, allowing unrelated households to reside in these units, and so forth. The City should also explore the impacts of allowing some ADUs to be used for short-term rentals as a source of income for local homeowners, including impacts on the surrounding community and long-term rental housing supply. 2.2 Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family areas. Most households cannot afford to live in a single-family home. In locations near transit and commercial centers, it may make sense to allow for a greater variety of housing types that still fit the character of the surrounding community. These could include townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing, or small -lot single-family units. Targeted rezones to allow more flexibility can help to promote a wider diversity of housing types on the market to meet the needs of a wide range of household types and income levels. Next Steps • Review existing provisions within the Community Development Code and determine the changes necessary to address major obstacles in the development of accessory dwelling units and other small housing formats. • When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. • Review developable lands and the status of developed single- family areas in the community to determine potential areas for rezoning to allow "missing middle" housing development, such as duplexes and townhouses. • Explore the wider application of form -based codes that could support the development of "missing middle" housing in other neighborhoods. • Compile available information that would be able to support the development of community land trusts in the city. DRAFT EXAMPLE: Encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units The cities of Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood and Everett all impose less constraints on the development and use of ADUs when compared to Edmonds. The City of Mountlake Terrace promote the development of ADUs and detached ADUs on their website and provide a clear guide for homeowners considering adding an ADU to their property. Planners in Mountlake Terrace report a significant increase in the number of ADU permits in recent years as awareness of concept grows in the community. .It Source: City of Mountlake Terrace, via city website 23 Packet Pg. 77 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Over 20 percent of Edmonds residents are over the age of 65. Demographic trends indicate this share will continue to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. For those that decide to "age in place" in their current housing units, there will be challenges in accessing appropriate health and social services as well as managing the ongoing costs of housing with fixed incomes. For those that choose assisted living options or care in nursing homes land use requirements should allow sufficient options to be built affordably for their needs. Recommended Actions 3.1 Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current housing units. Such programs could include home modification, shared housing, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. This may be best pursued in partnership with another organization involved with elder care, such as Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County. 3.2 Examine property tax relief and utility rate/tax relief programs. Low-income homeowners, especially seniors, can be at risk of economic displacement when property tax or utility charges increase. Snohomish County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior and disabled persons as well as propertytax deferral program for limited income homeowners. The City could expand participation in these programs through increased outreach and education. Additionally, the City could develop similar programs to provide relief for the cost of utilities to provide support to seniors and other groups. Additional Actions 3.3 Reduce barriers to group homes and housing for seniors. Housing in retirement and assisted living communities in Edmonds, including nursing homes or memory care facilities, may have certain code requirements (e.g., vehicle parking) that are less applicable to the needs for seniors or other group home residents. Modifications or relaxations of code requirements can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing for seniors and other special needs populations. 24 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.c DRAFT Next Steps • Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations involved with elder care to coordinate a "aging in place" plan for city services and land uses that will support residents of Edmonds as they age. Review options for property tax and utility rate relief programs for seniors to determine the expected uptake, fiscal implications, and relative impacts of such a program. Coordinate a forum with local and regional developers of care facilities and nursing homes to review requirements for developing these uses in Edmonds, and potential innovations to reduce the costs of these projects. EXAMPLE: For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI or Shoreline Density Bonus below, it is unlikelythatthe marketcan provide housing that is affordable. Actions should be taken by the City to support and encourage the Under the Shoreline Municipal development of income -restricted housing through direct funding, code, density bonuses are provided in multifamily areas, reducing costs to build new affordable housing projects, and incentives with up to a 50 percent increase to include affordable units in new market -rate developments. The City in density provided for units can also encourage innovative private or nonprofit financing tools for affordable for households with incomes up to 80 percent AMI. housing types that are more difficult to finance in the traditional market. covenants are registered on the These actions can be most effectively pursued in partnership with other property to retain this affordable agencies and nonprofits such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish housing on the site for a 30-year period. County, Housing Hope, YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Verdant. Recommended Actions 41 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for affordable housing development. The City should assess its inventory of surplus and underutilized parcels and develop an inventory of other public- or nonprofit -owned that can potentially support affordable housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through the direct donation of parcels or through funding from the sale of city owned land that is less suitable for affordable housing development. 4.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing development targeted at 0-30 percent AMI. The City should allocate Y a 25 Packet Pg. 79 6.A.c EC HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 EXAMPLE: Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing in Everett Affordable housing projects for households of 50 percent AMI or less in Everett may apply for a transportation impact fee exemption, which is granted on a case -by -case basis. An exemption requires the developer to register a covenant on title to ensure the site remains in use for affordable housing. Fees for development permits may also be waived at the discretion of the planning director if a landowner agrees to register a covenant on title to retain affordable units on the site for a 30-year period. DRAFT funding to directly support an affordable housing project targeted for extremely low-income households. In addition to providing resources for local affordable housing, a contribution by the City can greatly improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant funding, particularly Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants that are administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Funding from the City could be used to pursue projects in Edmonds in partnership with a nonprofit housing developer, or pooled to contribute to regional housing solutions through the Alliance for Housing Affordability. 4.3 Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations. A major source of support that can help low-income households access housing on the private market is the Section 8 voucher program, funded by the federal government and administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds should work proactively with the Authority to secure additional project -based vouchers for developments within the city where possible. This should be done in cooperation with third - party nonprofit organizations where applicable. 4.4 Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for affordable housing development. The City should provide support and funding to nonprofit developers interested in receiving financial support from the state and federal governments. Among the available programs, federal Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) can provide tax credits for 10 years of up to about 9 percent of the qualified basis of a building and are administered through the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Additionally, the State Department of Commerce administers the Housing Trust Fund for the construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, preferably for households with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. 4.5 Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a voluntary incentive provided by the City. Under this program, private multifamily housing developments in certain designated districts are exempted from property taxes for upto12 years if income -restricted units are maintained in the development. This program is currently applied to the SR-99 Subarea and the Westgate Mixed -use District. It should be expanded as appropriate to spur the development of affordable housing in other locations. 26 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.c 4.6 Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning program. Possible changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code should be explored that would permit greater residential building heights and densities in certain targeted areas, in exchange for a percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing fund. This can either be voluntary (as described in Action 1.5), where affordable units are necessary for additional capacity, or mandatory, where affordable units are required for any development on the site. Since inclusionary zoning must be implemented as part of an increase in development capacity, this should be explored as part of other strategies involving upzoning, such as Action 1.2 and Action 1.3. 4.7 Reduce development fees for low-income housing. Fees for development in the City of Edmonds include impact fees to finance capital spending for community infrastructure, utility connection fees to fund new connections with city services, and permit fees to cover administrative costs of processing applications. Some discounts are currently provided for low-income housing, and further reductions should be explored to improve the financial feasibility of the development while maintaining necessary funding for these services. Additional Actions 4.8 Support community land trusts. Community land trusts (CLTs) are a way to promote affordable home ownership by keeping the ownership of the land with a separate nonprofit community organization and providing renewable leases and portions of the total equity to homeowners. Although these arrangements are not typically implemented by local governments, the City can provide support for a new CLT recently formed in Snohomish County ("Homes and Hope"), including direct funding or the provision of surplus public lands. 4.9 Expedite the permitting process for affordable housing. The City can prioritize the processing of permits for affordable housing projects, which will reduce the time spent in the permitting process and the associated costs with holding the property. Although this could be used for high priority projects, the short-term focus should be to provide overall support for streamlining the permitting process. 4.10 Support the use of Historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate DRAFT 27 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 older buildings for use as low-income housing. Although this may be applicable in individual cases, it is unlikely that this could be applied generally to properties within Edmonds. 4.11 Coordinate with organizations to address special housing needs in the community. This housing strategy focuses on general community housing needs, as well as the needs of seniors, low-income households, and the homeless. However, other groups in Edmonds may have needs beyond the scope of this overall strategy. For instance, some communities, such as artists, may benefit from affordable housing that provides appropriate live/work spaces to facilitate in home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding community. The City should maintain a dialogue with community organizations to determine how planning regulations and affordable housing programs can provide the flexibility to consider specific needs for housing and explore partnerships for new affordable housing development. Next Steps • Research the implications of expansions to the MFTE program to new neighborhoods, including the expected low-income and market -rate housing yields resulting from such a program, and develop recommendations for changes to the MFTE to reach the goals of this Strategy. • Review existing land use capacity and expected impacts on market -rate and affordable unit development from different inclusionary zoning policies to provide recommendations for inclusionary zoning policies to incorporate into the Community Development Code. • Evaluate the fiscal impacts and expected benefits from further reductions in development fees for affordable housing. • Compile available information to support applications for grants and tax credits by developers interested in low-income affordable housing, including how-to guides for completing applications and relevant city data that can be used to support the rationale. • Coordinate a dialogue with relevant community organizations to understand what specific needs may existing for affordable, flexible housing options. 28 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.c People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. The City can and should coordinate with nonprofit and regional partners to identify roles it can play in helping to tackle these problems. One of these roles could be identifying and eliminating barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. The City is also conducting a separate assessment of the needs homeless populations as well as options for addressing those needs. This study should be used to refine and prioritize the implementation of the options that are identified and may include one or more of the potential actions below. Potential Actions 5.1 Explore partnerships with the County and nonprofit service providers. Work with nonprofits and/or regional partners to identify opportunities to acquire and/or operate facilities that provide both transitional housing and social services for the purpose of helping homeless people overcome barriers to productive livelihood. 5.2 Support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent supportive housing. The City could partner with nonprofits or regional partners to develop new permanent supportive housing intended to provide stability and integrate services that attend to necessities like food and shelter without preconditions such as sobriety, treatment, or service participation requirements. 5.3 Reduce barriers to single room occupancy housing. Options for permanent or semi -permanent housing for low-income and formerly homeless individuals can include individual room rentals with shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. Certain code requirements in Edmonds may limit this kind of housing, and modifications or relaxations of the building code can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing to these residents. Note that this could be implemented in conjunction with efforts in Action 1.5 to allow the development of micro -housing. e R rn � c .y O _ Y L c O �L O m _ nd 2 ly B d DRAFT EXAMPLE: Tiny Homes in Seattle Othello Village is a city - authorized homeless encampment with 28 96-squar foot tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is intended as a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. The village shares a kitchen, shower trailer, donation hut, and security booth. The city pays about $160,000 per year to supply water, garbage services, and counseling on -site. Donations from individuals, foundations, a other organizations have recent allowed all Othello Village tiny houses to install heat and electricity. The Village is owned and operated by the Low-Incom Housing Institute (LIHI), which also provide case management services. Donations to LIHI also fund the materials for the tiny houses, which cost about $2,2 per house; construction is mostl courtesy of volunteers. Seattle has five other similar encampments. These are permitted for 12 months with the option to renew for a second 12 months. F ::z M Y c m E U M Y a Packet Pg. 83 DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 5.4 Reduce barriers to the development of temporary shelters such as tiny home villages. New permanent housing can take several years or more to develop. The City could explore whether to relax or remove barriers to the creation of authorized homeless encampments in temporary shelters such as tent camps or tiny home villages (see sidebar example). This could allow for a flexible and low-cost temporary housing strategy targeted at populations who are notyet able to access more permanent housing options. 5.5 Explore partnerships to develop winter shelter programs. The City could work in partnership with nonprofits to develop emergency overnight shelter programs that operate during the winter months. Such programs can also help connect homeless individuals with services and other resources, including support services provided by the City and the broader region. Next Steps Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to identify obstacles to development of emergency shelter beds, affordable housing options, and low barrier, permanent supportive housing. Assess examples of alternative housing options to provide flexibility with housing unit development and determine necessary changes to implement these housing options. Explore partnerships with local and regional organizations working with homeless populations to develop and implement a "housing first" program, winter shelters, safe parking lot use, and other targeted strategies to address both short and long-term needs in the community. 30 Packet Pg. 84 6.A.c Low-income tenants may be impacted by different issues in the market that affect their ability to find safe and stable housing. To address these concerns, the City should work to provide protections that help ensure tenant safety, discourage discrimination, and aid those facing displacement. Although these initiatives do not increase the housing supply or address housing affordability, they can contribute to a more sustainable base of renters in the city. They can also promote long- term connections to the community. Recommended Actions 61 Create requirements to provide fair housing information. The City should work to pass ordinances that require property managers to provide information to all tenants regarding tenant rights and property manager responsibilities under federal fair housing law. 6.2 Create anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. The City should work to pass ordinances to affirm that discrimination against prospective tenants based on source of income, race, ability, or other factors is not permitted, and provide protections against discriminatory behavior by landlords. Additional Actions 6.3 Provide rental housing inspection programs. The City could provide for an ordinance or program to educate property owners, managers, and renters about City housing codes. This could also include requirements for owners to register all rental units and verify their properties meet building standards. Note that this would require additional City resources and should be assessed to determine the capacity needed for implementation. 6.4 Develop a tenant relocation assistance program. The City could also develop a program to provide financial assistance and services to households that are physically displaced due to the demolition or renovation of rental units. This program would be financed through charges on the owners of the demolished units but would need to be tailored to ensure that it would have a benefit to tenants while not significantly increasing the costs of development. DRAFT 31 Packet Pg. 85 6.A.c DRAFT EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018 Next Steps • Develop a fair housing ordinance for review by Council that requires the distribution of relevant fair housing information at the time of a residential lease. • Create a fair housing information packet to be distributed to residential tenants upon the lease of a housing unit. • Develop a housing anti -discrimination ordinance for review by Council which affirms that the City of Edmonds prohibits anyone from being denied housing, evicted unfairly, or otherwise discriminated against based on race, ancestry, color, age, religion, sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, source of income, or national origin. • Develop public information for distribution to ensure that the public is informed about the anti -discrimination ordinance and the process for reporting discrimination in housing. • Examine the expected costs, benefits, and impacts on development resulting from options for tenant relocation programs and outline recommended program characteristics. 32 Packet Pg. 86 6.A.d Shipley, Brad From: Rebecca Lindahl <rvlindahl@frontier.com> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:20 PM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Form Submission - New Form - edmonds housing strategy Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I read the report and had a couple comments. Im concerned about Edmonds following other cities that are ugly and have no character in their plans to add housing. Redmond, Federal Way and Shoreline are sited and they are unattractive big strip malls. Im also concerned about the city moving toward higher buildings (where the community repeatedly reports to want height limits) and less parking in a town -when surveyed on the westgate center development mostly stated they wouldn't ride the bus. I have trouble finding parking at the QFC and have gone to the one in Richmond Beach instead, although I like it less. Lastly, I wanted to know what areas will be slated for multifamily other than the mentioned 99 corridor area. Where are the other targeted areas? I am of course concerned about my area -Forest Glenn. Thank you again and please add me to your mailing list. Sincerely, Rebecca Lindahl Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 87 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 Nam Address i u City 0 Email Comments —COMMENTS— Okad if sf Vrsa ` is jdhoat xv) , me 16sk awa p6tc obo Mok J'(' hu a 1v1v uj;n Hhey1� WAD {�f(� r �o �✓ xis c�� 6a4 r� � Packet Pg. 88 din y j /yl ole fog p Pop ILO 6.A.d ziho Packet Pg. 89 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —�.,COMMENTS— Name 4 rrd fl (A_ Address 1z 3 b /�/: / f k- City �� i.,�►o� ,s `�' � 6 Z Email Comments U" e- 0 ,yec,/ r_ Packet Pg. 90 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Name M k� Address ��i� : / 7 �sr Ey city Fo(me id s W4 (/1 Email im Comments IVee re C P l Se - wa �lv Packet Pg. 91 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Nam Address Packet Pg. 92 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Name Address a � 5 City ' Email 2�� c-&111- Comments T --Ve- a -roAG _, v le v"5 -e Jff V\0 c 1,(JCLUDE C© S,Q►Ji4 1 1 O E V 11F VJ -3 ®2d Packet Pg. 93 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Name P�V,-� Address D - - `- sC 2 4,6--oa City q `Zo Email Kj Comments Packet Pg. 94 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Name , u)-A ��D Address L S 5 �J� h06'S - 56 a City MNO to S W 1, 0�96 Email L G f6c� 5-e cap► —cam' • /" " Comments F2 �pn I ! . 'LOO �dC t5 s� 511na�a 1 3 .7 � s�e� � ) �� c,.ds�CS IFi r A C14 FA Packet Pg. 95 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 f—COMMENTS— Name Address City' Email Comments— S' o,., A,/ Packet Pg. 96 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 �7 —COMMENTS— Name .-, Address Cityt L r EmaiIS f l �vr�� akcU .cam! U) .y Comments o x L <SIV' how2p mw cL$ (� �t Q 4� 0 a� Ct Kd u9e-d a- &g44 - a� at a x rn boa Lawaa P M 0 U r c E E 0 U c m .r �L Packet Pg. 97 6.A.d HOUSING STRATEGY OPEN HOUSE May 21, 2018 —COMMENTS— Name Address City— Email — Comments 5 JC ; C9 S G 4 OVz rl W, Packet Pg. 98 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/13/2018 Critical Areas Ordiance Update - Wetlands Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation Set public hearing for wetland revisions to the critical area ordinance. Narrative The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive review of its critical area ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act in May 2016 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section of the CAO (ECDC 23.50) was developed from Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002 Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. In June 2016, Ecology issued new guidance for wetlands under Publication No. 16-06-001 Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. At the time, the City was also in the process of a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council desired to have to most current wetland regulations apply to shoreline jurisdiction, so certain wetland sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP (which means they do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction). Within the SMP, wetland regulations consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001 were provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result the City of Edmonds has two versions of wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The City of Edmonds is required to complete a periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program by June 2019. In order to provide consistent regulations throughout the City, as part of the work program adopted by the City Council for the SMP periodic review, the City identified updating the COA wetland provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001. When the SMP is revised, the City will adopted the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. Publication No. 16-06-001 is provided as Attachment 1 and a red-line/strike-out version of the specific wetland provisions being updated are provided in Attachment 2. Two other minor revisions to the CAO are also be proposed at this time. The first corrects a scriveners error in Section ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d and the second deletes an allowed activity in section ECDC 23.50.020.E. The allowed activity related to development within the previously developed footprint for which specific regulations were included during the CAO update (see ECDC 23.50.040.J) and this section should have been deleted. Attachments: Packet Pg. 99 8.A Attachment 1: Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001 Attachment 2 - Draft Wetland Code Amendments Packet Pg. 100 8.A.a DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version June 2016 Publication No. 16-06-001 Packet Pg. 101 8.A.a Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at https:/ /fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummarPages/1606001.html For more information contact: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6600 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 0 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 0 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. Packet Pg. 102 8.A.a Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke c 0 w 0 co Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington June 2016 Publication No. 16-06-001 Packet Pg. 103 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Q Packet Pg. 104 8.A.a Table of Contents Summary.......................................................................................... 1 Introduction...................................................................................... 2 Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3 Relationship between the GMA and the SMA................................ 4 Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 4 DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................... 4 IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5 REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 7 EXEMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 7 FORESTPRACTICES.......................................................................................................... 9 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES............................................................................................. 9 Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10 WETLANDS INVENTORY................................................................................................. 10 ABCs............................................................................................................................. 10 BUFFERS......................................................................................................................... 1 1 BUFFER AVERAGING...................................................................................................... 13 MITIGATION................................................................................................................... 13 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................... 14 MitigationBanking............................................................................................... 15 In -Lieu Fee (ILF).................................................................................................. 15 Off -Site Mitigation................................................................................................ 16 AdvanceMitigation............................................................................................... 16 Conclusion..................................................................................... 16 Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19 Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51 Packet Pg. 105 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Q Packet Pg. 106 8.A.a Summary This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the I" revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012. This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the "small cities guidance" referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities. However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland buffers. In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority 2 habitats in exchange for buffer reduction —something that is often impossible in small, v urban jurisdictions. 0 0 Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your c particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. Specific changes to this new publication include: • Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating system • Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used • Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in exchange for buffer reduction • Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities • Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands • Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP jurisdictions • Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance • Corrected links to resource documents and web pages Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page I Packet Pg. 107 8.A.a Introduction This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements. Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA. We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands. The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in N the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection L based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates a these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction's naming and L numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.) v Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations. c 0 This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in o regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical c Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Z Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic c Development) in November 2003 hgp://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pd£ This document revises the wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook. a The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county's rate of growth, the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find Ecology's wetland specialist for your area: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 2 Packet Pg. 108 8.A.a Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands • Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia, WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over 17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer -reviewed works relevant to the management of Washington's wetlands. • Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, a WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its v appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.) o 0 0 In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers. T_ The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the z6 conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis. r_ • Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013. Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation in Washington State: • Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies' permitting decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies' policies of wetland mitigation, particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate. • Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 3 Packet Pg. 109 8.A.a Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. • Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Links to all of these documents can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html. Relationship between the GMA and the SMA You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology 2 does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The a SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring 2 Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the v "no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)). 0 0 You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter c the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed 6 without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP. e- r For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the shoreline planner for your area: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html. Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science. Purpose The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria, which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands. Definitions Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 4 Packet Pg. 110 8.A.a definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms will make ordinance implementation easier. Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them. In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21): "Wetland " or "wetlands " means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of L vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands a generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- v wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage '- ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater o treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those c wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a co T result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may c include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland z c areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. Wetlands are subject to a local government's regulatory authority if they meet the criteria in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of wetlands. Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human - created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation influences. Please see htt2://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.httni for more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation -influenced wetlands. Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use. These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page S Packet Pg. ill 8.A.a (such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of wetland area and function. Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above definition of "wetland." Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other maps be identified in the future. State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175; RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in 1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters. During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state o and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state 9 delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that o delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and r regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011. Z The GMA states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380." RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See: http://www.ecy.wa.jzovL/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html. Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them. However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the "one -size -fits -all" approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3). The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect them. It provides a quick "snapshot" characterization of a particular wetland. In many cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 6 Packet Pg. 112 8.A.a adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of a separate wetland functional assessment. While local governments are not required to use Ecology's revised rating system, we strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you choose not to use the state's wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3). We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands. This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to Appendix A, Section XX.020.13.1-4 for the specific category descriptions. Regulated Uses and Activities Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the 0 critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or v dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any c structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance. c co T Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place 6 before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO Z adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community, M Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- a Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf. Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate. Exemptions Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after -the -fact permits and to rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific exemptions in the wetlands section. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 7 Packet Pg. 113 8.A.a Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a wetland's structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation. The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code. Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly. For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, WA, April 2005: hgps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/summMages/0506008.html . 0 The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that 9 meet the GMA-required definition of "wetland" (see the definition of "wetland" in the o previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically r isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at Z times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use c before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface M hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by your CAO. Please see hqp://www.ecy.wa.go) /programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for a. more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands. 0 The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size. While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts. If an in -lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page 15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction. Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property. For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce: htta://www.commerce.wa.izov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.adf . You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 8 Packet Pg. 114 8.A.a use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you decide to incorporate your CAO into your SNIP when the latter document is updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency. Forest Practices Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act. Agricultural Activities In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntqa-stewardship/. For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan. If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they o apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 3 6.70A.7 10). c co T If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA z6 responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will r_ be achieved through the VSP work plan. However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions regardless of participation or non -participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and comply with state and federal environmental regulations. Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions: "Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" are often exempted from the provisions of a CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees, diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading, or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the same regulations that govern new development. Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation plans, and incentive -based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 9 Packet Pg. 115 8.A.a minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat. Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts Wetlands Inventory You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14- 06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at: • http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating systems) • http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation manual and supplements) While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such v information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition. o c� 0 This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape- T_ analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for z° critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this c approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.) ABCs The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid -Buffer -Compensate. This means that a CAO should contain language to ensure that: 1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable. 2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land -use impacts. 3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced. Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 10 Packet Pg. 116 8.A.a 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or 6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Buffers Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may seem. The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are: The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment, nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or resting habitat for wetland -dependent species; etc.). 2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts. 3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation). The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a low -quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and nesting habitat for common wetland -dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or amphibians in a high -quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions (based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental characteristics of the existing buffer. Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions. Ecology's complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 11 Packet Pg. 117 8.A.a in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables shown in the sample ordinance. Tables XX.1 and XX.3 are derived from the more -detailed tables in Volume 2. They are easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those wetlands that do not have much wildlife use. Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland's functions can be reduced. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers in Volume 2. Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score R 5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly L applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary o habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will 9 have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas, o the best solution is a landscape -based approach that takes into account actual species use r and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach, Z jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter. c If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option. You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1 and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions. Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2 are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially greater. The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land -use intensity in the buffer calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a "low -intensity" buffer is not appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 12 Packet Pg. 118 8.A.a Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction (e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables. You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most -sensitive wetlands from the most -damaging land -use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this example. Ecology's buffer recommendations are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high -risk approach, and you need to be prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk. Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer L is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the o buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased. 9 0 co Buffer Averaging r 6 Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain Z circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width c of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if U it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel. Z We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer. If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances. Mitigation Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 13 Packet Pg. 119 8.A.a Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and reporting requirements for mitigation plans. Ecology's recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more -detailed tables in Part 1 of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Parts I and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006). As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has developed a credit -debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of the mitigation process: 1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and o 0 0 2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation o (credits). r The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit -debit method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and worksheets can be downloaded at: http : //www. ecy. wa. goy/pro grams/sea/wetlands/miti gation/creditdebit/index. html. In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee programs. For more information on the federal rule, see: http://water.0a.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmiti ag tion_index.cfm. By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal permits. Mitigation Alternatives Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on -site concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project site (off -site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using third -party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in -lieu -fee programs. Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 14 Packet Pg. 120 8.A.a for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions. Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out -of -jurisdiction mitigation opportunities. In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce Regional Assistance Teams. Mitigation Banking A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas M have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the L purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A v mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit o organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to 0 compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a o check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the r mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps, Z Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits. o Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the rule, see Ecology's website at http: //www. ecy.wa. goy/programs/sea/wetlands/miti gation/banking/index.html. In -Lieu Fee (ILF) In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting project -specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best interest of the environment. An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions lost or degraded as a result of the permittee's project. Fees are typically held in trust until sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 15 Packet Pg. 121 8.A.a permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology's website at http://www.ecy.wa.aov/mitiaation/ilf html. Off -Site Mitigation This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that generates impacts to wetlands. Off -site mitigation is generally allowed when on -site mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable. The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have developed guidance to help applicants select potential off -site mitigation sites. To download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009), please see https:Hfortress.wa. _ og v/ecy//publications/summg.Waaes/0906032.html. Advance Miti ag tion When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future V known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance v mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance c mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project c affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios. co T Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways. Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee's specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" area. The advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/Summgn Pages/1206015.html Conclusion We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.buntengecy.wa. -og_v. You may also contact one of Ecology's regional wetland specialists. They are available to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 16 Packet Pg. 122 8.A.a mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland specialist for your area: http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 17 Packet Pg. 123 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 18 Packet Pg. 124 8.A.a Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter (Western Washington) Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 19 Packet Pg. 125 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 20 Packet Pg. 126 8.A.a Subchapter XXAX Wetlands Sections: XX.010 Purpose XX.020 Identification and Rating XX.030 Regulated Activities XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands XX.050 Wetland Buffers XX.060 Critical Area Reports XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement XX.010 Purpose The purposes of this Chapter are to: A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands, which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to c stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing c storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments, 6 nutrients, and toxicants. Z B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction). C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to wetlands. 1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this Chapter. XX.020 Identification and Rating A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 21 Packet Pg. 127 8.A.a valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met. 1. Category L Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine a wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that D as are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands 0 that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These 2 a wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a c� human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. o 0 2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than o 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal T_ wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) z6 wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 c and 22 points). 3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. 4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree. C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 22 Packet Pg. 128 8.A.a XX.030 Regulated Activities A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity. B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or its buffer: 1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind. 2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material. 3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table. 4. Pile driving. 5. The placing of obstructions. 6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure. 0 0 7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, c harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that co would alter the character of a regulated wetland. o 8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992 Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222- 12-030, or as thereafter amended. 9. Activities that result in: a. A significant change of water temperature. b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the sources of water to the wetland. c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water entering the wetland. d. The introduction of pollutants. C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers are subject to the following: Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 23 Packet Pg. 129 8.A.a 2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new lot is: a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX. XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: 0 a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers 0 0 W b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated r buffers Z c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology) e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX. 2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter. 'See page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 24 Packet Pg. 130 8.A.a B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock, nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat. 2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030, L where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those developments requiring local approval for Class 4 — General Forest o Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222- 9 12. o T 3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. 4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. 5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed. 6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 25 Packet Pg. 131 8.A.a disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re - vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. 7. Educational and scientific research activities. 8. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right- of-way. 9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID, Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria are met: a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III v wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and 0 0 to b. There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the c wetland, and c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species, and d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of Chart 5 in the "Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach," (available here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional watershed plan, and e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural routing, and f All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 26 Packet Pg. 132 8.A.a Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However, these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site - specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is feasible at the project site. XX.050 Wetland Buffers A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high. 1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met: • A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide c is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as o defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. co T The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are 6 available on the WDFW web site at: Z c http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm) c M The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection a' such as a conservation easement. d Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in Table XX.2 alone.2 • The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. 2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1 3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then Table XX.3 must be used. 2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 27 Packet Pg. 133 8.A.a 4. The buffer widths in Table XX. I and XX.3 assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. Table XX.I Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Wetland Category Category I: 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category L• Bogs and 190 225 Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 150 165 225 Coastal Lagoons Category I: 225 Interdunal Category I: 75 105 165 225 Forested Category I: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II: 75 105 165 225 Based on score Category II: 110 165 225 Interdunal Wetlands Category II: 110 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 28 Packet Pg. 134 8.A.a Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands (Measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal) Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 ft of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual) Change in water • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from regime impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer disturbance edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 29 Packet Pg. 135 8.A.a Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Wetland Category Category I: 100 140 220 300 Based on total score Category L• Bogs and 250 300 Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 200 220 300 Coastal Lagoons Category I: 300 Interdunal Category I: 100 140 220 300 Forested Category I: 200 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II: 100 140 220 300 Based on score Category II: 150 220 300 Interdunal Wetlands Category II: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 30 Packet Pg. 136 8.A.a 5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased on a case -by -case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the following criteria: a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion -control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent. 6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when c all of the following conditions are met: c co T a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual -rated" wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower -rated area. b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of habitat or more -sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower -functioning or less -sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional. c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category IIl, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. 7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met: a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 31 Packet Pg. 137 8.A.a b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional. c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater. B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the Administrator may identify and pre -assess wetlands using the rating system and establish appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been pre -assessed in this manner. C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a L wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations v shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or o enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area 9 calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be o considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations. r D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x). F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter. G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies. H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 32 Packet Pg. 138 8.A.a 2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated pilings may be acceptable. b. Wildlife -viewing structures. 3. Educational and scientific research activities. 4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the v maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility or right-of-way. c 0 5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural o reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require 6 tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the Z wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water o sources. 6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary, provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column would be disturbed. 7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 33 Packet Pg. 139 8.A.a 8. Repair and maintenance of non -conforming uses or structures, where legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the degree of nonconformity. I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers: Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field with temporary "clearing limits" fencing in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and v attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of equal o durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty c 0 (50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, o and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The r signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved Z by the Administrator: o Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact [Local Jurisdiction] Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Fencing a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 34 Packet Pg. 140 8.A.a XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report shall be borne by the applicant. B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. The written report shall include at a minimum: a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon. o 0 0 c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field o data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic 6 0 data, etc. z d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references. e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.13) of this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on -site portion or estimate entire wetland area including off -site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 35 Packet Pg. 141 8.A.a algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no -development alternative. h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development. i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas. j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and R compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any L wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land -use activity. o 0 0 k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that o addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland r 6 functions. z 1. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include references for the method used and data sheets. 2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum: a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and required buffers on site, including buffers for off -site critical areas that extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates). b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 36 Packet Pg. 142 8.A.a XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation. A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed in the order of preference: Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance M L operations. U 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing o substitute resources or environments. G 0 0 co 6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective 6 0 measures when necessary. z B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06- 01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009). 2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter. 3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with subsection H of this Chapter. C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 37 Packet Pg. 143 8.A.a compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when either: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out -of -kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types. D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below. Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation a bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a 2 wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed v if: 0 0 a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate c compensation for the proposed impacts; and b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank. c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified mitigation bank instrument. d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument. 2. In -Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in -lieu -fee program may be used when all of the following apply: a. The approval authority determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts. b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in -lieu -fee program instrument. Projects using in -lieu -fee credits shall have debits associated with the proposed impacts calculated by the applicant's qualified wetland professional using the credit assessment method specified in the approved instrument for the in -lieu -fee program. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 38 Packet Pg. 144 8.A.a d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the approved in -lieu -fee instrument. 3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off -site location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the proposed approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program, consistent with the criteria in this section. E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower - preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that all higher -ranked types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic c functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net c gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. b. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland. 2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod, create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 39 Packet Pg. 145 8.A.a authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the applicant's qualified wetland professional that: The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic problems elsewhere; ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff, noise, light, or other impacts); and iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self- sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance. 3. Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific L function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water o quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. 9 Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead o to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in r wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, Z controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the c proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination M of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will a' increase the wetland's/buffer's functions, how this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland M functions at the mitigation site will be protected. 5 4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation). Removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, or repairing water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if: a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the best mitigation option; b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be adequately mitigated under existing regulations; Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 40 Packet Pg. 146 8.A.a c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the following features may be indicative of high -quality sites: i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for western Washington) ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare or a limited resource in the area; iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological connectivity; iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity; v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan. 0 d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided 9 through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural o land resource manager, such as a land trust. r e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are adequate to protect the site. f. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case -by -case basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1. F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall generally be conducted within the same sub -drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off -site mitigation is ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off -site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an in -lieu -fee program, or advance mitigation. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin (e.g., on -site options would require elimination of high -functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 41 Packet Pg. 147 8.A.a include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. On -site mitigation would require elimination of high -quality upland habitat. 3. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the altered wetland. 4. Off -site locations shall be in the same sub -drainage basin unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established L by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; a or V L U b. Credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the o certified bank instrument; c �o T c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu -fee program to compensate for the c impacts. Zr. 5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 42 Packet Pg. 148 8.A.a delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the City. H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios 3: Category and Creation or Rehabilitation Enhancement Type of Wetland Re-establishment Category I: Not considered Bog, Natural possible Case by case Case by case Heritage site Category I: Mature 6:1 12:1 24:1 Forested Category I: Based on 4:1 8:1 16:1 functions Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 L Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a-b, Olympia, WA, March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised). 3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment. See Table 1 a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). See also Paragraph DA for more information on using preservation as compensation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 43 Packet Pg. 149 8.A.a J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall be required, meeting the following minimum standards: Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports (Section XX.060.13) of this Chapter. 2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06- 01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). a. The written report must contain, at a minimum: The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, L qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) v of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the o proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation 9 concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal c wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity T- map for the project. Z ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of this Chapter. iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?). V. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 44 Packet Pg. 150 8.A.a Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands. vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities D and timing of activities. c viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post - installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring O schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by L year. a M ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the development project has been implemented, v including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). o 0 0 X. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, co T including the following elements: site preparation, plant c materials, construction materials, installation oversight, Z c maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for M a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. a xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation M areas. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions. ii. Existing topography, ground -proofed, at two -foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also include existing cross -sections (estimated one -foot intervals) of wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer compensation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 45 Packet Pg. 151 8.A.a iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards identified in this Chapter. V. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation. K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from development. L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with o Chapter XXX. o X. �o T M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to c establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five Z c years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring M elements that ensure certainty of success for the project's natural resource values and functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the a applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved. N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre -identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December 2012). O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter. The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal: Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 46 Packet Pg. 152 8.A.a 1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009). 2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas. 3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards. 4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed mitigation site. 5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J. 6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the proposed use. o 0 0 7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or o functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or r eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental Z alternative. o 8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in Section J.2.a.viii. 9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare the plan. 10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard critical areas. XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City shall have the authority to issue a "stop -work" order to cease all ongoing development work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this Chapter. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 47 Packet Pg. 153 8.A.a B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible party's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re - submittal. C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: 1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions. 2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent practicable. 3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that c replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, c sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration. A 4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator. D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation. 2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 48 Packet Pg. 154 8.A.a restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the effectiveness of the restoration action. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 49 Packet Pg. 155 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 50 Packet Pg. 156 8.A.a Appendix B - Wetland Definitions (Western Washington) Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 51 Packet Pg. 157 8.A.a This page is purposely left blank Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 52 Packet Pg. 158 8.A.a Appendix B — Wetland Definitions Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing — Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conversation program. Alteration — Any human -induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing, dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other activity that changes the character of the critical area. Best Available Science — Current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 925. Best Management Practices (BMPs) — Conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: (a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment; (b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands; (c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the site for re -vegetation of disturbed areas; and (d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical areas. Bog — A low -nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Buffer or Buffer Zone — The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the functions and/or structural stability of the critical area. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 53 Packet Pg. 159 8.A.a Coastal Lagoon — A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Critical Areas — Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and this Chapter. Creation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. Cumulative Impacts or Effects — The combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the c� effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular o place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any 9 resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact c analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. Development — A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code. Enhancement — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site elevations to alter hydroperiods. Estuarine Wetland — A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14- 06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Functions and Values — The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 54 Packet Pg. 160 8.A.a flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational opportunities, and recreation. Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended. Hazardous Substances — Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303- 100. Impervious Surface — A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water D into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre -development or pre -developed 0 conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, 2 gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. L U In -Kind Compensation — To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a o regulated activity. c �o T In -Lieu -Fee Program — An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or 6 local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit Z a organization. Under an in -lieu -fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from ° an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of a d the agreement to satisfy the permittees' required mitigation. Infiltration — The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. Interdunal Wetland — A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are a geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology. Isolated Wetland — A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW 90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law. Mature and Old -Growth Forested Wetland — A wetland having at least 1 contiguous acre of either old -growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014). Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page SS Packet Pg. 161 8.A.a Mitigation — Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (c) Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, v and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and o 0 0 (f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial co action when necessary. o Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. Monitoring — Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data. Native Vegetation — Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or environment and were present before European colonization. Off -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical area has been impacted. On -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a critical areas has been impacted. Ordinary High Water Mark — That mark which is found by examining the bed and banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 56 Packet Pg. 162 8.A.a Preservation — The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a gain in functions over the long term. Project Area — All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision, binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the entire parcel, at a minimum. Prior Converted Croplands — Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated, including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have not since been abandoned. 0 Qualified Professional — A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional 9 wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands o professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements, r preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and Z implementing mitigation plans. c Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. Rehabilitation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influence to a wetland. Repair or Maintenance — An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not included in this definition. Restoration — Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including: Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 57 Packet Pg. 163 8.A.a (a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; and (b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management activities, or catastrophic events. SEPA — Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW. Service Area — The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific mitigation bank or an in -lieu -fee program, as designated in its instrument. Soil Survey — The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Species — Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as commonly accepted by the scientific community. Species of Local Importance — Those species of local concern designated by the City in Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.) Stream — An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of normal rainfall. Unavoidable Impacts — Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Washington Administration Code (WAC) — Administrative rules implementing state laws. Wetlands — Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 58 Packet Pg. 164 8.A.a of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Wetland of High Conservation Value — A wetland that has been identified by scientists from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See hgp://www.dnr.wa.gov/data- information-natural-heritage-features . Wetland Mitigation Bank — A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future, permitted impacts to similar resources. Wetland Mosaic — An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water. Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Western Washington Version Page 59 Packet Pg. 165 Edmonds Page 1/13 23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Wetlands. A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal delineation manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035, that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the city of Edmonds meeting the wetland designation criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. .-. U) B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology wetland rating_ system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met. Wetlands shall be -a4e l .,eee -, iag to the Washington Sta4e Depa-i4ment Eeelagy fb�d in the 2014 Washington State Aletland Ra4ing System for- of wetland ra4ing system Westefa Washington Eealegy Publiemian No. 14 06 029. Consistent the with wetland ra4ing system er-iteria and a this daeument, that fer Alffetions highest tetals wetlands afe rated eealegieal with paiH4 (23 Pe highest pafameters within higher) ftmetions 14ew, habitm levels, or perform eeelagieal asseeia4ed withwatef water quality and at that lewest tetals lower-) flanetieffs lowest whereas wetlands afe rated with paiH4 (15 pain4s or- per-fafffi eealegieal a4 ca levels. Wetlands that between 16 22 fanetions to �a are rated with points and points perform ecological at moderate L 1,i..1 levels. O 1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) Q wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Proaam/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) L wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) rgpresent unique or �? rare wetland tyres; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, (3) are relatively undisturbed and M contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. E 2. Category 11. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine c wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; E Q or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). 0 3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 V and 19 points); (2) can often be adequatelyplaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal c wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in +° some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. ca L 4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. C• However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any pecific case. These wetlands c may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree. E t 5. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the M applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.1. Q Cat The City of Edmonds Wetland Rating 0 E Category 1 Wedands. Ga4e 1 those tha4 type; a. efy wedands afe represent a tmi"e er- r-afe weda-ad afe U crS The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 166 Edmonds Page 2/13 C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications. D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland's boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in this section. Consistent with guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program. G. Edmonds Marsh. The city has a 23-acre Edmonds marsh wetland which in addition to a wildlife habitat and natural resource sanctuary is also classified by the state as a priority habitat. H. Other Significant Wetland. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 167 Edmonds Page 3/13 1. Good Hope Pond. 2. Mouth of Shell Creek. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part II. Allowed Activities — Wetlands 23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. E. Permitted alteration to a legally construeted stnaeture eXisting witliifi awetland arwetland buffer thM does fiat increase the footprint of development or iwiper-vieus surfacing or increase the impaet to awetland or- wetland buffef. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands 23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category II Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category II wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 168 Edmonds Page 4/13 E. Category III and IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category III and IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by).The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high_ a. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in subsection F.l.e can be used if both of the following criteria are met: i. A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, subsection F. Le may be used with the required measures in subsection F.l.f alone. ii. The measures in subsection F. IS are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. b. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in subsection F.l.f are required for the use of subsection F. Le c. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in subsection F.l.f, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then subsection F.l.g must be used. d. The buffer widths in subsection F. Le and subsection F.l.fg assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. e. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection FIX is Implemented and Corridor Provided Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score We or 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category I: Based on total 75 105 165 225 score Category Bogs and wetlands 190 225 of high conservation value c c� m m M a d 0 c M L 0 w 0 L a U Cn c m E c m E Q m 0 U c 0 W a N c m E t U 0 r r Q c M E U ca Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 169 Edmonds Page 5/13 Category I: 150 165 225 Coastal lagoons Category I ]EEL 225 Interdunal Category 75 105 165 225 Forested Category I: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II: 75 105 165 225 Based on score Category II: Interdunal 110 165 225 wetlands Category 110 II: Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 f Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands (Measures are required, if applicable to a specific proposal). Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impact • Direct lights away from wetland Lights Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation planting adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10-foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away_ from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limitinguse se of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use low intensity development techniques (for more information see stormwater ordinance and manual) Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 170 Edmonds Page 6/13 Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract to protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best mana eg ment practices R. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection F.l.f is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category I: Based on total 100 140 220 300 score Category I: Bogs and wetlands 250 300 of high conservation value Category I: Coastal lagoons 220 300 CategoryI j 300 Interdunal Category 100 140 220 300 Forested Category 200 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) CategoryII: 100 140 220 300 Based on score Category II: Interdunal 150 220 300 wetlands Category 150 II: Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (ally 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 c c� m m M a d 0 c M L 0 M 0 m L a M 0 �L U c m E c m E Q m 0 t� c 0 a) ca L N c m E t U 0 r r Q c w E U ca Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 171 Edmonds Page 7/13 M..tland Categoryseores Minimum R-iMr-- 3 A habitat points) 8..4'4pr- MUM seores(Wetland �' is R.. ii... 7V:.741. �T�QBiz � �' s\ il..{'{'... TI7:.741. (Wetland 9 �'TaZranal-SE�iTO� habitat' Gategefy ������t�l�� 7" 1 n�wM 165 Category 1: valueBegs and wetlands of high , (4) 190 , (4) "1 Category 1: Forested 7-5-A c—ategery use i sa €i use i se €t Category l: >z ed an seefe- 73 fE 104 165 €t Category M (a14) 60-€t 1 new Category IV 1H4 49ft 49ft 49-t't 40- t Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 172 Edmonds Page 8/13 3. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site - specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with this subsection (17)(3) may substitute. d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species. 4. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 5. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. 6. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses. 1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the city of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other applicable provisions of this title. 2. At the discretion of the director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with all criteria in this subsection (G). Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland buffer reduction with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site. 3. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 173 Edmonds Page 9/13 science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent to less than 50 per-eet:' of the standard buffer width. 4. Buffer Width Reductions through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the director, and only when buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category III and IV wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions by no more than 25 percent of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be: i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is generally intact; or ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards including but not limited to: i. Percent vegetative cover; ii. Percent invasive species cover; iii. Species richness; and iv. Amount of large woody debris. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 174 Edmonds Page 10/13 5. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020, Allowed activities — Wetlands. b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. c. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability, are generally located only in the outer 25 percent of wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer 25 percent of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five feet in width and for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. The director may allow trails within the inner 25 percent of wetland buffers when required to provide access to wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities; ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. d. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category I or 11 wetlands. iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water Management, including Minimum Requirement No. 8, Wetland Protection. H. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 175 8.A.b Edmonds Page 11/13 Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (H)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. 3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances; provided, that the director may waive this requirement: a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily, mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; provided, that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for access to permitted buffer uses (subsection (G)(5) of this section); b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; c. When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal; d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or e. At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area. I. Additions to Structures Existing within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. 1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section; provided, that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts consistent with this title; and provided, that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, wetland buffer averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; b. Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(3) of this section; c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section; d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact); e. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 500 square feet of new footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact), and that storm water low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the wetland/buffer enhancement plan. 2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by subsection (I)(1) of this section would result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 176 Edmonds Page 12/13 3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the sequencing in subsection (I)(1) of this section (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer; provided, that the following conditions are met: 1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided in ECDC 23.40.005; 2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the wetland edge as is feasible; 3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development; 4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to improve functions degraded by previous development; 5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the newly proposed development within the footprint of existing development occurring in a wetland buffer, or through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and remaining buffer; and 6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed alteration. K. Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands. The following wetlands may be exempt from the reauirement to avoid impacts (ECDC 23.40.120.B.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in ECDC 23.40.120.B.2 through 6. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Droaram or bank. In order to verifv the followine conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the reauirements in ECDC 23.50.030 must be submitted. 1. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology) e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in Chapter 23.90 ECDC. 2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 177 8.A.b Edmonds Page13/13 1 The wetland is loss than 1,000 square feet in area; 2. The wetland does not provide signifieant habitat value for wildlife; 4. The wetland has a soore of thfee to four points for habitn in the adopted Western Washington rating system; and 5. A m4iga4iafi plafi to replace lost wetland funetions and values is developed, approved and implement eensistent with ECDC 23.59.059. rnr,1 4026 § 1 (Att. n 2016; Qfd. 3527 > 2, 2004]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018. Packet Pg. 178 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/13/2018 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 06-13-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 179 of EbAf U� O�6 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANNNS BOARD M/p, Extended Agenda June 13, 2018 Meeting Item JUNE 2018 June 13 1. Public Hearing on Draft Housing Strategy 2. Critical Areas Update - Wetlands June 27 1. Discussion on Draft Housing Strategy 2. Introduction to SMP Periodic Review JULY 2018 July 11 1. Public Hearing on Critical Area Update 2. Public Hearing on Code Update for Permit Decision Making July 25 1. SMP Periodic Review AUGUST 2018 August 8 1. August 22 1. SMP periodic Review SEPTEMBER 2018 September 12 1. September 26 1. OCTOBER 2018 October 10 1. October 24 1. Q Packet Pg. 180 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Packet Pg. 181