2018-07-11 Planning Board Packet- 0� L1UM0
Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
RqCOUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JULY 11, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of June 27, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Critical Areas Ordinance Updates to Specific Wetland Regulations
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Recommendation for Draft Housing Strategy
8. NEW BUSINESS
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
July 11, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/11/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of June 27, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB180627d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 27, 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 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Nathan Monroe, Chair
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Phil Lovell (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG 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 TO PLANNING BOARD
Board Member Rubenkonig requested more information about the new State program for creative districts. Director Hope
responded that members of the community have met with the Development Services Department staff and the Economic
Development Commission to discuss this opportunity, and a public meeting was held on June 71 to provide information to
the public. The next step is for the City Council to adopt a resolution to allow the application to be formally submitted.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that a creative district can go beyond traditional art and cultural activities to
include creative technologies, graphic design, florists, breweries, and many more. She asked how these additional categories
got included, and Director Hope said it was based on requirements and opportunities under the application.
Board Member Robles noted that architects are listed as an activity that could occur in a "creative sector" and suggested that
perhaps engineers should be included, as well. He pointed out that the City's current code explicitly excludes engineering
Packet Pg. 3
firms from locating in the BD-1 zones, and it may be appropriate to explicitly include them in the creative district. Director
Hope agreed that is an option but emphasized that the first step is to submit an application that meets the State requirements,
and then people can get together to work on it. Board Member Robles observed that tech sectors are getting quite "artsy" and
they belong in this same category.
Chair Monroe asked for information about the consultant services contract, which was a topic of discussion at the June 7t1i
Tree Board meeting. Director Hope answered that, over the past several years, the City has hired a consultant for the Tree
Board (up to $6,000 per year) to help gather information, submit an application for Tree City U.S.A. and develop brochures
and outreach materials.
DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY
Director Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2015 calls for having a Housing Strategy to
"increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels and to meet diverse housing needs." For the past
several years, the Board has received information and had discussions about a variety of housing issues such as housing
affordability, housing availability, housing types and changing demographics. Not counting the draft Housing Strategy, the
Board has had housing issues on its agenda 35 times between early 2015 and 2018.
Director Hope reminded the Board that an early draft of the Housing Strategy was presented to them on May 23' for
discussion and review, and a public hearing was conducted on June 13'. Since the hearing, the Board has received additional
written comments from the public, which were forwarded to them. She also reminded the Board that the Mayor appointed a
Housing Strategy Task Force in the summer of 2017, which was primarily composed of housing specialists. The Task Force
provided feedback on strategies on what the City could do to increase the supply of housing affordable for a range of people.
The outreach program included a housing forum in the spring, several press releases and articles in the local news media, a
dedicated webpage, Facebook, and other public notices and publications. The draft was also presented at a public open house
on May 21 st
Director Hope explained that the draft Housing Strategy includes a lot of data and background information, followed by six
priority objectives that cover a range of topics. She observed that the intent was to summarize the housing issues and provide
some key information. The purpose of tonight's discussion is for the Board to respond to the following questions related to
the draft document so staff can determine the next steps.
• Does the draft Housing Strategy address a broad range of housing needs relevant to Edmonds?
• Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that you particularly appreciated?
• Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that concern you or that need more clarification?
• What is needed for the Planning Board's next meeting on this topic?
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that at the public hearing, she asked if any corporations within Edmonds are looking at
sponsoring employee housing. Director Hope said there are none currently, and she doesn't know of any that are planning to,
either. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that staff previously advised that the hospital may be considering this
opportunity. Director Hope said that, currently, there is no clear plan to do so. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the
Housing Strategy could include an additional strategy to look at opportunities for corporations located in Edmonds to provide
housing for their own employees. Director Hope pointed out that the Housing Strategy includes quite a bit about workforce
housing, but it does not specifically focus on corporations.
Chair Monroe recalled that some of the illustrations in the draft document show "tiny homes," which are not something the
Board discussed or thought was relevant for Edmonds' needs. He suggested that these illustrations should be eliminated. He
also commented that when discussing the needs of Edmonds, they are really talking about housing efficiency and the variety
of sizing. The report did a good job of laying these needs out, but it could have done a better job of making it clear that the
Board is concerned about housing sizes and not just housing prices. The thrust of the report is the need for a greater variety
of housing options than what currently exist in Edmonds.
Board Member Robles suggested that perhaps the list of housing needs could be articulated a little stronger to identify the
different groups of people that the strategy is intended to address. The list could include people who want to age in place,
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
school teachers, public safety workers, people who grew up in Edmonds and want to return, kids coming back to live with
parents, divorced couples, etc. Once they were able to get to these points in the public hearing discussion, people started to
see how the City is trying to be creative by solving so many problems with a single solution.
Board Member Robles noted that the strategy does not address entrepreneurial opportunities that offer a type of bridge
product that allows someone to purchase a home with the promise of future cash flows from an ADU unit. Director Hope
responded that the strategy does reference a non-profit organization (Community Land Trust) that offers this type of
opportunity. Board Member Robles suggested that this reference could be expanded to include a variety of other products,
such as crowd funding where a group of homeowners can borrow money from themselves in order to do renovation on a
condominium structure. Currently, the only options are to assess all of the owners or borrow money from a bank at high
interest. Entrepreneurial tools allow people to borrow the money from themselves, helping to distribute the load and restore
housing that already exists. He felt these options could have a powerful impact on the strategy.
Board Member Crank said she appreciated that the Housing Strategy deals with a diversity of housing options, plus trying to
address some affordability and subsidized housing issues. As she explained at the public hearing, she lived previously in a
community (Mountain View, CA) that used a Below Market Rate (BMR) program as one of its housing strategies. The
program required developers of multi -use projects to set aside 10% of all new housing units for low and moderate -income
persons. In many cases, the developers opted to pay an in -lieu fee instead of providing the units, and the in -lieu fee was used
to build new affordable housing or support other affordable housing programs. She recalled that, at the public hearing,
citizens were concerned that the Housing Strategy would result in a flood of people into Edmonds, but this was not part of the
conversation in Mountain View because the program established priorities for who could live in the units. Based on a
priority system, first preference was given to Mountain View public safety employees, public school teachers who work in
Mountain View, households who live in Mountain View and households who have worked in Mountain View for at least two
years. The simple supply and demand dictated that those who ended up in the affordable units would be people who were
already there. The program was all about serving people who were already contributing members of the community, which
she believes is also the spirit of the draft Housing Strategy. She suggested that being overt in saying who the plan is trying to
serve and identifying certain priorities within the housing piece might allow the plan to garner more community support.
Board Member Cloutier said he likes how the strategies are so explicitly stated rather than simply a list of wishes for better
housing. The strategies in the plan are real and supported by research. He pointed out that Strategies 4 and 5 speak to the
concerns about the homeless population and low-income housing, but additional language could be added to make sure it is
clear that the plan is primarily intended to address the people who are already in Edmonds. The meaning of the words "low-
income" will continue to change, and perhaps additional language could be added to be more explicit about the intent to
continue dialogue rather than drawing the line based on today.
Director Hope emphasized that "affordable housing" does not mean the type of housing that is typically considered "the
projects." The challenge is that Area Median Income (AMI) is $96,000, which still isn't enough to get a lot of housing in the
community. People who earn less than AMI have it even tougher. She pointed out that the Housing Strategy has 32 basic
pages, plus some appendices, and only 1.5 pages are about homelessness issues. It recognizes the range and types of
homelessness and provides strategies the City could use to address the problems. But the strategies are not plans, they are
just ideas the City could consider. The City Council is doing a more detailed study on homelessness, itself, and they will be
looking at the actual needs and issues in Edmonds and what more specifically the City should consider doing.
Vice Chair Chang said he appreciates the comprehensive nature of the draft Housing Strategy. He observed that the Board
has discussed housing issues more than 35 times over the past few years, so the topics have evolved over time. Without
having the Board's previous discussions to provide context, he can see how the strategy came across to citizens as primarily
dealing with homelessness or low-income housing. He recalled that the Board discussed a variety of scenarios. For example,
there is a large number of single-family homes with 3 or 4 bedrooms that are being filled with single individuals who might
want to downsize for a variety of reasons but still stay in their community. Many of these are seniors who want to age in
place. Currently, there are not a lot of options for 1 and 2-bedroom units. He recognized that not every scenario can be
addressed in the Housing Strategy, but perhaps the narrative could be shifted to focus on the problems they are trying to solve
and the people they are trying to help. Director Hope suggested that some graphics, such as the tiny homes, could be
changed because they were intended to show a range of options rather than an actual proposal. She also agreed that it is
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
important to be clear that the bulk of the strategy addresses moderate types of housing for average people, but recognizes
situations where people may need special help, as well.
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the document is intended to be a high-level strategy and not a specific plan.
He suggested it would be helpful to have a perspective slide showing the purpose of the strategy and emphasizing that
nothing would change based solely on the strategy. Perhaps staff could throw out an example about how a problem could be
addressed by referring to the strategy and then seeing it through to a code change, etc. However, it is important to be clear
that the Housing Strategy is a guiding document, and future programs, code changes, etc. must be consistent. Director Hope
agreed that the Housing Strategy is meant to provide a toolbox of ideas. Whatever is adopted, the next step will be to tease
out strategies that could be put in place. Anything that requires a code change or funding will require more details and
another public process.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, throughout all of the Board's discussions relative to housing, her main concern
was the lack of a variety of housing stock. She likes that the strategy addresses a diverse housing stock, particularly the
missing middle (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc.). Through the process of reviewing information from the staff and
consultant and hearing feedback from the public, the Board has been able to hone in on the idea of "caring for our own." She
felt that the draft Housing Strategy responds well to this concept.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that homelessness is more of a regional issue, and perhaps this could be
stressed more in the strategy. Director Hope noted that one strategy calls for participating in South Snohomish County's
strategies to reduce homelessness. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Edmonds must be part of a larger, regional
effort to address homelessness.
Chair Monroe voiced concern that the draft Housing Strategy explains the housing crisis, but it does not explain how it
happened. Part of the answer is that there are a lot of regulations on the housing that is allowed to be constructed in
Edmonds. He specifically pointed to the condominium laws and the Growth Management Act. These constraints have done
nothing but depress the supply and increase demand. He felt the strategy does an adequate job of pointing out the need to
remove some of the barriers that have been put in place so the market can take care of the rest.
Chair Monroe pointed out that subsidized housing is a sticky issue for a lot of people. Many feel the strategy is asking people
who can afford the housing they are living in to pay more property taxes to subsidizes housing for someone else. However,
there are lot of strategies that aren't subsidized housing that could help solve the problem and get the City halfway to its goal.
Of the six strategies, most do not require subsidized housing.
Board Member Rosen thanked the public in attendance for taking the time to listen to the Board's discussion. He recalled
that, at the public hearing, concern was raised about whether or not the community had an adequate opportunity to engage in
the process, and he cautioned that the City may need to look at other opportunities and tools to make sure they are giving the
public meaningful opportunities to express their concerns.
Board Member Rosen said he likes the clarity of the draft Housing Strategy, recognizing it is a strategy and not a plan.
However, he feels that part of his responsibility is to listen to and address more than just his opinion. He listened carefully to
the people who spoke at the hearing and read all the written comments the Board received. He has also listened to the social
media chatter that is going on about the topic, noting that there are a lot of strong feelings. While there is no consensus on a
number of items, there are also some things everyone can agree on. For example, we want safety, and we want kids to be
safe and to reach their potential. If they are in trouble, the community wants to rally to help. We want to protect the
aesthetics of the community and protect the natural spaces. We don't want to compromise our property rights and values,
and we don't mind if tourists come and spend their money and go away. Concerns he heard related to the strategy included
questions about the validity and clarity of the statistics and their relevance to Edmonds and the public process. Although
there has been a lot of outreach, perhaps the Board should include another step in the process to make sure everyone's voices
are heard. There was concern about the unintended consequences or impacts of the strategies and whether or not the police
and fire departments have been engaged in the process, and there was an assumption that the strategy intends to provide
subsidized housing and that is why the document exists. More clarity in perspective and context would likely help. There
was a perception that the strategy would result in increased density, with ugly, low-income boxes, that there would be more
homeless population and crime and drug use would increase.
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Board Member Rosen summarized that there appears to be some philosophical differences driving the discussion, and you
can like or not like the plan based on where you are standing. For example, there are some who are okay with exclusivity and
believe that not everyone should be able to live in Edmonds. There was also a perception that homeless people choose that
lifestyle and they are already provided with many options. These differences will drive the lens through which people look at
the strategy. He summarized his belief that there are opportunities to improve the strategy in these areas, but he believes in
and supports the strategy.
Chair Monroe reviewed that the Board has reviewed the plan four times, and their views are a stark contrast to those of
people who are seeing it for the first time. They need to do abetter job of communicating their positions.
Board Member Robles suggested it would be beneficial to have local professionals (social scientists, scientists, etc.) in the
community critique the plan and provide input as to whether or not the strategies are viable. He felt their points of view
would be valid and something that people would listen to as opposed to a consultant who is hired by the City and has a vested
interest. This concept could be added as a tool to study the value and endorse certain strategies.
Board Member Crank went back to an analogy she made at the public hearing about "trying to put meat on the skeleton
before putting the skeleton together." Without negating any of the feedback that has been given, she reminded the Board to
keep in perspective that a lot of the suggestions are further down the line than what the Board needs to do to move the draft
Housing Strategy to the City Council. People should not feel disappointed if certain concepts are not reflected in the strategy
because it is not the right time for it. Again, she said a lot of what has been suggested are things that will come further down
the pipeline.
Director Hope emphasized the need to send the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council in the near future, and the next
steps are very important. She suggested that staff make certain changes to reflect some of the things they have heard and to
refine and clarify the document. The Board could review the updated draft and forward a recommendation to the City
Council on July 11'. The City Council could start their review on July 24' and hold a public hearing in early August. The
public hearing could be followed by additional meetings, with the goal of final approval in late August or early September.
She cautioned that the draft Housing Strategy cannot move forward to the City Council until the Planning Board has
formulated its recommendation.
Chair Monroe asked Director Hope to summarize the changes that would be made to the draft Housing Strategy based on
input from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope identified the anticipated minor changes as follows:
• More clarification and framing of the issues.
• Changes to the graphics
• Add a little more about scenarios
• Emphasize they are talking about their neighbors, friends, family, etc.
• Clean up the data and provide additional clarification
Board Member Cloutier asked if the Board Members are satisfied with the strategies outlined in the document or are there
missing strategies that need to be added. The Board Members indicated they were satisfied with the strategies as currently
proposed. Board Member Cloutier summarized that it appears the Board is ready to move forward at the next meeting with
the minor revisions. He re-emphasized the need to make it completely clear at the beginning of the next presentation that
there is no proposal to change the codes. The draft Housing Strategy is simply intended to identify the problems and offer
potential solutions.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the revisions suggested by the Board at their last meeting were incorporated into the
document. Director Hope answered that staff would review all of the Board's discussions and incorporated their
recommended changes prior to the next meeting.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the draft Housing Strategy provides the facts of the situation in Edmonds. The
Board cannot be proactive in addressing the spectrum of issues unless it can agree to the scope of the issue. From letters
received for the public hearing and from social media regarding the issue of homelessness, there is concern for the
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
0
accountability of tax money: Where is the funding coming from and how will the City assess success or impact? There is
also concern to actively police the burgeoning presence of homeless camps and transient vehicle living.
Rather than cast aspersion on the "downtrodden," Board Member Rubenkonig referred to one of the most poignant points she
saw on social media, which proposed an action for our neighbors. "The money (reference to the $250,000 the City Council
allocated for homelessness) could be used to help the elderly before they get behind in property taxes, or mortgage payments
in Edmonds, and other individuals who have lost their jobs and may lose their homes in Edmonds. Maybe a qualification
would be that the person needs to have lived in Edmonds for five years. "
Board Member Rubenkonig also quoted another social media post, `Affordable housing would go a very long way toward
helping get people off the streets. Ever heard of working homeless? " She commented that many homeless people hold down
jobs, and many have children who are enrolled in the Edmonds School District. She cautioned that the words spoken by the
Board at this meeting will not alter the problems their neighbors face tomorrow. She said she believes Edmonds cares but
prefers to see a structured approach focusing on chosen priorities as identified by the City Council. Again, she expressed her
belief that the report provides facts about Edmonds situation and possibly provides a direction to take.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if staff would propose a recommendation for the Board to consider at its next meeting.
Director Hope said staff would identify the changes. Board Member Rubenkonig asked that staff provide the Board with
some options as to how to craft the discussion and come up with a recommendation to the City Council. Director Hope
explained that, typically, Planning Board recommendations are not expected to be big statements. The Board can recommend
that the Council approve the document as is or with some changes. They do not need to summarize all of the various
opinions.
SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW INTRODUCTION
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City just completed a comprehensive update of the SMP in June of 2017. This update was a
complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent with new regulations and guidelines that were adopted by the Department of
Ecology (DOE) in 2003 (WAC 173-26). The Board completed its work on the comprehensive update in 2015, but it took a
few years to get through the Council due to a few issues.
Mr. Lien advised that the SMA requires each city and county in the State to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at
least once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Given that they just completed the
comprehensive review in 2017, only minor tweaks are needed at this time. He referred the Board to the Periodic Review
Checklist (Attachment 4), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and
2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic review. Most of the amendments are minor and no
substantive changes are proposed.
Mr. Lien said in addition to the potential amendments identified on the checklist, updates to the SMP may result from the
site -specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City, including updating the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed -Use IV
shoreline jurisdictions. He explained that the Edmonds Marsh was identified in the updated SMP as a Shoreline of the State,
which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. In the previous SMP it was not
considered a Shoreline of the State so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the marsh. This new shoreline jurisdiction that
applied to Harbor Square was a controversial topic during the SMP update, and the City Council initiated the study to get
more information about the marsh and appropriate buffers. At this time, he is not sure that the study will be completed in
time to be incorporated into the periodic review.
Mr. Lien said that another potential amendment is related to public hearings (ECDC 24.80.100). In the previous SMP, all
Shoreline Substantial Development Permits went to the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision. With the updated SMP,
only certain Shoreline Substantial Development Permits can go to the Hearing Examiner. If a Conditional Use Permit or
design review is required, applications automatically go to the Hearing Examiner. However, minor projects that do not
otherwise require a hearing are staff decisions. As per the current SMP, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits begin as
a Type 11 staff decision and change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner upon written request during the
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
comment period. Staff will propose amendments to clarify this process in the SMC, likely using something similar to the
Critical Area Contingent Review Process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195.
Mr. Lien said that, in conjunction with the periodic review, staff is recommending that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)
wetland regulations be revised for consistency with the DOE's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. He explained that the
recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of the updated wetland guidance. The updated guidance was
incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance on wetlands. That means
the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies
outside of shoreline jurisdictions. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency
for all wetland regulation within the City. The CAO amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning
Board on July 111.
Mr. Lien said there was a recent code amendment that had to do with the amount of clearing that could occur without a
Critical Area Report. However, this recent amendment does not currently apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. By re-
adopting the CAO, the amendment will also be incorporated into the SMP, as well.
Mr. Lien reviewed the work program approved by the City Council, including a public participation plan. He said the
periodic review is due by June 30, 2019, and the intent is to have the work completed by that date. The Planning Board is
scheduled to conduct a public hearing in September or October. Following the 30-day comment period, staff will compile
and respond to the public comments. It is anticipated the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Council by
the end of 2018. He said he would bring back the specific code amendments that were identified in the checklist on July 251
for Planning Board discussion.
Chair Monroe asked how often the SMP will come before the Board for a periodic update, and Mr. Lien said the periodic
update occurs once every eight years. The deadline for the next update is June 30, 2019. Chair Monroe asked if the City
would have to wait another eight years to incorporate information from the Edmonds Marsh Study into the SMP if the study
is not completed in time for the 2019 update. Mr. Lien answered that if the Edmonds Marsh Study recommends different
buffers, the City could update the SMP before the next periodic update is required.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the July I Vh meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance
update and a continued discussion on the Draft Housing Strategy. The July 251 meeting agenda will include a presentation
on the Shoreline Master Program periodic update, a public hearing on a rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 and a public hearing on
a code update related to permit decision making.
At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, the Board agreed to review their schedules and discuss possible dates for a
Planning Board Retreat at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe announced that Ms. Livingston, the Board's student representation, has resigned due to scheduling conflicts.
He thanked her for her service and suggested the Board start the recruitment process to select a new representative.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she filled in for Board Member Lovell at the Economic Development Commission
meeting on June 191. At the meeting, it was decided that the liaisons to the Commission would be given an opportunity to
report on what their groups are doing. The intent is to invite one liaison to report at each meeting. She advised that the
Commission is still interested in having a joint meeting with the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
0
N
ti
N
N
C
7
7
O
N
N
3
C
R
L
4-
0
O
L
Q
Q
Q
ti
N
CD
O
00
T—
m
a
:.o
c
w
E
c�
a
Planning Board Minutes
June 27, 2018 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/11/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Re port.07.06.18
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
of Ebb,
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 6, 2018
To:
From:
Subject
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"With the new day comes new strength and thoughts."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board meets next on July 11. Its work includes a public hearing on the minor
update to critical area regulations, followed by a potential recommendation on the Draft Housing
Strategy.
NATIONAL NEWS
Livable Communities
AARP, the non-profit organization that focuses on people over 50, has developed a colorful
paperback book with lots of illustrations and examples about how to make community life
enjoyable. (Many of the ideas could work for both younger and older people.) To view the book
or get a complimentary copy, go online to: click on this link.
REGIONAL NEWS
Population Changes
Edmonds' population is 41,820, according to the latest estimate from the state Office of Financial
Management. That is 600 more people than the year before. Our city is the third largest in
Snohomish County (behind Everett and Marysville, respectively). The county as a whole has
grown to 805,120 (up from 789,400 in 2017). It is one of the top five counties in Washington for
growth; the other four are King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane. Washington's statewide population
is also up —from 7,310,300 last year to 7,527,570 this year.
Job Growth
About 58,700 jobs have been added to the Puget Sound region this past year. The strongest job
growth was in the Seattle metro area, especially King and Snohomish counties. This marks the
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
eight consecutive year of job growth for the region, according to the Puget Sound Regional
Council.
Transit Growth
Central Puget Sound (which includes King and Snohomish counties) experienced the highest total
increase (19%) in transit boardings of any region in the U.S. in 2017.
Point Wells Update
The Point Wells condominium project (3100 units proposed for an old industrial site near
Woodway) was recently denied by the Snohomish County hearing examiner. In large part, the
denial was based on inadequate information for construction of the steep secondary road
needed for the project. Other concerns were wetlands, mudslides, transit availability, and more
Also, the examiner denied doubling the building heights to 180 feet. The decision may be
appealed by the developer to superior court.
Housing Partnership
Near a light rail station in south Seattle, a partnership between private and non-profit
organizations is planning to build around 700 housing units, both income -restricted and market -
rate (300 of which are "family -sized") and 65,000 square feet of commercial space (including a
grocery store). This transit -oriented development project will begin with a clean-up of existing
contaminated property.
Open Space Conservation Plan
The Regional Open Space Conservation Plan for the four -county area of Snohomish, King, Pierce,
and Kitsap has been completed. It focuses most on rural areas, especially those at risk of loss to
other uses. It highlights work that other jurisdictions are doing so that different groups can learn
from each other. For a view of the plan, go to: click on this link.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
Housing was a key topic of the PSRC's growth board on July 5. Discussion focused on how the
region should plan for current and future needs in developing the long-range regional plan
"VISION 2050". A presentation with data highlights and information on current housing policies
kicked off the board's discussion. Based on the discussion, PSRC staff will work with member
committees on options to be considered for the housing chapter of VISION 205.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ The SCT Steering Committee (comprised mainly of local elected officials) met June 21
with an agenda that included:
o Updates from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the Economic Alliance
Snohomish County
o Approval of PSRC's federal funding for selected transportation projects
o Approval of local dues assessment (this will be higher in 2019 to begin the extra
work required for a countywide buildable lands study and report, due for
metropolitan counties under the Growth Management Act)
o Presentation on Metro Everett Subarea Plan
o Presentation on planning for light rail communities
21
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
❑ The SCT Planning Advisory Committee (comprised mainly of local community
development and planning directors) will meet next on July 12 to consider:
o Preparation for 2021 Buildable Lands Report
o Light rail communities
o Southwest Urban Growth Area Planning Study
o Metro Everett Subarea Plan
o PSRC Vision 2050 update.
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)
The Joint Board of AHA (an organization of city and county governments in Snohomish County
focused on affordable housing) met June 20, with an agenda that included:
❑ Final review of AHA Housing Trust Fund Policy Management
❑ Discussion of legislative outreach
❑ Discussion of public outreach and information
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB has no meeting scheduled in July. The next ADB meeting is scheduled for August 1. The
agenda will be posted on-line when available.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission has a special meeting scheduled for July 9. The agenda will be posted on-
line when available.
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met last on June 21. It agenda included:
❑ Board member updates
❑ Publicity
❑ Cemetery sales and burials
❑ Finance report
❑ Memorial Day review and thoughts for future
❑ "Walk Back in Time" preparation
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met July 5. Discussion included:
❑ Update on Climate Goals Project
❑ Carbon Fee Initiative
❑ 2018 education priority
❑ Subcommittee reports
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission's meeting for July 4 was cancelled. The commission is scheduled to
meet next on August 1. Its agenda will be posted on-line when available.
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission meets next on July 18, with an agenda to be posted on-
line when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner has no meeting scheduled for July 12.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission meets next on July 12 for a public hearing to determine
the eligibility of the house located at 645 Fir St for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic
Places.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met July 5. Agenda topics included:
❑ Discussion of Tree Board Mission Statement
❑ Upcoming events activity
❑ Discussion of City web page content
❑ Redwood trees for planting
❑ Consultant services contract
❑ Student representative position
City Council
The City Council's July 3 meeting included the following:
❑ Parks & Rec Month Proclamation
❑ Presentation on Marsh Study Progress (from Windward, consultants)
❑ Discussion of City Council's 2019 Budget Goals
The Council's next meeting is July 10 and, before breaking into committees, will include:
❑ Presentation of Economic Development Commission memo on civic facilities
❑ Diversity Commission report.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• July 8: Sea Jazz - Young jazz musicians perform every Sunday 1— 3 pm at Port of Edmonds
public plaza
• July 12: Low tide beach walk at Olympic Beach visitor station at 10 am
• July 14: Ranger Talk — Buoys and Gulls at the base of the Brackett's Landing north jetty at
2:30 pm
• July 15: Summer concerts begin at city park at 3pm
• July 15: Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tour, 11 am — 4 pm
• July 17: Hazel Miller Plaza Concerts begin at 12 pm
• July 19: Art Walk at 5pm
• July 19: Walk Back in Time & Open House, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium
at1pm
• July 19: Hazel Miller Plaza Evening Concerts begin at 5 pm
41Pane
Packet Pg. 15
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/11/2018
Public Hearing on Critical Areas Ordinance Updates to Specific Wetland Regulations
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Planning Board hearing an introduction to this limited code update at the June 13, 2018 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Forward recommendation to the City Council that the City of Edmonds critical area wetland regulations
be updated consistent with Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates as provided in Attachment 2.
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.
Packet Pg. 16
6.A
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Wetland Guidance Publication No. 16-06-001
Attachment 2 - Draft Wetland Code Amendments
Attachment 3 - June 13, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 17
6.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. 18
6.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
o Central Regional Office, Yakima
509-575-2490
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.
0
0
W
0
to
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.a
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 20
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
0
0
w
0
to
r
Packet Pg. 21
6.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 R
DEFINITIONS.....................................................................................................................
r
4 U
IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS ....................................................
5 0
REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES..................................................................................
a
7
EXEMPTIONS....................................................................................................................
7 2
2
FORESTPRACTICES..........................................................................................................
9
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
9 a
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts............
r
10 0
.....
O
WETLANDS INVENTORY.................................................................................................
10 T-
ABCs
6
z
10
.............................................................................................................................
0
BUFFERS.........................................................................................................................
1 1 CU
2
BUFFER AVERAGING......................................................................................................
13
d
MITIGATION...................................................................................................................
13 a�
c
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES
14
MitigationBanking...............................................................................................
15 t9
In -Lieu Fee (ILF)..................................................................................................
15
Off -Site Mitigation................................................................................................
16
AdvanceMitigation...............................................................................................
16 r
c
a�
Conclusion..................................................................................... 16 E
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51
Packet Pg. 22
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
0
0
w
0
to
r
Packet Pg. 23
6.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
habitats in exchange for buffer reduction —something that is often impossible in small,
urban jurisdictions.
Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your
particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
0
Specific changes to this new publication include: o
0
to
• Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system c
• Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system Z
• Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating o
system M
• Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used
• Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in a
exchange for buffer reduction c
• Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities a
• 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. 24
6.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
the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection
based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates
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
numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.)
Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations.
This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in a
regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical
Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of o
Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic c
Development) in November 2003 hqp://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- T-
Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pd£ This document revises the z°
wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook.
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. 25
6.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,
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
appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please
note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.)
In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers.
The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the c
conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis. o
0
to
• Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State c
Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013. Z
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. 26
6.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
does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The
SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring
Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the
"no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)).
You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter 3
the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the a
CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed c
without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP. o
0
to
For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the
shoreline planner for your area: z°
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html. c
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. 27
6.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 a
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to Fa
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands v
c
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do a
not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- L
wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage a1°,
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 a
result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may c
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland q
W
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. c
c�
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. 28
6.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 =
and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state
delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that a'
delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and
regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011. o
to
0
The GMA states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted T-
pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the z6
department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380." RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of r-
Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently 2
approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating 2
wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/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. 29
6.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
critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or
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
structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance.
Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place c
before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO q
adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate 9
clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community,
Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a z6
clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- c
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. 30
6.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 .
The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that Z
meet the GMA-required definition of "wetland" (see the definition of "wetland" in the a'
previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically
isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at o
times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use o
before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface T_
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by z6
your CAO. Please see hqp://www.ecy.wa.go) /programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for r_
more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands.
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. 31
6.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
apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 3 6.70A.7 10).
If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA o
responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will o
be achieved through the VSP work plan. 9
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. 32
6.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
information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your
jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition.
This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape -
analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for o
critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this o
approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.) 9
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. 33
6.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. 34
6.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 c
5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly c
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 =
habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will
have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas, a'
the best solution is a landscape -based approach that takes into account actual species use
and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach, o
jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter. c
to
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. 35
6.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
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
buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased.
Buffer Averaging
0
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain o
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width c
to
of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if
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. 36
6.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
2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation ' a
(credits).
0
0
The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit -debit o
method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland T_
mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and z6
worksheets can be downloaded at:
http : //www. ecy. wa. goylpro grams/sea/wetlandslmiti gationlcreditdebit/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. 37
6.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 G
have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the
L
purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A
mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit =
organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to
compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a a'
check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the
mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps, o
Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits. o
to
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. 38
6.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
known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance
mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in
distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance
mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project
affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios.
Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways. o
Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee's c
specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks �
provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" area. The z6
advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be c
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 .2
download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee- a
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see °U'
h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/Summgn Pages/1206015.html r_
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. 39
6.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.
0
0
W
0
to
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 17
Packet Pg. 40
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
0
0
w
0
to
r
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 18
Packet Pg. 41
6.A.a
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 19
Packet Pg. 42
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 20
0
0
w
0
to
Packet Pg. 43
6.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 2
stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing
storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality a
through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments, c
nutrients, and toxicants. G
�o
0
to
B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the
functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction). Z
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. 44
6.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
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that
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
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
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
human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions.
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than
1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal a
wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) o
wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 W
and 22 points). 9
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. 45
6.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
7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, Z
harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that a'
would alter the character of a regulated wetland.
0
0
8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992 c
Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222- T-
12-030, or as thereafter amended. z
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. 46
6.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:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated
buffers o
W
0
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic to
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. 47
6.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,
where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those
developments requiring local approval for Class 4 — General Forest
Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222-
12.
3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, o
and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or c
functions of the existing wetland. T_
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. 48
6.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
wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and
b. There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the
wetland, and
0
0
c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native c
amphibian species, and to
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. 49
6.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
is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as
defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. a
The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are c
available on the WDFW web site at: q
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm) 9
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the o
wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection C
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, 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. 50
6.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 XXA 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
0
0
W
0
to
Packet Pg. 51
6.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
0
0
W
0
to
Packet Pg. 52
6.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
0
0
W
0
to
Packet Pg. 53
6.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
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its o
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component c
adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual -rated" wetland to
with a Category I area adjacent to a lower -rated area. o
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. 54
6.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 c
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. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area
calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be a'
considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.
0
0
D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have o
buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on T_
the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. d
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. 55
6.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
maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility
or right-of-way.
5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural a
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the o
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water o
sources. T_
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. 56
6.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
attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of equal x
durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty .2
(50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, a
and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The
signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved g
by the Administrator: c
to
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. 57
6.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.
c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field a
data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic
data, etc. c
W
0
d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland T_
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. 58
6.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
compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any
wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land -use
activity.
k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that a'
addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland
functions. o
W
0
1. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include T_
references for the method used and data sheets. d
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. 59
6.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
operations.
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments.
6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective
measures when necessary. o
W
0
B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation: T-
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 E
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 2
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 37
Packet Pg. 60
6.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
bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service
area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a
wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed
if:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate
compensation for the proposed impacts; and
0
b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank. o
0
to
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the certified mitigation bank instrument. z°
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. 61
6.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 .2
functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net a
gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into:
0
0
a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or c
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or to
historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a c
gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include z
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. 2
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. 62
6.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.
I Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological c
characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific c
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 some wetland functions and can lead a'
to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in
wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, o
controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the o
proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination T_
of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or z°
associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will r_
increase the wetland's/buffer's functions, how this increase in function 2
will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland 2
functions at the mitigation site will be protected. ;
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. 63
6.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.
d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided
through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural ' a
land resource manager, such as a land trust.
0
0
e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative o
mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are T_
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. 64
6.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
by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site;
or
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
certified bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu -fee program to compensate for the c
impacts. G
W
0
5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be T_
appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, Z
compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or c
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. 65
6.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. 66
6.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:
i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s)
of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the =
proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation .2
concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal a
wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity
map for the project. g
W
ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to 9
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. 67
6.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 'a
and timing of activities. o
Cn
viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for vears host -
installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring 70
schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by
L
year. v
c
0
ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
wetlands after the development project has been implemented,
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for =
remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). 2
X. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, a'
including the following elements: site preparation, plant
0
materials, construction materials, installation oversight, q
maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual c
monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for T_
a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. Z
c
xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and °
buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation 0
areas. -2
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. 68
6.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
Chapter XX.XX.
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 o
years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be 9
required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring
elements that ensure certainty of success for the project's natural resource values and Z
functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the c
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. 69
6.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.
7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or a'
functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or
eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental o
alternative. c
to
8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in z6
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. 70
6.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 ;
replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, Z
sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated P-
at the location of the alteration. c
0
W
4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of c
to
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. 71
6.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
0
0
W
0
to
Packet Pg. 72
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 50
0
0
w
0
to
Packet Pg. 73
6.A.a
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 51
Packet Pg. 74
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 52
0
0
w
0
to
r
Packet Pg. 75
6.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 c
and management measures that: q
W
0
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high T_
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. 76
6.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
effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular =
place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any .2
resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact a
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions.
0
0
Development — A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of o
structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or co
minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent 6
nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall Z
c
within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code. 2
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. 77
6.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 o
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 a
increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre -development or pre -developed
conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops,
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, v
gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which c
similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
L
In -Kind Compensation — To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose
characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a 2
regulated activity. 3
a
In -Lieu -Fee Program — An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or c
local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit o
organization. Under an in -lieu -fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from 9
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 Z
pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of c
the agreement to satisfy the permittees' required mitigation.
Infiltration — The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. a
as
Interdunal Wetland — A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are
geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of c�
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. 78
6.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,
and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
(f) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial
action when necessary.
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. 79
6.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.
Qualified Professional — A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional
wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands a'
professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements,
preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and o
implementing mitigation plans. c
to
Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological c
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former Z
c
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in C
wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or 0
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 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. 80
6.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 a
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, o
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.) o
to
Stream — An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not z6
including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other r_
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 2
water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of 3
normal rainfall. a
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. 81
6.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.
0
0
W
0
to
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 59
Packet Pg. 82
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 U
meeting the wetland designation criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas
and are subject to the provisions of this title. a
M
B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washingtonpartment 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 -�0a
determining whether the criteria below are met. Wetlands shall be Fa4e l aeeefdiag to the Washington Sta4eDepa-i4ment of Eeelagy wetland Fa4ing system fb�d in the 2014 Washington State Aletland Ra4ing System fef
Westem Washington Eealegy Publiemian No. 14 06 029. Consistent with the wetland f:a4iag system efitefia and
Q.
d
levels,pafametefs within this daeument, wetlands that afe fated fef: eealegieal Alffetions with highest P044 tetals (23 Pe
=a
"efeas wetlands that afe fated with lewest paiH4 tetals (15 pain4s of lawef) peffafffi eealegieal flanetieffs a4 lowest O
levels. Wetlands that are rated with points between 16 and 22 points perform ecological fanetions at moderate to (n
high levels. c° .,
s. L
a
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) a
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)
0
wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1Lpresent unique or
rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, (3) are relatively undisturbed and
L
contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level
d
of functions. _
2
2. Category 11. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; a
or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). y
c
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 4)
some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Q
Category II wetlands. m
0
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and V
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
r
may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree.
r
5. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the a
applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
N
r
C
d
E
.... .�,......b.,.� � ..............�. .........b.,.) .. .............� ..........., �........... ...t,...�....., .........,....J ,.......J ................fit..., ..... �
re sensitive te distffbanee than most afe C1
,r-elmively undistufbed and eefftaia eeelegiealattribu�es thm are impossible to Feplaee within a human lifetime; or- pfevide a high level of flanetion. The -
f0
++
i. Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger- than one acre; E
a
C
t
V
2
r
r
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 83
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. 84
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. 85
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.1.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
m
d
a
U
0
d
M
a
d
c
0
c
O
w
M
d
Q
M
U
V
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 86
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)
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 87
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
g. 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
200 220
300
CategoryI
A300
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
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 88
Edmonds
Page 7/13
M..tland Categoryseores
Minimum R-iMr--
3 A habitat points)
8..4'4pr- MUM
seores(Wetland
points)
R.. ii... 7V:.741.
�T�QBiz �
�'s)habitat
il..{'{'... TI7:.741.
(Wetland 9
�'TaZranal-SE�iTO�
Ga4egefyT•
R ase,.l .. t a I n e
7"
Mn
165
poi
-2-2t t
Category 1:
valueBegs and wetlands of high
1 (4)
l OVA
1 (4)
"1
Category 1:
Forested
7-5-A
Gat
P
13e
use
13e
ci
Based an seefe
7-5-pp
Yl -n`
Y65
Category M (a14)
60-A
193
165
163 t1
1H4
4"
4"
4-0-tt
49
c
d
v
d
0.
U
0
N
d
M
sa.
d
v
c
c
L
O
w
M
d
L
a
�L
U
N
r
C
d
E
t
C,1
a
E
M
a
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 89
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. 90
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-eef' 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. 91
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. 92
6.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. 93
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. 94
6.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. 95
6.A.c
ADUs can be a key strategy, and he is glad to see the concept reflected in the draft document. He emphasized that the Housing
Strategy is the beginning of the conversation, and any kind of real structural change will have to go through another process,
including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where issues such as infrastructure impacts will be discussed.
Chair Monroe asked if the fire and police departments have been involved in the Housing Strategy process. Mr. Shipley said
the draft document is intended to provide broad -level list of housing strategies. As the City begins to select strategies for
implementation, the fire and police departments will be invited to engage in the discussions and share their thoughts on potential
impacts.
Mr. Lien announced that there is a link to the Housing Strategy website on the City's homepage, and the Housing Strategy
website has a link for written comments. All written comments will be incorporated into the record.
The Board took a short break at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m.
INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE — WETLANDS
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as required by the
Growth Management Act (GMA) in May 2016, with adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section (ECDC 23.50) of
that document was based on the Department of Ecology's (DOE) "Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. "
However, in June of 2016, the DOE subsequently issued new guidance for wetlands in a publication titled, "Wetland Guidance
for CAO Updates. " When the more recent guidance was published, the City was in the process of completing a comprehensive
update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the City Council indicated a desire to incorporate the most current
regulations within the SMP, which means that the regulations in the SMP are different than what's in the CAO.
Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) conflict with each
other. The SMA rules in shoreline jurisdictions within 200 feet of shorelines, and the GMA rules outside of the shoreline
jurisdictions. The CAO implements the GMA and the SMP implements the SMA. Currently, the City has two versions of
wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
The City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019, and the overall plan is to update the CAO before
completing the periodic review of the SMP and then adopt the CAO again.
Mr. Lien advised that the SMP adopted most of the CAO regulations, but there were some that were excepted out. In particular,
the wetland ratings were excepted out because the new guidance came out after the CAD was adopted. The proposed
amendments would update the CAO to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance from the DOE. When the SMP is
revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City.
Mr. Lien advised that two other minor revisions to the CAO are also being proposed. He reviewed that during the last CAO
update, a new provision was added that dealt with adding or developing within the footprint of existing development that
required some enhancement. A proposed amendment would delete the "allowed activity" section in ECDC 23.50.020.E, to be
consistent with the updated regulations. Another amendment would correct a scrivener's error in the Wetland Buffer Averaging
section. As part of the CAO update, the wetland buffer cannot be reduced by more than 25%, but language was inadvertently
left in that said a buffer could be reduced by 50%. He summarized that the main intent of the amendments is to make sure that
the wetland regulations, ratings, buffers and mitigation measures, as well as a section dealing with small wetlands, are updated
consistent with the most recent wetland guidance.
Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendments would maintain, strengthen or weaken the protection of wetlands.
Mr. Lien answered that because the changes are based on the DOE's newest guidance document that is based on Best Available
Science (BAS), the City's regulations would be strengthened to provide greater protection. The first change has to do with
how wetlands are categorized, and the proposed amendment would simply add more description without significantly changing
the protection. He explained how wetland determinations and categorizations are done using the Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington and advised that the buffer requirements in the DOE's newest guidance document are similar to those in
the current CAO. However, the newest guidance requires certain mitigation measures for each wetland classification. If the
mitigation measures are not met, the buffers are enlarged. To make this clear, the update includes two buffer tables, one to
identify the buffers that apply if you do the required mitigation measures and a second table with wider buffers that would
Planning Board Minutes
June 13, 2018 Page 12
Packet Pg. 96
6.A.c
apply if you don't do the mitigation measures. He noted that most of the wetlands in Edmonds are Category III or IV, and the
Edmonds Marsh is a Category II. The SMP update established a 125-foot setback around the Edmonds Marsh (110-foot buffer
and a 15-foot building setback).
Mr. Lien advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendments is scheduled for July 11tn
Chair Monroe asked if there are any cons to the proposed amendments. Mr. Lien said he could not come up with any. The
amendments will provide greater protection and are consistent with the latest guidance from the DOE. Chair Monroe asked if
the proposed amendments would further limit a developer's ability to develop near a wetland. Mr. Lien answered, provided a
developer does the mitigation measures, the buffer requirements would not change. He briefly reviewed the mitigation
measures, noting that none of them are particularly onerous over what is currently required. There is also flexibility in the code
via buffer averaging and buffer width reductions. In addition, development is allowed within the previously developed footprint
with enhancement, and there is flexibility for some small additions within the buffers. He reminded the Board that much of
Edmonds was developed before any environmental regulations, and a lot of the current development is within the buffer areas.
Board Member Lovell asked if the City has a map that identifies the wetlands areas by category. Mr. Lien answered that this
would be a very expensive proposition. However, the web map includes all of the critical area layers. It is a generalized map
and not a regulatory map. The most prevalent critical areas in Edmonds are geologically hazardous areas. Anytime
development is proposed within a critical area, the applicant is required to fill out a Critical Area Checklist and City staff does
a quick map review and site visit. When an applicant applies for a Development Permit, staff takes a closer look at the critical
area to determine whether or not a Critical Area Report will be required.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the June 27" agenda will be a continued discussion and possible recommendation on the Housing
Strategy and an introduction to the SMP periodic review. The July 1 lth agenda will be public hearings on the CAO update and
code updates for permit decision making.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe commented that the public hearing went well, and the comments were evenly split between pros and cons. He
heard support for the ADU concept. However, the City needs to do a better job of educating the public on the housing issues.
There seems to be a perception that homelessness equals crime and drugs, which is an unfair representation of that population.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell cautioned that the Board will face challenges when and if the Strategy is adopted by the City Council
and it comes back to them to develop a specific implementation plan that includes regulation and zoning changes. These
changes will require a lot of work by the Board.
Board Member Crank recalled comments she made early in the Housing Strategy discussion about the importance of educating
and communicating with the public. When people hear the term affordable housing, they tend to think crime -ridden projects.
She challenged the Planning Board and the City Council to be very intentional with what this term means and not just leave it
to interpretation. They have to do a better of job of conveying the intent to provide housing opportunities for people who
already live in Edmonds. They are not trying to move people into Edmonds from other communities. The community she
lived in in the Bay Area used in -lieu fees to purchase property when it became available to accommodate affordable housing
complexes that were owned by the city. A process was established that the first people who could apply to live in the units
were teachers, public safety workers, and certain long-term residents. These complexes are now full of people who already
lived or worked in the City. She hopes the Board will use this example and keep in mind who they are trying to serve with the
strategies.
Board Member Rubenkonig said that during the break, numerous people commented on how much they appreciated how well
the meeting was conducted and the information that was provided. Several specifically said that what they felt got the people
most concerned was the graphic in the Housing Strategy of the tiny homes that are similar to those that have been used in
Planning Board Minutes
June 13, 2018 Page 13
Packet Pg. 97
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/11/2018
Recommendation for Draft Housing Strategy
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Purpose of Housing StrategV
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. Also, how to meet diverse needs --including for seniors and people with different abilities,
family sizes, and backgrounds --is an issue we face.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of
housing affordable for a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. A draft strategy has been
developed. A recommendation for it may be made at the Planning Board's July 11 meeting.
The Housing Strategy provides guidance and direction on activities the City can engage in to improve
housing opportunities. It does not automatically create changes to the status quo. For example, any
actual code or budget changes related to this Strategy would be subject to having specific details
proposed first and the full proposal considered under a separate public process.
Citv Council Involvement
The City Council adopted the citywide Comprehensive Plan to include the requirement for developing a
housing strategy. The Council approved of Edmonds becoming a member of the Alliance for Housing
Affordability, a countywide organization. It has had numerous briefings and discussions on housing and
homelessness issues over the last three years and has taken action on some items. The Council will have
more direct review and discussion of the proposed Housing Strategy later this summer.
Planning Board Involvement
The Planning Board has discussed housing issues and strategies many times.
Between 2015 and early 2018, housing topics were on the Board's agenda 35 times.
Planning Board input was built into the draft Housing Strategy.
On May 23, the Planning Board reviewed and discussed an early draft of the Housing Strategy.
On June 13, the Planning Board held a public hearing, which included numerous public
comments; the Board also received written comments.
On June 27, the Planning Board discussed the draft Strategy and provided input on revisions and
next steps.
Packet Pg. 98
7.A
Task Force
In the summer of 2017, Mayor Earling appointed the Housing Strategy Task Force to make
recommendations for City actions that could be incorporated into a housing strategy that would
increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse housing needs. The nine task force
members are primarily housing experts. (See Attachment 1.) The Task Force met six times between
September 2017 and May 2018 and made recommendations for the draft Housing Strategy.
Public Outreach
Public outreach about the development of a housing strategy included:
Housing forum in the spring of 2017 (co -sponsored by the City)
Four press releases
News articles (in My Edmonds News, the Beacon, and City of Edmonds Newsletter)
Website (see<https://www.edmondshousingstrategV.org/>) with information regularly
updated about the task force, meetings, the draft strategy, and more
Facebook posting
Public open house on May 21, 2018
Planning Board public hearing on June 13, 2018
Planning Board public meeting on June 27, 2018
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Option A below. But if the Planning Board wants a substantive change to the
Strategy, it should try Option B.
Option A (for recommending the current Draft Strategy basically as is):
1. Move that the Draft Housing Strategy, as presented, be forwarded to the City Council with a
recommendation for adoption.
Option B (for recommending the current Draft Strategy with specific changes):
1. Move to recommend the Draft Housing Strategy be changed by ; and
2. Move to forward the Draft Housing Strategy, with the Planning Board's recommended changes,
to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
NOTES:
o Neither option above prevents any technical corrections from being made to the draft prior to
City Council consideration.
o Per Option B, any substantive changes to the current draft Strategy will depend on a vote by the
Planning Board.
Narrative
The draft Housing Strategy has been slightly revised from the last version reviewed by the Planning
Board on June 13 and June 27. The revisions reflect the Board's June 27 discussion. This new version
(see Attachment 2) provides additional context and clarification to the Strategy without changing the
substance of its goals and actions. Below, clarifications and notable changes are summarized.
Clarifications (related to June 27 Planning Board discussion)
The current draft Housing Strategy, with some minor clarifications, includes:
d Edmonds as an inclusive community, not trying to exclude people of middle or less income
levels (see current draft, pages 9, 17, etc.)
d Opportunities to have housing for all household sizes -for example, one -person to large families,
Packet Pg. 99
7.A
as well as groups of people such as seniors in assisted living (see current draft, pages 9-17, etc.)
8 Relevance to people who already are part of the community (see current draft, esp. pages 11-
16)
S Options for innovative tools, including finance tools using new technology (see current draft,
page 25)
S Inclusion of Police Department input, especially regarding homelessness (pages 29-30, 49-50,
etc.)
Notable changes (related to June 27 Planning Board discussion)
Notable changes in the current draft Housing Strategy include:
6 Additional language about context of the Strategy-i.e., that the Strategy is a broad policy guide,
with more specific actions, such as budget or code amendments to be considered later and
subject to more public input (see page 10 of current draft)
6 New example of someone who could benefit from attainable housing options in Edmonds (see
page 13, RH side, of current draft)
6 Additional language to explain certain wage data (see page 13 of current draft, new Footnote 6,
and also new glossary item for household income)
6 Elimination of a "tiny homes" image from cover page (see cover page of current draft)
Next Steps
July 11 Meeting
At the July 11 Planning Board meeting, city staff and the consultant will summarize current
changes/clarifications to the draft Strategy. A reminder will be made that the expected outcome of the
Board's discussion is a recommendation to the City Council.
The Planning Board may ask questions or discuss items. Following questions or discussion:
A. A Board member may move to recommend that the draft Strategy be forwarded to the City
Council and commended for adoption (See Option A in the "Recommendation" section above).
B. Any Board member who wants a substantive amendment to the draft Strategy should make a
motion (that gets seconded) to amend the Strategy with the specific desired language.
o The Board could then vote on each amendment, one -by -one or, if desired, on a small set
of amendments.
o A Board member would make a motion to recommend an action by the Council on the
draft Strategy. (See Option B in the "Recommendation" section above.)
Note: The Board's adopted recommendation to the City Council should be brief, stating the desired
end result. (For more detailed information, the Council will be able to refer to meeting minutes and
other materials.)
After July 11
The draft Housing Strategy, including the Planning Board's recommendation and other information, will
be considered by the City Council, who is responsible for the final decision. Council meetings are
tentatively planned as:
6 July 24--Introduction
6 August 7--Public hearing
6 August 21--Discussion and direction
6 August 28--Additional discussion and possible wrap-up
6 September 4--Finalize (?)
6 Other meetings as needed.
Approval or adoption of the final Housing Strategy by the City Council will provide direction on more
specific actions that can be undertaken in the near future --but will not automatically change city
budgets and codes. Any actions that amend city codes or budget will be decided only after necessary
Packet Pg. 100
7.A
details are spelled out and a public process takes place so that community input and other information
can be considered.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Housing Task Force Member List
Attachment 2: Edmonds Housing Strategy DRAFT 2018_0705
Packet Pg. 101
7.A.a
Y CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Updated 5/18
MEMBERS
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 & Snohomish County
Rob Van Tassell
Catholic Housing of Western Washington
Anne Wermus
Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition
CITY STAFF
Shane Hope, Director of Development Services
Shane.hope@edmondswa.gov
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov
Packet Pg. 102
M m 46
03 ►I 901\ 1
7.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) 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/wwwfacebook.com/EdmondsSeniorCenter/
(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-
proiect.html
Third Row
(Left) Edmonds Lutheran Church and Compass Housing Alliance have partnered to
develop a multistory housing development for low-income individuals and couples
in the City of Edmonds. The housing will feature an innovative new modular building
technique that greatly shortens design and construction time to lower costs.
https://edmon dsbeacon.villogesoup. com/p/Seattle-startup-chooses-edmonds-for-first-s tackab/e-ho using-
proiect/1756401
(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-
proiect.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/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.
htto://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://www.apartments.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 kcha. orq/housing/property ospx?PropertvlD=1
Packet Pg. 104
7.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. 105
7.A.b
Q
Packet Pg. 106
7.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
0
a Housing Strategy?
r
U)
The City's 2016 Comprehensive
Plan includes an Implementing
to
Action to develop a strategy by
0
2019 for increasing the supply of
=
affordable housing for all income
levels and meeting diverse
p`
housing needs.
c
0
c
m
E
0
U
a�
5
Packet Pg. 107
7.A.b
91MAIIIIJ044
RM
DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY
I JULY 201 8
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
[percent
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
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. 108
7.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
L
vJ
a�
0
2
L
L
0
r_
0
r
c
aD
E
E
0
0
aD
W
Packet Pg. 109
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Cost -Burdened Households and Current Income-
f°
r
Restricted Housing Inventory
11
U)
c
Exhibit 2
Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds
14
y
Exhibit 3
Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by
3
=
Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded)
15
c�
L
Exhibit 4
Median Family Income
35
Exhibit 5
Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by
L
Housing Tenure
36
0
Exhibit 6
Edmonds Housing Inventory
36
r
-a
Exhibit 7
Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes
37
c
E
Exhibit 8
Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units
0
by Income Level, 2017
39
Exhibit 9
Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level
,n
Compared to Household Need
40
ti
0
Exhibit 10
Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018
40
ao�
Exhibit 11
Low -wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to
N
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. 110
7.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 an inclusive, 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 for younger
community members who can contribute to our city's economic and
civic vitality. This requires different kinds of housing that meetthe 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. 111
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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 implement a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would
increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels
and meet diverse housing needs.
In 2017 the 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.
The Strategy gives direction and guidance for many actions that
would be explored or implemented in the near future. Actions, such as
code amendments and budget adoption, are also subject to separate
processes to establish more detail and provide for public input.
10
Packet Pg. 112
7.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 Income -Restricted Housing Inventory
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, 2018 AMI is
$96,000.
Households
2,500 Total Households
Total Households 2,250
2,045 Total Households
ffjj.0 1,945
2,000 ' Total Households
1,690
Cost -burdened
1,500 Households
1,570
1,000
500 Income -Restricted
Housing Units
Cost -burdened
Households
1,490
It
Cost -burdened
Households
1,075
Income -Restricted
Income -Restricted
Housing Units
Housing Units
I
Total Households
9,510
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.
11
Packet Pg. 113
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
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. 114
7.A.b
W_
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).6 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 theirworkplace. 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
production of subsidized income -restricted
affordable housing. However, increasing the
or "micro -housing" can also help to provide
<ers 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).
6 Note that some individuals work more than one job and some households have
more than one worker. So, wage levels do not necessarily reflect total household
income. However, many households in Edmonds are composed of a single worker
living alone and many people would prefer to work only one job. Therefore,
comparing local wage levels to housing costs is one important way to determine
whether the current housing supply is affordable to the local workforce.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Moderate -Income
Family Household
Image: Department of Defense
A military veteran has returned
home and is now working as an
entry-level fire fighter, earning
$69,000 per year. His wife works
half-time as a coffee barista and
earns an average of $14,300
per year. Together they support
three children on a combined
household income of $83,400,
or about 87 percent of AMI. With
this income, the family could
afford up to $2,085 per month in
rent. Yet, the average cost to rent
a single family home in Edmonds
is over $2,400.* Home -ownership
opportunities are even further
out of reach.
Moderate -income family
households like this one need
more rental and ownership
housing opportunities. Edmonds
current has a very limited stock of
lower cost family housing such as
townhomes, duplexes, or small -
lot single family cottage homes.
The City can enable and promote
the development of these
housing types through targeted
rezones and code amendments
that add flexibility. Doing so will
help meet the needs of a wider
range of household types and
income levels.
Zillow Rent Index (single family
residences), May 2018
Packet Pg. 115
7.A.b
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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. 116
7.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 income -restricted housing is needed to meet
the needs of low-income households.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Teacher Supporting a Family of Four
A family of four with o�
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 LaborStatistics 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. 117
7.A.b
91MAIIIIJ044
RM DRAFT
EDMOND�- HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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! 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.
7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 2011-2015
16
Packet Pg. 118
7.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. 119
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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 some prior years, especially during the recession periood. More
recently, since 2014, the City has added an average of 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. 120
7.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 with higher levels of transit service can
support transit -oriented development (TOD). This can include not only
targeted rezoning and code refinementfor 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) and an 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 increased 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. 121
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
111.1neft,
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 housing. 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
efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate
W
L
CnIIr^
c
.y
3
O
2
r
O
c
O
r
R
C
N
E
O
U
W
20
Packet Pg. 122
7.A.b
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 construction,
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 of these programs in Edmonds.
This can include web and hard -copy informational handouts, city email
newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches.
Next Steps
• Review buildable lands and the status of developed single-
family areas in Edmonds to determine some potential areas for
upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential
development.
• When considering changes to development codes, 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. 123
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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. 124
7.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 large -lot 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 or code amendments 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 buildable 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. 125
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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 review its programs to provide relief for the cost of utilities
to provide support to seniors and other groups. Current City utility
programs offer some discounts to low-income residents.
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
24 and other special needs populations.
Packet Pg. 126
7.A.b
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.
4. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF INCOME 1W
-
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI
or below, it is unlikely that the market can provide housing that
is affordable. Actions should be taken by the City to support and
encourage the development of income -restricted housing through
funding contributions, reducing costs to build new affordable housing
projects, and incentives to include affordable units in new market -
rate developments. The City can also encourage innovative private or
nonprofit financing tools for housing types that are more difficult to
finance in the traditional market. The tools may include methods that
use technology in new ways. Increasing the supply of income -restricted
affordable housing can be most effectively pursued in partnership
with other agencies and nonprofits such as the Alliance for Affordable
Housing, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, Housing Hope,
YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Verdant.
Recommended Actions
4.1 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for
affordable housing development. The City should develop an inventory
of public- or nonprofit -owned properties that are vacant or underutilized
and then assess which properties are potentially suitable for affordable
housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize
opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through
the direct voluntary donation of parcels. The City could also consider
raising funds through the sale of surplus properties that are not suitable
for affordable housing development. Proceeds from the sale of these
properties could be used to support affordable housing projects.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Shoreline Density Bonus
Under the Shoreline Municipal
Code, density bonuses are
provided in multifamily areas,
with up to a 50 percent increase
in density provided for units
affordable for households with
incomes up to 80 percent AMI.
Covenants are registered on the
property to retain this affordable
housing on the site for a 30-year
period.
25
Packet Pg. 127
7.A.b
Er
HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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
4.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing
development targeted at 0-30 percent AMI. The City should allocate
funding to help support an affordable housing project targeted for
extremely low-income households. A contribution by the City can
greatly improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant
funding, such as 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 up to 12 years if income -restricted units are maintained in the
development. This program is currently applied to the Highway-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. 128
7.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 Keep reduced 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 where
possible.
DRAFT
27
Packet Pg. 129
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
4.10 Support the use of Historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in
conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
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 exist for affordable, flexible
housing options.
28
Packet Pg. 130
7.A.b
The reasons that people become homeless are many. They may be EXAMPLE:
based on temporary or long-term problems, including loss of a job Tiny Homes in Seattle
or home, domestic abuse, physical conditions, trauma, addictions,
or mental illness. The City can and should coordinate with nonprofit
and regional partners to identify roles it can play in helping to tackle
these problems in addition to helping find shelter for those in need.
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 of 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, south county cities, 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. For example, the City of Lynnwood is currently seeking
partners to help support the purchase and operation of a local motel
for expanding south county shelter capacity.
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
DRAFT
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, and
other organizations have recently
allowed all Othello Village
tiny houses to install heat and
electricity. The Village is owned
and operated by the Low -Income
Housing Institute (LIHI), which
also provide case management
services. Donations to LIHI also
fund the materials for the tiny
houses, which cost about $2,200
per house; construction is mostly
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.
Packet Pg. 131
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
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.
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 not yet able to access
more permanent housing options.
5.5 Explore partnerships to keep and expand winter shelter
programs. The City could work in partnership with nonprofits to expand
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 results of the separate 2018 homelessness study being
conducted by the City and decide priorities from it.
• 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. 132
7.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. 133
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 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. 134
M m 46
03 ►I 901\ 1
7.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) 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/wwwfacebook.com/EdmondsSeniorCenter/
(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-
proiect.html
Third Row
(Left) Edmonds Lutheran Church and Compass Housing Alliance have partnered to
develop a multistory housing development for low-income individuals and couples
in the City of Edmonds. The housing will feature an innovative new modular building
technique that greatly shortens design and construction time to lower costs.
https://edmon dsbeacon.villogesoup. com/p/Seattle-startup-chooses-edmonds-for-first-s tackab/e-ho using-
proiect/1756401
(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-
proiect.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/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.
htto://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://www.apartments.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 kcha. orq/housing/property ospx?PropertvlD=1
Packet Pg. 136
7.A.b
ndix A.
Edmonds Housing
Needs Assessment
The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing.
Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that
match a diverse array of different household types and income levels.
This appendix presents an assessment of the current housing supply
and housing needs in Edmonds, across the full spectrum of household
types and income levels.
Household Incomes in Edmonds
When summarizing housing affordability by income level, household
income is typically compared to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income, orAMI. In Snohomish
County, AMI is $96,000. Exhibit 4 compares AMI to median income in
Edmonds for families (households with two or more related persons)
and non -families. Family incomes are typically higher than non -family
due to the potential for dual income households. However, the gap in
Edmonds is particularly wide with the median non -family income being
less than 50 percent of AMI.
Snohomish County 2017 HUD
Median Family Income (AMI)
Edmonds Median
Family Income
Edmonds Median
Non -Family Income
Exhibit 5 on the following page breaks down all households in Edmonds
by income level and housing tenure. It shows a significant divide
between renter and owner -occupied households. Only 31 percent of
renter households earn at or above AMI, compared to 65 percent of
owner -occupied households.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT 4
Median Family Income
Source: HUD, 2017; 2012-2016 American
Community Survey (S1901); BERK, 2018.
35
Packet Pg. 137
7.A.b
EDMC
DRAFT
HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
EXHIBIT 5
Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure
L
IIr^
V!
All Households 11% 13% 10% 55%
.y
3
O
2
Renter 18% 20% 10% 31%
L
C
Owner 10, 9% 65%
r
O
c
■ 30% or less ■ 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% _ Above 100% E
1=
Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates). E
V
N
w
Housing Supply in Edmonds ti
There are 18,663 housing units in Edmonds. As shown in Exhibit 6,
nearly two thirds of these units are single family homes and nearly
one third are in multifamily buildings with five or more units, such as
apartments and condominiums. Only 7 percent of all units are in smaller
multifamily buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes.
EXHIBIT 6
Edmonds Housing Inventory
SING
JTORY
1 7)
Single Family
Duplexes
Multi -family (3 or 4 Units)
Multi -family (5+ Units)
Mobile Homes
Source: Washington State
Office of Financial Management
(OFM), 2018; BERK, 2018.
36
Packet Pg. 138
7.A.b
DRAFT
Exhibit 7 breaks down the housing stock in Edmonds by number of
bedrooms (in green) and households by household size (in yellow). Over
60 percent of the housing units in Edmonds have 3 or more bedrooms,
yet over 70 percent of the households have only 1 or 2 members. One
explanation for this mismatch is the large number of "empty nest" or
childless couples living in large single-family homes. Nonetheless there
is a severe lack of smaller format housing available to single workers
or small families seeking to live in Edmonds. Likewise, there are few
options available to existing households in Edmonds, such as retirees,
who may wish to downsize their home and stay in the community.
45%
EXHIBIT 7
o
Household (HH) Sizes Compared
40r
to Housing Unit Sizes
N
O 35 %
2
Source: U.S. Census American Community
W_
Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015.
O 30%
_
v 25%
wL'
W
a
20%
4%
15% 11%
45%
_
G1
v
wL'
W
a
1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4 Person HH 5+ Person HH
35%
No Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ Bedroom
37
Packet Pg. 139
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Ownership Housing
The cost of ownership housing in Edmonds is on the rise and out of
reach of most Snohomish County residents. During the past six years
median home values in Edmonds have increased by $240,000. Today
a household needs to make over $150,000 a year to afford the median
value home. That is 159 percent of area median family income.
The ownership housing market in Edmonds is dominated by large
single-family homes. There are very few options for smaller and
middle -income households seeking to get a foothold in the ownership
housing market through the purchase of a condo or small townhome.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING
Median home values have
increased by $240,000
over the past b years
$554,400
$314,500
SEP I I
SEP'17
Sources: Zillow Home Value Index, 2017; BERK, 2017
$152,556
(159% of county AMI)
Annual household
income needed to
afford median
value home
38
Packet Pg. 140
7.A.b
Rental Housing in Edmonds
Rental housing in Edmonds is significantly more affordable than
ownership. However, costs are rising, and options are limited for low
and moderate incomes households. As shown in Exhibit 8, one and
two -bedroom apartments in Edmonds are affordable to households
earning 60 percent of AMI or above. Households earning 50 percent
of AMI cannot afford average rents for any unit size.
EXHIBIT 8
Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017
80%
60%
50% or less
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: Dupre+Scott, 2017; HUD, 2017; BERK, 2018.
The rental market in Edmonds includes units available at a variety of
affordability levels. Exhibit 9 breaks down all renter households in
Edmonds by income level and compares it to the rental housing supply
by affordability level, based on Census data collected from 2010 to
2014. It shows that there was a significant shortage of units available
for households with incomes at 30 percent of AMI or less, as well as
a shortage of units for middle and upper income households (above
80 percent AMI). However, the following chart, Exhibit 10, shows that
average rents have risen by over $600 since March 2011at a rate of 4.6
percent per year. Therefore, it is likely that the supply of units affordable
to lower income households, particularly those below 50 percent of
AMI, is significantly diminished today. Furthermore, undersupply of
units at higher affordability levels results (>80 percent AMI) results in
middle and higher income households competing for units that would
be affordable to lower income households. This diminishes the supply
of units available to those lower income households.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 141
7.A.b
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
EXHIBIT 9
Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need
3,000
Households
2,500 0 Units Available 2,235
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010-2014 5-year
estimates); BERK, 2018.
Source: Zillow, 2018;
BERK, 2018.
1,925
1,150
975
435
940
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI
Household Income as a Percent of HUD Area Median Family Income
EXHIBIT 10
Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018
C $2,500
21
c
0 $2,000
$1,699
Z1 -
$1,500
DRAFT
$2,327
$1,000 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
40
Packet Pg. 142
7.A.b
Housing Needs by Household Type
This section presents indicators of housing need based on the latest
and best available data. Since housing costs are rising fast in Edmonds
and neighboring communities, it is likely that many of these indicators
underestimate the full extent of needs in the current housing market.
Most notably, the estimates of cost -burdened households (those with
housing costs that exceed 30 percent of household income) are based
on household survey data collected between the years of 2010 and
2014. A lot has changed since this period. In 2010 the region was still
in the early stage of recovery from an economic recession and housing
market decline. The recent period of rapidly rising housing costs didn't
begin until around 2013, near the end of the survey period. Despite
these limitations, these indicators do provide a sense of scale of the
problem among different household types and income levels.
Low-income 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 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.
8 Source ofemploymentstatistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap
Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
DRAFT
41
Packet Pg. 143
7.A.b
')ND�- HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
EXHIBIT 11
Low -wage Workers Commuting Long
Distances to Jobs Located in Edmonds
Very LAW Waqe Workers
Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250
Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375
936 �F
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 Rent2: up to $1,000
658
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015; BERK, 2017
(1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket.
Exhibit 12 provides estimates for low-income non -elderly renter
households who are living in Edmonds and have incomes between 30
and 50 percent of AMI (or between roughly $20,000 and $50,000 a
year depending on household size). It shows the largest need is among
workers living alone and smaller families. It is likely that the majority of
small families have only two members.
Market -rate apartment rents Edmonds are not significantly more than
what is affordable to many low -wage workers earning 50 percent of AMI,
42
Packet Pg. 144
7.A.b
EXHIBIT 12
Renter Households with Incomes 30-50% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost -Burdened
Persons Living Alone or in
Non -Family Hoseholds
Small Families
(2-4 Persons)
Small Families
(5+ Persons)
0 100 200 300
400
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010-2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
although this varies by household size. The biggest problem is the lack
of supply. Even in cases where market rents are somewhat higher than
the affordability level for lower income workers, many of these workers
could save a great deal of money in transportation costs if they had the
opportunity to live closer to their workplace. However, fully addressing
the needs of low-income workers will require more income -restricted
housing available to qualifying households based on income level.
Moderate -income Workforce Housing
Households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of AMI are
typically considered moderate income and have unique housing needs.
Exhibit 13 shows the number of moderate income remter households
in Edmonds by household type. In addition to those households living
in Edmonds, there are over 800 workers earning 40 percent of AMI or
EXHIBIT 13
Renter Households with Incomes 50-80% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost -Burdened
Persons Living Alone or in
Non -Family Hoseholds
Small Families
(2-4 Persons)
Small Families
(5+ Persons)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DRAFT
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010-2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
43
Packet Pg. 145
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
above that commute over 25 miles to jobs in Edmonds.' Presumably
many of these households would prefer to live closer to their jobs if
suitable housing was available.
Special Needs Populations
Senior Households
One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share
is expected to grow significantly during the next 10 years. Exhibit 14
breaks down the population of Edmonds by age group. This shows that
there are over 7,000 residents aged 55-65 who will become seniors
within the next 10 years.
EXHIBIT 14
Edmonds Population by Age Range
c 4,000
a � �
0 3,000
d
2,000
Source: American Community 11000
Survey 5-Year estimates,
2011-2015; BERK, 2017
Age LO 0- v o- v o` v o- v o` v o, v o- v o- v
O r r (V (V CO CO v v LO LO 0 0 r-, r-, 00 �
-0O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
c LO -a
D O LO O LO O LO O Lr) O Lo O Lo O LO O c
N N M M y v LO LO 0 0 r\ r� M O
LO
00
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
9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination
Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
44
Packet Pg. 146
7.A.b
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. There are 3,200 senior households in
Edmonds with incomes below AMI. Over half of these households are
cost burdened and over a quarter of those households are renters.
Exhibit 15 breaks down these households by income level. The greatest
need is among those with incomes below 50 percent of AMI.
EXHIBIT 15
Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level
1,200
O
s Senior Living Alone
O
1,000 Senior Family
O
2
800
600
400
200
Extremely Very Low -Income Moderate Income
Low -Income Low -Income (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI)
(<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI)
There are a variety of housing solutions that can help meet the needs of
low and moderate -income senior households. These include income -
restricted senior living facilities with coordinated support services
available onsite. Attached and detached accessory dwelling units can
also be a good solution for many seniors. For instance, many senior
households in Edmonds are homeowners. Those seeking to semi -
independently age in place with the support of family can do so by
moving into an accessory dwelling unit, freeing up the main home for
family.
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010-2014 5-year
estimates), BERK, 2018.
DRAFT
45
Packet Pg. 147
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMC HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Homelessness
a�
r
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 2017.10 Chronic homelessness has increased at y
an even faster rate, from 135 in 2013 to 313 in 2017. Many factors can =
contribute to homelessness and present barriers to housing stability.
L
These include poverty, lack of affordable housing, disability, domestic o
L
violence, mental illness, criminal records, and addiction. Reliable data
for quantifying homelessness within the City of Edmonds is limited. o
.2
The 2017 Snohomish County Point -in -Time (PIT) count indicates that
there were six unsheltered persons who slept in Edmonds the previous
night and four unsheltered persons whose last permanent residence E
was in Edmonds. These are very likely to be undercounts. In southern aooi
Snohomish County, "job loss" and "family crisis/Break up" were the S
most common reasons for homelessness. o
Data about homeless students from the Edmonds School District
are more comprehensive. Exhibit 16 shows total homeless students
by school year, inclusive of all schools in the district (which includes
EXHIBIT 16
Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District
661
700 600 600
600 ■ Shelters Unsheltered
473
500
tn Doubled -Up Hotels/Motels I
364 403
400 281 304 289 331
300 .
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
School Year
Note: Data for 2016-2017 excludes 40 students in foster care to maintain consistency with the data collection methods used
in previous years. The school district's official count of homeless students for the 2016-2017 school year is 640.
Source: Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), 2017; Edmonds School District, 2017; BERK 2017
10 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017 https://snohomishcountywo.gov/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/41603
46
Packet Pg. 148
7.A.b
the cities of Lynwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, and some
neighboring communities). School districts in Washington State define
homeless students as those "who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence." This includes categories such as "doubled -up"
households that are sharing housing due to economic hardship. After
a long period of steady increase, the 2016-2017 school year saw a
decrease in homeless students. Much of the growth in homeless
student population has been among those who are doubled -up,
meaning they do not have a permanent residence and are staying with
family or friends. Among just those schools attended by children who
live in Edmonds, there were 260 homeless students during the 2016-
2017 school year.
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 solutions must often be coordinated with
support services to help homeless residents address the underlying
causes of housing insecurity.
Veterans
Edmonds is estimated to have 3,310 veteran residents, nearly 10
percent of the total population." These residents are less likely than
the general population to have income below the poverty level (only
2.6 percent compared to 7.6 percent of non -veterans). However, a
significantly greater percentage of the veteran population is living with
a disability (31 percent compared to 10 percent of non -veterans).
The latest Point -in -Time count surveyed 44 unsheltered veterans and
22 staying in emergency shelters. The overall number of homeless
veterans has remained stable since 2013.
According to the 2017 PIT report, Snohomish County has sustained
"functional zero status" on veteran homelessness under the
guidance of Opening Doors, a Federal strategic plan to prevent
and end homelessness.12 Function zero is attained when there is
"a well -coordinated and efficient community system that assures
11 U.S. Census American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates.
12 Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.
Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset library/
USICH OpeningDoors_Amendment2015 FINAL.pdf
DRAFT
47
Packet Pg. 149
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
homelessness is rare, brief and non -recurring, and no Veteran is forced
to live on the street.1113 The Snohomish County summarizes resources
available: "Veteran specific prevention and rapid -rehousing programs
are offered, along with newly funded solutions. Sebastian Place, a
20-unit apartment complex dedicated to solely to house and provide
supportive services to homeless veterans has opened. A low barrier
veteran shelter program also began providing emergency shelter in
conjunction with services:'14
Based on the County's assessment, veterans may be well served
compared to other special needs populations facing housing instability.
Artists
The City of Edmonds Arts & Culture 2017 Economic Impact Study15
recommends that the City "integrate arts and culture's contributions to
the economy in new and existing community economic development
efforts." One way it can do this is consider actions to supportthe housing
needs of artists living in Edmonds. Artists typically have incomes far
below the level needed to afford market -rate housing in Edmonds.
They also often have unique housing needs that could be addressed
through new kinds of live -work formats that allow for studios or gallery
space on the ground floor of artist housing.
13 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Overview':
https://www.va. gov/HOMELESS/ssvf/docs/Endin p_Veterans_Homelessness_Overview. pdf
14 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017 p. 21 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/HomelView/41603
15 Currently in draft form. Will likely be published by the time
the Housing Strategy is released publicly.
48
Packet Pg. 150
7.A.b
ndix B.
Homeless Services and
Resources in Edmonds
Resource for homeless population in Edmonds are provided by
Snohomish County as well as local nonprofit organizations. The only
shelter in Edmonds is the South Snohomish County Emergency Cold
Weather Shelter, which is staffed by volunteers and housed at the
Edmonds Senior Center. This shelter is open any night the temperature
drops below 34 degrees. Other shelters are available in the City of
Lynnwood and elsewhere in Snohomish County. Several Edmonds
churches host meals and food banks and provide short-term services.
The cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood Police Departments share a
social worker outreach program that works to assist people struggling
with homelessness in finding long-term solutions that leads them
towards self-sustainability. This program is staffed by one social worker
who helps people to navigate the County's coordinated entry system
for accessing housing, finding access to appropriate mental health or
drug and alcohol treatment services, or assistance in securing other
resources specific to the individual's circumstances. According to
the current social worker, Ashley Dawson, the intent of this program
is not just to immediately house a person but rather to tackle some
of the issues that may be contributing to their homelessness so that
they will be successful once suitable housing is found. The Police
Department is also working with Verdant to develop a south -county
CHART program (Chronic -Utilizer Alternative Response Team) with a
goal of keeping these people out of the criminal justice system, out of
jail, out of hospital emergency departments, and reducing the number
of calls to emergency services.
Edmonds Police Department Patrol officers often encounter people
who are homeless, living in motor homes, vehicles, or in structures in
their family member's yards. These officers typically refer people to
the social worker. According to Ms. Dawson, the Police Department
has taken a progressive approach in recognizing that there are many
layers to a person's situation. She indicates that officers act as partners
in taking preventative approaches to supporting the full spectrum of
needs among the homeless population.
DRAFT
49
Packet Pg. 151
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Snohomish County is just opening a 16 bed Diversion Center in Everett
to provide up to 14 days shelter and services for homeless persons
who are addicted to drugs (primarily opioids) and may be struggling
with untreated mental health needs and/or committing low-level crimes
to live and support their addiction. An agreement with the county
provides Edmonds and Lynnwood access to two beds shared between
the two cities. More information about services provided in Snohomish
County are available on the County's Human Services website.16 These
services include:
• Services to help maintain elderly and disabled adults in their own
home or in a community setting
• Drug and alcohol treatment for both youth and adults
• Mental Health counseling
• 24-hour services for persons in either a mental health or drug and
alcohol crisis
• Services to help low-income households meet their basic needs
or obtain specific help to overcome barriers to improving their
economic situation
• An Early Childhood Education Program for low-income families
with four-year old children
• Employment and community support programs for persons with
developmental disabilities and their families
• Community programs for children and families
• Help for veterans
• Weatherization and help for low-income households to pay their
heating bills
The Edmonds City Council recently set aside $250,000 in funds for
addressing homelessness. The City is currently conducting a study
to assess the needs of homeless persons in Edmonds and specific
approaches or programs for most effectively addressing those needs.
16 https://snohomishcoun4Wa.gov/191/Human-Services
50
Packet Pg. 152
7.A.b
ndix C.
Glossary of Housing
Affordability Terminology
This glossary provides definitions for housing terms, acronyms, and
datasets used in the Edmonds Housing Strategy.
Affordable Housing
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.
American Community Survey (ACS)
An ongoing nationwide survey designed to provide communities with
current data about howthey are changing. The ACS collects information
such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran
status, and other important data from U.S. households. ACS data is
used for demographic analysis in this study.
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.
DRAFT
51
Packet Pg. 153
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
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.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
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 (such as a basement unit) or detached from the primary
residence (such as a backyard cottage).
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU)
An ADU that is detached from the primary single-family residence,
such as a backyard cottage.
HUD CHAS
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey
(ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as
the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy),
demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs,
particularly for low income households. The CHAS data are used by
local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be
used by HUD to distribute grant funds.
The most recent CHAS data used for housing cost burden analysis in
this study reflect ACS data collected over a five-year period, 2010-2014.
Household Income
The U.S. Census defines household income as "The sum of the income
of all people 15 years and older living in the household. A household
includes related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such
as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing
unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated
people sharing a housing unit, is also counted as a household."
52
Packet Pg. 154
7.A.b
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
Inclusionary zoning is either a local requirement or incentive for
developers to create some below market -rate apartments or for -sale
homes in connection with a proposed market -rate development project.
These below -market rate units are income -restricted, or available only
to households that qualify based on their income level. Rents or housing
prices are set based on the affordability level specified in the ordinance.
IZ is allowed in Washington State under GMA (see RCW 36.70A.540).
Cities and counties wishing to implement IZ are required to provide
increased residential development capacity through zoning changes,
bonus densities, height and bulk increases, or other incentives to offset
the cost of providing the below market -rate units; other incentives could
include more flexible development standards, parking reductions, fee
waivers or reductions, or expedited permitting. Below market -rate units
may be required to be produced at the same location as the market -
rate units, but some localities have alternative compliance options
including off -site options, land dedication, and "fee in lieu."
Washington State law also sets the affordability period for these units.
All income -restricted units developed through an inclusionary zoning
program must remain affordable for at least 50 years.
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE)
MFTE is a statewide program in Washington which allows the value of
eligible multifamily housing improvements to be exempt from property
taxes for a specified period of time, typically 8 to 12 years. The program
aims to stimulate construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of existing
structures to provide multifamily housing, including affordable housing,
in designated areas within a jurisdiction.
Cities can counties can choose to implement an MFTE program
within designated areas and select the requirements for participating
developers. These requirements can include a percentage set aside
of income -restricted units affordable to households at a designated
income level. Income -restricted unit must remain affordable for the
period of the tax exemption.
DRAFT
53
Packet Pg. 155
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Tiny House
This term generally applies to small detached residential structures
that are 500 square feet or less. Some tiny houses are designed to be
permanent stand-alone residences. However, the term is also commonly
used to describe very low cost temporary shelters of less than 200
square feet built in "villages" with shared facilities such as bathrooms
and kitchens. These temporary tiny homes typically do not comply with
local building codes and often do not include their own electricity or
plumbing. The City of Seattle has authorized the development of six
temporary tiny house villages located on public or nonprofit -owned
land. These villages are intended to provide temporary housing
for homeless individuals and families and are typically operated by
nonprofits who provide case management services.
54
Packet Pg. 156
7.A.b
ndix D.
Preliminary Assessment
of Housing Tools
This Appendix includes 47 housing tools, or actions that the City of
Edmonds could pursue to address housing needs. BERK Consulting
conducted a preliminary assessment of these tools and presented to
the results to city staff and the Housing Strategy Task Force. Some of
the recommended actions in the Draft Housing Strategy are selected
from this list of tools, while others reflect refinements or revisions
suggested by the Task Force or city staff. These tools are organized by
the same six objectives featured in the Draft Housing Strategy.
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 157
7.A.b
91MA1212J044
RM DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
Support transit -oriented development
(TOD) in applicable areas.
Areas which have higher levels of transit service
can support development which supports access
to regional and local transit systems. 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, multimodal transportation
options, and parking management that
can support walkability and transit use.
Allow greater building heights and
densities in multifamily zones.
Providing greater building heights and
densities on a site can allow more units to
be accommodated on available land in areas
zoned for multifamily development. This not
only increases the total amount of units that
can be developed in the city, it can also spur
redevelopment of older, obsolete housing.
Kenmore, Bothell, Shoreline, others. Several
communities across the Puget Sound Region
have used TOD District Overlays or other tools to
encourage TOD around corridors with frequent
bus service. These include the nearby cities of
Kenmore, Bothell, and Shoreline, among others.
Lynnwood. The City of Lynnwood has three
multifamily residential zones with height limits of
35-45 feet. (link)
Mountlake Terrace. The City's RMM zone allows
for either 35 or 50 feet, depending on the location
relative to 216th St SW. link
Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea. The
City hasjust completed a subarea plan and has
rezoned areas along the Highway 99 corridor
and the Swift Blue Line. These areas are the most
promising locations for a local TOD corridor,
Sounder Station TOD. The neighborhood
surrounding the Sounder station area can also be
considered for TOD projects, especially if local
transit connections can also provide this area with
sufficient levels of service.
Current height limits discourage development.
The current height limit of 25 feet in many areas
may not be attractive for multifamily development.
Standard multifamily products in this region are
more compatible with the mid -rise height limits
in neighboring communities. Analysis of building
permits indicates nearby communities are
attracting much more multifamily development.16
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
in areas close to transit stations or corridors can
increase the amount of multifamily housing that
can be accommodated in the City.
Transit access for less mobile populations.
Greater transit access can provide more
transportation alternatives for seniors, youth, the
disabled, and other sensitive populations.
Lower transportation costs. TOD provides
housing with lower transportation costs through
transit access and high walkability, improving
the combined affordability of housing and
transportation for a household.
Reduced parking. TOD can be combined
with reduced parking requirements in areas
where car ownership and use are expected to
decline. Reductions in parking can also reduce
development costs.
Improve development feasibility. Upzoning
to allow for more units in a project can reduce
development costs per unit. This can make
multifamily development projects in the city more
feasible and encourage unit development.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable height and density
of development can increase the number
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are of multifamily housing units that can be
zoned multifamily, and expansions to development accommodated in the city.
capacity may be needed to meet local needs.
16 BERK pulled OFM data on multifamily production (5+ units in structure) by city for 2010-2017 and calculated percent of total housing unit production. Edmonds: 237
units (44 percent); Lynnwood: 1,040 (86 percent); Mountlake Terrace: 343 (60 percent); Shoreline: 1,286 (81 percent).
Locations limited by transit availability. TOD
project locations are limited to nodes and
corridors with high levels of transit service, and are
dependent on the maintenance of these services
into the future.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Increases in rent and property value. The
desirability of these neighborhoods can increase
property values and rents beyond those which
may be affordable for low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Limited area currently zoned multifamily. This
tool may be best paired with a rezone to expand
areas with multifamily zoning.
"Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing" continued on the next page
56
Packet Pg. 158
7.A.b
Reduce residential parking requirements.
If the City can reduce the number of parking
stalls required for each new housing unit,
developers can reduce the amount of land
necessary to accommodate parking spaces,
and can reduce the need to accommodate
parking within a residential building. This can
make a project more feasible by reducing costs
and allowing more development on a site.
Provide fast, predictable, and
user-friendly, permit review.
Improving the development process for market -
rate and nonprofit developers could entice
more to build in Edmonds. Developers seek fast
permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an
easy -to -understand process and requirements.
Tactics to accomplish these outcomes could
include: increased department staffing during
busy cycles; materials that clearly explain
requirements and the application process;
public reports on actual permit review times
(to increase predictability for applicants); and
providing one point of contact for applicants.
Allow "micro -housing" style developments.
"Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily
buildings with very small efficiency units
(200 square feet or less) or congregate
housing with private rooms and shared
kitchens and other facilities. It can provide
lower -cost options for smaller households
that do not need significant amounts of
living space. Modifications or relaxations
of code requirements may be necessary to
make this kind of development feasible.
PSRC/Other cities. Many communities across the
Puget Sound Region have reduced requirements
in transit -rich areas. The PSRC has assembled a
summary that provides more information about
changing requirements. (link)
Seattle. Seattle has no parking minimum for
new construction within urban centers, areas
designated for transit -oriented development,
or urban villages served by frequent transit (10
minutes between bus arrivals or less).
Bellevue. Bellevue has reduced parking
requirements for affordable units downtown, with
0.25 stalls/studio unit required with 60 percent
AMI affordability or less. (link)
Multiple communities. Many communities in the
region provide support and performance statistics
for their permit processes. Marysville provides
annual reports on permit turnaround times, and
Seattle reports on permit review times through its
"Performance Seattle" webpage. link, link)
Multiple communities. The National Association
of Home Builders' 2015 Report, "Development
Process Efficiency: Cutting Through the Red Tape,"
describes strategies used by local governments
to make development review more efficient,
including increasing staff capacity through
dedicated revenue from development services,
and creating a more user-friendly process. (link)
Seattle. After several micro -housing projects were
developed, the City of Seattle recently modified
the building code to place additional restrictions
on micro -housing. (link)
Kirkland. The City of Kirkland has permitted
micro -housing ("Residential Suites") with units
of 120-350 square feet in the Central Business
District and Totem Lake Business District. These
developments are required to have minimum
densities and common areas, and parking is
restricted to 0.5 spaces per unit. (link)
Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea.
Edmonds recently reduced the required amount
of parking spaces per unit in the Highway 99
subarea to -0.75 per unit (<700 sf), -1.25 per unit
(700-1,100 sf), and 1.75 per unit (>1,100 sf).
Wider implementation possible. These standards
in the Highway 99 subarea could be extended to
other areas of the City, or parking minimums could
be reduced further in the Highway 99 area.
Available resources to support implementation.
King County's "Right Size Parking" tool could help
to evaluate current parking minimums versus
predicted usage for different development types.
(link)
Permit review information currently provided
online. Edmonds Development Services already
tracks permit review times; publishing this
information on the website should not require
large additional resources
Potential for contracted support. Many cities
in the Puget Sound Region enhance their
development review staff capacity through
contracting with private firms. This may offer
more flexibility than hiring additional full-time city
employees.
May be allowable under current code. Edmonds
code doesn't have minimum unit sizes, but code
may prevent congregate housing (further research
needed).
Unclear if there is demand in Edmonds.
Additional research would be necessary to
determine if there are developers seeking to
build this kind of product in suburban locations
like Edmonds. These are typically found in high -
amenity neighborhoods of large cities. However,
it may make sense to provide for student housing
near ECC and CWU-Lynnwood.
Significant project cost reductions. Reductions
in required parking can provide significantly
reductions in the cost of building new multifamily
housing. These reductions result from avoiding the
costs of structured / underground parking, and the
significant land requirements for surface parking.
This can make affordable units more economically
feasible to develop.
Increase in demand for transportation
alternatives. Reducing the amount of available
parking can also increase the demand for other
types of multimodal transportation: walking, biking,
transit, etc. When used appropriately, this can
support improved accessibility by these modes of
travel, and can reduce household transportation
costs.
Reduces costs to developers. Reducing the time
necessary to process permits would reduce costs
for holding property prior to development, and
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Ix: ul 10 1'an
Reduced development costs. Micro -housing
significantly reduces the development costs per
unit, particularly if there are lower (or no) parking
requirements. This can increase the viability of a
project.
Suitable for single -person households. These
types of units can meet the needs of single -person
households that do not need a substantial amount
of living area and can benefit from lower housing
costs.
DRAFT
Applications to areas served by transit. Larger
reductions in parking requirements may only be
possible in walkable areas and/or areas served
by transit, where the number of trips by personal
vehicles are lower.
Off -site parking impacts. If requirements are
set too low, there may be parking impacts in the
surrounding neighborhood as residents will use
street parking when on -site parking is unavailable
Increases staff time and funding requirements.
Increasing staff capacity to provide additional
support for permitting, whether through
contracting or hiring more city staff, would require
additional funding support.
Increased parking demands. There are potential
impacts to parking in surrounding areas, especially
if parking requirements are relaxed and residents
rely on street parking.
May be limited to high -amenity locations. Given
the lack of private space, micro -housing is most
often appropriate for higher amenity locations,
often with transit services available. These types
of units will be less attractive in locations where
these community facilities and resources are
limited.
"Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing" continued on the next page
57
Packet Pg. 159
7.A.b
91"12124#
Rn 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Lobby for state legislation to promote
condominium development.
The WA State Condominium Act is interpreted
to subject condo developers to an implied
warranty for constructions, which has resulted
in lawsuits against developers. This has had a
significant impact on condo development, as the
increased risk of liability has reduced the interest
of developers in this type of project. The City
could work with other stakeholders to lobby for
revisions to the Act, or pursue other options for
promoting these types of projects with developers.
Coordinate communication and
outreach to developers.
Keeping local developers informed about city
regulations and incentives, especially those
designed to encourage specific housing types,
could help get more of these projects built in
Edmonds. Communication methods can include:
web and hard -copy informational handouts, city
email listservs, forums or workshops, and personal
communication. In developer interviews, several
were unaware of City incentive programs.
Apply transfers of development
rights (TDR) in applicable areas.
Land preservation initiatives such as protection
of farmlands from development can often
employ "transfers of development rights",
where the development rights to lands
being preserved are managed through a
conservation easement. When these rights are
separated in this way, the landowner receives
the rights to develop at increased densities
in designated urban "receiving areas", which
can be sold to developers in these areas.
Seattle. Seattle's 2015 HALA report includes
this recommendation: "The City should work
with the University of Washington's Runstad
Center to explore options to stimulate the condo
development market, including revising the
warranty scheme in the Condo Act. (link)
Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace. Fact sheets
on topics such as ADUs, affordable housing
regulations, critical areas, and more have been
developed by these communities. (link, link)
Burien, Mountlake Terrace. Email lists are
maintained by these communities where users can
sign up for updates on topics such as planning and
zoning. (link, link)
Bellevue / King County. King County first
developed a TDR program in 1988, which has
expanded significantly to protect forestry, farming,
and critical habitat lands in unincorporated King
County. As part of an interlocal agreement with the
City of Bellevue, development rights from sending
sites in the County can be used to increase base
FAR and base building heights within specific
zoning districts in the Bel -Red area. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has
identified farm and forest lands for conservation
through its TDR program. This allows for increased
development in locations zoned as "Urban Center"
in unincorporated Snohomish County, as well as
areas where rezoning has allowed for increases in
allowable lots or dwellings. (link)
Outside the City's jurisdiction. This solution
requires action by the state legislature, and
cannot be enacted directly by the City. However,
there may be opportunities to better coordinate
with other jurisdictions advocating for changes
to the Act or working with the state Insurance
Commissioner.
Developer information currently provided online.
The Edmonds Development Services Department
website provides information on long-range
planning projects, code updates, fees, and other
issues. Adding information on incentive programs
or zoning changes would fit with current efforts.
Snohomish County program available. The
Snohomish County TDR program allows cities
to participate and designate "receiving areas"
through interlocal agreements. Edmonds currently
does not have an interlocal agreement with the
County for this program, however.
No strong linkage to housing production /
affordability. Note that while this program is
related to increasing potential density, it is not
directly linked with the production of market -rate
housing. In fact, this program could divert potential
sources of revenue away from programs such as
inclusionary housing.
Addressing the "missing middle". Supporting the
condo market in Edmonds could result in more
opportunities for ownership of "missing middle"
housing for small households.
Downsizing opportunities for seniors.
Condominiums are an option for senior
households seeking to downsize while staying in
the community. This can be supported by services
within these developments dedicated to the needs
of seniors.
Provides opportunities to advertise major
programs. A greater understanding of available
programs to support new development may
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Edmonds, as well as the uptake of these incentive
programs.
Encourages communication with the
development community. Providing ongoing
support for resources to the development
community promotes transparency with
stakeholders, and clear communication about
the expectations for development and the use of
incentive programs.
Paired with upzoning. TDR programs are typically
combined with upzoning in urban areas that can
support additional density.
Support for preservation programs. TDR
programs assist in the preservation of natural
areas, farmland, and other areas in the region
under significant development pressures.
Limited to market -rate units. New condominium
construction will support market -rate, owner -
occupied multifamily units, and is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
Increases staff time commitment. Staff time
would be required for creating additional
informational handouts and keeping them up to
date, and for administering email lists.
Increase in development costs. This program
increases the costs of development, which
can reduce the affordability of housing in the
community.
Diversion of funding to land preservation
from other housing programs. The additional
cost of development is transferred to rural land
conservation efforts, which are typically unrelated
to building affordable housing at the local or
regional level.
58
Packet Pg. 160
7.A.b
Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling
units and backyard cottages.
The City can promote the development of
accessory dwelling units for housing by relaxing
requirements that would make it less feasible for
homeowners to add these units to an existing
property. This can include reducing parking
requirements, changing owner occupancy
requirements, allowing diverse types of
households to reside in these units, and so forth.
Targeted rezoning of single-family
residential areas to allow multifamily units.
Portions of existing single-family neighborhoods
can be rezoned as appropriate to allow for
new multifamily housing. This may include
rezones that allow lower -density multifamily
housing, such as duplexes or townhomes,
as well as higher density development.
Create/expand fee simple
unit lot subdivision.
The unit lot subdivision process provides
opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership
of land to create townhouses, rowhouses
and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an
alternative to both condominium ownership and
traditional single-family detached subdivision.
Kent. In Kent, waivers to off-street parking
requirements are allowed near transit or where
available on -street parking is sufficient. (link)
Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood,
Everett. Requirements for ADUs are more
permissive for certain cases in these communities,
such as allowing unrelated households in a unit
and allowing detached accessory units. (link, link
Seattle. The City of Seattle is considering relaxing
restrictions on accessory dwelling units further,
with possible changes in off-street parking
requirements and owner -occupancy limitations.
link
Shoreline. Recent rezones in Link light rail station
areas have redesignated single-family areas to
either low-rise (45 feet) or mid -rise (70 feet) mixed -
use zoning.
Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, etc.: Other
communities such as Mountlake Terrance and
Lynnwood have allowed unit lot subdivisions as of
2015-2016. (link, link
Potential for broad application across the City.
As 78 percent of the land in Edmonds is zoned as
single-family residential, and lot sizes are relatively
large, this policy could be applied over a wide
area.
More information about local demand and
impacts is needed. Additional research
into production of ADUs in similar suburban
communities with less restrictions could help
to evaluate potential demand and impacts on
relaxing these restrictions.
Potential areas for rezone in Edmonds. Single
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones
to the General Commercial zone (up to 75 feet)
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are
zoned multifamily, and expansions of these areas
may be needed to meet local needs.
Adopted in Edmonds. This tool was recently
adopted in Edmonds Community Development
Code, under ECDC 20.75.045. link)
Additional research may be necessary to review
implementation. Work may be conducted to
determine the uptake of unit lot subdivision,
potential limitations or obstacles to this type of
development, and policy changes to improve this
approach.
DRAFT
Increases the number of smaller, more affordable Neighborhood impacts. There can be impacts
dwelling units. Accessory units provide smaller I to neighborhood character and parking with
dwelling units that can expand overall housing
supply and choice, especially for smaller housing
types that are accessible to a wide range of
incomes.
Provides additional units in developed
neighborhoods. Promoting accessory units in
existing single-family residential neighborhoods
can also provide for more supply in areas with
existing development with less impact than infill or
redevelopment projects.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
through upzoning can increase the amount of
multifamily housing that can be accommodated in
the city.
Address range of housing types in demand.
Rezoned areas can be tailored to promote
opportunities for housing in the "missing middle"
in historically single-family neighborhoods. This
may include townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily
housing.
Eases development of townhomes and
rowhouses. This can increase the market supply
of ownership housing products that may be
affordable to middle -income family households.
Increases "missing middle" supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Circumvents limitations on condo development.
Supporting unit lot subdivision can allow
development on a single building site to be
divided between multiple owners without the
need for a condominium, which can avoid the
disincentives for this type of arrangement.
accessory units, especially if usage is widespread.
Note that this can be mitigated through design
standards and appropriate parking requirements.
Additional investment from individual
homeowners. Accessory units need to be
constructed either as part of new construction or
renovation of an existing housing unit. This can
limit the rate of uptake as it can be based on the
investment decisions of individual homeowners.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Limited to market -rate units. New townhome
construction can support market -rate, owner -
occupied multifamily units, but is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
"Expand Housing Diversity in the "Missing Middle"" continued on the next page
59
Packet Pg. 161
7.A.b
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Apply targeted rezones to allow for
townhouses, cottage housing, and/
or small -lot single-family housing.
Targeted rezones in single-family areas can
permit more flexibility with building types in
projects, with the development of smaller,
less expensive housing units possible as
part of infill and new development.
Promote planned unit
development (PUD) projects.
PUD ordinances allow developers flexibility
to depart from existing zoning requirements
in exchange for fulfilling an established set of
planning criteria. These criteria may include
housing goals such a density, affordable housing,
diversity of housing stock, or sustainability.
Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace
created a smaller lot overlay district near the town
center, including new design standards to ensure
the quality of new development. (link)
Everett. Everett had provided zoning for small lot
single-family dwellings, as well as development
standards for duplexes. (link)
Kirkland. Kirkland allowed demonstration projects
in 2002 for small -lot development, and these pilot
programs were permanently adopted in 2007.
(link)
Additional examples can be found at MRSC
website ( )
This PSRC tool description provides additional
examples and steps to implementation. (link)
This MRSC tool description provides examples of
implementation in different communities (link)
Potential areas for targeted rezones. Single-
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones to
the higher density General Commercial zone
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
This PSRC document provides additional
examples and steps to implementation (link)
Available but not typically used in the city. The
City has this option available in the Zoning Code
as "Planned Residential Development" (ECDC
20.35). It has not been used for recent projects
given the scale of these projects and nature of the
benefits to developers.
Increases "missing middle" supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes, cottage housing,
and other housing types can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Can be implemented in tandem with design
standards. Targeted rezoning should be paired
with design standards that encourage pedestrian
orientation for higher density development.
Flexibility with development standards.
Negotiated standards for a PRD can promote more
efficient site designs and lower infrastructure and
maintenance costs
Applicable to a range of ownership types.
Although PRDs are typically focused on residential
subdivisions for owner -occupied housing, this can
incorporate the
Provides opportunities for site -specific
considerations. PRDs give the City an opportunity
to tailor a project design to meet goals for a
specific neighborhood or site.
DRAFT
Limited to market -rate units. New townhome
and cottage housing construction can support
market -rate, owner -occupied units in the "missing
middle", but is not likely to provide housing that is
affordable to low-income households.
More applicable to larger -scale projects.
Planned unit developments are intended to
be larger -scale projects, often at the level of a
subdivision. Negotiation for specific development
considerations may not be feasible for smaller
developments.
60
Packet Pg. 162
7.A.b
3. SUPPORT THE NEEDS ULATION 0 1 E I
Pursue partnerships to
support aging in place.
Demographic forecasts indicate that the senior
and elderly population of Edmonds will grow
significantly over the next decade. One way to
address the housing needs of this population is
to provide resources to support aging in place.
Such programs could include home modification,
transportation, recreation and socialization,
or care management and counseling.
Promote or develop property tax relief
and utility rate/tax relief programs.
Low-income homeowners can be at risk of
economic displacement when property tax
or utility charges increase. Edmonds could
expand participation in the County exemption
and deferral program, and could also
coordinate similar programs for utility costs.
Reduce barriers to group homes
and housing for seniors.
Housing in retirement and assisted living
communities, as well as units in nursing homes
or memory care facilities, may have certain code
requirements which 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.
Seattle -King County. The Seattle -King County
Advisory Council on Aging & Disability Services
is exploring models such as "virtual villages" for
supporting aging in place. There are at least three
different virtual villages in the Seattle/King County
area: NEST (link), PNA Village (link), and Wider
Horizons (link).
Bellevue. Bellevue's Utility Tax Relief Program
offers a year end rebate check of the utility
occupation taxes paid to the city. This program
is open to residents who meet low income
guidelines. (link)
Bellevue. The City offers low income seniors and
low-income permanently disabled persons relief
on their utility costs for water, wastewater and
drainage. Rate Relief offers up to 75 percent off
utility costs. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has a
property tax exemption and deferral programs
for senior and disabled persons as well as
property tax deferral program for limited income
homeowners. (link)
Additional research needed. While these kinds of
facilities are in communities across the State, we
have not yet found examples ofjurisdictions that
have taken actions to reduce barriers.
Identify appropriate role for the City. This tool
may be best pursued in partnership with another
entity such as Aging and Disability Services of
Snohomish County.
County currently provides property tax relief. As
noted, this program is currently in place for county
taxes for the residents of Edmonds.
Expansion of the program possible. Additional tax
and fee exemptions may be possible from the City
of Edmonds. This could be focused on property
taxes and/or utility fees.
Edmonds currently has facilities available.
According to WA DSHS data the following licensed
facilities have mailing addresses in Edmonds:
• 47 adult family homes (accept Medicaid)
• 5 assisted living facilities (no Medicaid)
• 2 nursing homes (accept Medicaid)
Current examples of new development. A
memory care assisted living facility was recently
permitted for development in Edmonds. Review
of that permitting process may provide insight
into the barriers (if any) with Edmonds code
requirements.
Addresses the growing needs from seniors.
Aging -in -place programs help address the housing
needs of a senior and elderly population in
Edmonds that is expected to grow considerably in
the coming years.
Reduced housing costs. Tax and fee relief
provides a reduction in housing costs for low-
income homeowners and those on fixed -incomes,
allowing them to stay in their homes.
Provides more senior housing options in the
community. Increasing the supply of senior
housing can provide more options for Edmonds
residents who wish to remain in the City during
their later stages of life. More supply will be
needed as the elderly population of Edmonds
grows in coming years.
DRAFT
Does not expand the housing supply or improve
housing affordability. These programs are
intended to provide seniors with the ability to stay
in their own homes, but does not include creating
new, affordable units.
Requires additional funding and administrative
costs. This program will require additional funding
from the City, and may compete against other
budget priorities.
Reduced utility/tax revenue for City. Encouraging
fee or tax relief for low-income homeowners
requires that the City address the shortfall in
revenue through cuts in services or increases in
charges to other residents.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to existing homeowners, and
does not encourage the creation of new affordable
housing.
Additional research needed. Further research is
necessary to determine if there are any barriers
currently that can be addressed by the City.
"Support the Needs of an Aging Population" continued on the next page
bl
Packet Pg. 163
7.A.b
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
Waive or reduce utility connection
fees for affordable housing.
Development projects may also be charged
a fee to connect with city services, such as
sewer and stormwater systems. These fees
could be discounted or completely waived
for affordable housing projects to reduce
the associated costs to the developer and
improve the feasibility of development.
Kirkland. In 2017, the City of Kirkland passed an
ordinance to allow sewer, potable water, and
stormwater connection charges to be waived
"with respect to the construction of any shelter
or low-income housing project found by the city
manager to serve low-income persons" under
RCW 35.92.38. (Iink, link, rink)
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support
connections to local infrastructure.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing utility connection fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
DRAFT
Reduced City revenue. The cost of connecting
new affordable housing to services would have
to be funded with other revenue sources, or
otherwise passed on to utility rate payers.
62
Packet Pg. 164
7.A.b
Facilitate donations of land.
Although the City does not own significant
parcels of land that are appropriate for new
affordable housing development, it can play
a role in facilitating donations of land from
other organizations for affordable housing.
Coordinate rental assistance programs.
Rental assistance programs such as federal
Section 8 Public Housing and Housing Choice
Vouchers and local and county programs
supported by state funding opportunities.
Subsidies are based on HUD's Fair Market
Rent, which, in Edmonds, is set based on
the Seattle -Bellevue HUD FMR area (King
and Snohomish Counties combined).
Expand the multifamily tax
exemption (MFTE) program.
The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a
voluntary incentive that exempts private multifamily
housing developments from property taxes for
up to 12 years if income -restricted affordable
units are maintained in the development.
Bellevue. The City of Bellevue has provided direct
assistance in the form of leases or donations of
public lands for four affordable housing projects:
Hopelink Place, Habitat Eastmont, Brandenwood
Apartments, and Park Highlands at Wilburton
Apartments. (link)
Nationwide / Snohomish County. Section 8
Housing Choice vouchers are a federal program
available nationwide to provide rent subsidies
for households with 50 percent AMI or lower. For
Edmonds, this program is administered by the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO)
Shoreline. The Shoreline Property Tax Exemption
(PTE) program is offered in seven specific areas
of the City. Under the program, 20 percent of a
project's units must be rented at "affordable" rates
to qualify. For studio and 1-bedroom units, this is
calculated according to 70 percent of King County
AMI, with 2-bedroom or larger units affordable to
80 percent of King County AMI. (link)
Lynnwood. The MFTE program in Lynnwood
provides exemptions for apartment and
condominium projects of 50 units or more located
within the City Center. Tax exemptions of eight
years are permitted for any multifamily project,
with a 12-year exemption permitted if 20 percent
of the units are affordable. (link
Significant parcels of land available for
development. Although there are few larger tracts
of land available for new greenfield development
in the City, some institutions (including local
churches) do hold vacant or underutilized parcels
that could be used for developing new housing.
Supporting role for the City. As the City does
not have substantial land holdings to donate and
will not typically be involved directly as a land
developer, it will likely serve as a champion and
mediator for these types of arrangements.
Currently administered by HASCO. Local
management of Section 8 programs is through
HASCO. The Authority also manages rent -
controlled properties for low-income households
and households with special needs, and has
participated in voucher programs with the Sound
Families Initiative of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not manage rental assistance
programs as part of municipal operations.
Coordinating rental assistance programs may
require partnerships with public housing agencies
or other nonprofits.
Currently adopted in Edmonds. The City recently
adopted a new MFTE program in the Westgate
Mixed -use District and SR-99 subarea. The
program requires 10 percent of units affordable at
80 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable at 150
percent AMI. No projects have been built to date
under this program, however.
Lack of awareness in the development
community. Interviews indicated that there
was a lack of awareness of the MFTE program
among developers in the community. Better
communication by the City could increase
participation in this program.
Supports productive use of available lands
for affordable housing. Encouraging the use of
donated lands for affordable housing can move
sites that are currently vacant or underutilized into
productive use to support affordability in the local
market.
Addresses costs of land acquisition to affordable
housing projects. As land prices can be one major
factor in the feasibility of nonprofit affordable
housing projects, providing land at a low cost can
improve the feasibility of development.
Significant demand for housing subsidies could
be met. Additional investment by Edmonds could
provide direct subsidies to support housing
affordability to vulnerable populations in the city
itself. This could provide a direct means to support
affordability in the city.
Affordable units built and managed by private
developers. The City is required to monitor the
status of affordable units provided by private
developers for the MFTE program
Helps provide housing for moderate- and middle -
income households. MFTE programs can require
housing affordable to 80 percent of AMI, providing
opportunities for housing to meet the needs of this
income group that may otherwise be priced out of
the community.
Can provide incentives for market -rate housing.
MFTE programs may also be used to promote the
development of new multifamily housing units that
are not income restricted in specific areas where
redevelopment is desirable.
DRAFT
Cooperation with other stakeholders required.
As the City of Edmonds does not have substantial
surplus land reserves to donate, the success of
land donation programs will require coordination
with other stakeholders. While the City can
mediate these efforts, it will require decisions
by these organizations to succeed, and may be
subject to goals and considerations specific to
these organizations.
Institutional capacity for administering rental
assistance is limited. Although providing rental
assistance may contribute needed resources to
these programs, administration by the City may
be difficult given the current lack of local capacity.
Coordination with existing public housing agencies
such as HASCO would be more effective.
Expiration of program benefits. Under the
legislation, affordability requirements for units
built under this program will expire after 12 years.
These could be retained as affordable units, but it
would require additional expenditures by the City.
Reduced City revenue. An MFTE program will
reduce future property tax revenue from the
corresponding development, which could have
fiscal impacts if its use is widespread in the City.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income -restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
63
Packet Pg. 165
7.A.b
91612124#
mm 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Develop voluntary inclusionary zoning
/ density bonusing programs.
Changes to the Edmonds Municipal Code
can permit greater building height and/
or densities for residential developments in
certain areas, in exchange for a percentage
of the units being allocated to affordable
housing for a specified period.
Waive or reduce impact fees
for affordable housing.
Impact fees in the City of Edmonds are collected
to finance capital spending for community
infrastructure such as parks and streets.
Discounts are provided for certain levels of
affordable housing. This program could be
modified to further reduce or waive impact
fees for new affordable housing, which would
reduce development costs and improve the
financial feasibility of the development.
Shoreline. Under the Shoreline Municipal Code,
density bonuses are provided in multifamily
areas, with up to a 50 percent increase in density
provided for units affordable for households up to
80 percent AMI. Covenants are registered on the
property to retain this affordable housing on the
site for a 30-year period. (link)
Federal Way. Multifamily housing that includes
affordable housing (80 percent AMI) can include
one bonus market rate unit for each affordable
unit included in the project. In single-family
developments with affordable units, lot sizes may
be reduced by 20 percent. Units are required to
be affordable for the lifetime of the project through
a covenant on the land. (link)
Everett. Affordable housing projects for
households of 50 percent median family income
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. (link)
Bellingham. Affordable housing projects for
households of 80 percent median family income or
lower may receive exemptions from 80 percent of
applicable park, transportation, and school impact
fees. These exemptions require a covenant to be
registered with the property. (link, link, link)
Fiscal assessment required. The feasibility for
inclusionary zoning requirements must be carefully
designed to provide enough incentives to make
development feasible.
An Urban Land Institute report provides guidance
on optimizing the effectiveness of incentives for
inclusionary development. (link)
Additional resources from the PSRC provide
details about inclusionary zoning. (link)
MRSC provides links to other resources related
to inclusionary zoning. (link)
Currently adopted in Edmonds. Discounts for
certain impact fees are already implemented
in Edmonds for new affordable housing
development.
Further discounts or waivers would need to
balance revenue needs and cost incentives.
Additional discounts/waivers of impact fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. This must be balanced, however,
with the need for this revenue to support local
infrastructure.
No public funding required. As inclusionary
zoning provides incentives through increased
entitlements for development on a site, these
projects do not require direct public investment or
diversion of revenue from the City.
Units built and managed by private developers.
The units developed from inclusionary zoning
are managed over the long term by private
developers, and do not require intervention by the
City.
Reduces the cost to develop new affordable
housing. Eliminating or reducing impact fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
Expiration of program benefits. Under
inclusionary zoning requirements, affordability
requirements for units built under this program
will expire after a specific period (typically longer
than for MFTE programs). These could be retained
as affordable units, but it would require additional
expenditures by the City.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income -restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
Reduced City revenue. Waiving impact fees
can reduce revenue for the City that is typically
earmarked for capital improvement programs,
such as for parks and streets. This may also
require the City to expend other funds directly to
replace these fees (depending on the amount of
the waiver).
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
64
Packet Pg. 166
7.A.b
Support community land trusts.
Community land trusts (CLTs) are one way
to enable stakeholders to get involved in
the development of affordable housing
through land ownership. This involves
alternative ownership structures for land
that can reduce costs for development.
Expedite the permitting process
for affordable housing.
The City can choose to 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.
Provide historic tax credits.
At the federal level, Low -Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) can be used in conjunction with
the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
older buildings for use as low-income housing.
At the local level, this can be supported
through special assessments of the value of
certain historic buildings after rehabilitation.
Homestead Community Land Trust (Renton,
Seattle, Tukwila). Homestead Community Land
Trust is a local CLT with projects throughout King
County, many of which involve the local city as a
partner. Homebuyers typically have incomes from
60-80 percent AMI to qualify for the program.
(link)
Pierce County. Affordable housing projects for
households with less than 80 percent of Pierce
County median income can pursue an expedited
permit process. Under this process, the permit
is considered a priority for review by county
departments, and a project manager from the
Department of Planning and Land Services is
assigned to coordinate the review process. (link)
Seattle. Properties such as the Pacific Hotel and
the Downtowner Hotel in the City of Seattle have
been rehabilitated into affordable housing units
through a combination of LIHTCs and HTCs. (link)
Oriented to a range of possible housing types.
CLTs can be employed in different situations where
down payments or monthly mortgage payments
are a significant obstacle to homeownership. As a
result, this can include a range of owner -occupied
housing types, including townhomes, duplexes,
cottage housing, and single-family detached
housing.
Requires an assessment of potential sites
for use. Although this could be appropriate
for Edmonds, identifying appropriate sites for
CLTs will require an evaluation of properties,
including opportunities for donations of land in the
community.
Balance between permit processing times
for different development types. Unless the
permitting department is expanded, prioritizing
one permit type leads to more delays for
other permit types. This could result in making
Edmonds a less desirable location for market -rate
development.
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
HTC program are applicable for developers only.
The City of Edmonds may have a role in promoting
this program with developers, and providing
support for applications.
Additional research required for historic tax
credits. Program criteria from the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development indicates
funds can only can be used for income -producing
certified historic structures. Further research
required to determine if there are any such
structures that are appropriate to be used for
affordable housing in Edmonds, but widespread
use is unlikely. (link)
Provides affordable homeownership. CLTs are a
model to enable affordable home ownership for
lower income households, and can reduce the
down payments and monthly costs for households
to access single-family housing units in the
community.
Viable as a long-term program. Re -selling
households are often required to sell the home at
resale -restricted and affordable price to another
low-income household. This ensures the unit
maintains permanent affordability.
Reduces time and costs to build new affordable
housing. Expediting these permits can reduce
the amount of time this process will take for
developers. This can also reduce associated costs
with holding property and carrying financing.
Provides an external source of fiscal support.
Tax credits from the federal level can offset up
to 20 percent of the costs of rehabilitating older
buildings for affordable housing.
Supports reuse of historic buildings in the
community. In communities that have historic
buildings available for reuse, these credits can be
applied to repurpose these buildings to provide
value for the community.
DRAFT
Land and capital required to begin a land trust.
CLTs typically require donations of land and capital
to the managing trust to start up projects. The
availability of sites and funding may impact the
feasibility of a trust to operate in Edmonds, but
the City could serve in a coordinating role for this
work.
Focuses on owner -occupied housing. CLTs are
focused on owner -occupied housing, and typically
include single-family options for larger households.
This model does not include income -restricted
rental housing for lower -income households.
Increases delays in processing other
applications. Providing expedited services
will delay other projects, potentially those that
will contribute additional housing. Developers
interviewed for this study expressed frustration
with delays under the current system, and further
delays could make the market less attractive for
new market -rate housing.
Supports building reuse only. Historic tax credits
are not applicable to new development, only
building reuse.
Limited to historic buildings. These tax credits
are allocated for rehabilitating certified historic
buildings with a "substantial investment" for use as
low-income housing. In the case of Edmonds, this
tax credit would not be applicable to a wide range
of sites.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
N
r
R
L
IIr^
V!
a�
c
.y
0
2
0
Lo
4-
c
0
r
0
c
m
E
E
0
U
a�
65
Packet Pg. 167
7.A.b
HOUSINGIEDMi
4. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF INCOME -RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Support low-income housing tax credits.
The federal government provides Low -Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for use in subsidizing
affordable low-income housing projects through
tax credits of up to approximately 9 percent of the
amount of a building's qualified basis annually for
10 years. In Washington State, these tax credits are
issued by the State Housing Finance Commission,
which requires applications for prospective
projects interested in receiving these credits.
Waive or reduce building permit
fees for affordable housing.
Permit fees are charged by the City to cover
the costs of reviewing and auditing building
and development permits during the process of
construction. These fees could be discounted
or waived for affordable housing projects to
reduce the associated costs to the developer
and improve the feasibility of development.
Establish linkage fees.
Fee charged to developers for every square
foot of new development. Funds used
to pay for new affordable housing.
Everett. Housing Hope Properties was approved
for almost $1.4 million in tax credits for HopeWorks
Station II, a 65-unit mixed -use affordable housing
project for disadvantaged veterans, families, and
youth that incorporates a 1,000-sf kitchen as a
community meeting place and location for culinary
training programs. (link)
Renton. The Low -Income Housing Institute (LIHI)
successfully applied for $984,979 in tax credits for
Renton Commons, a 48-unit affordable housing
building in downtown Renton. Half of the units
in the building are reserved for households at
50 percent AMI or less, and half are reserved for
households at 30 percent AMI or less.
Everett. Fees for development permits may 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. (link)
Kirkland. Development permit fees are waived in
Kirkland for affordable units and the associated
bonus market -rate units developed under
inclusionary zoning requirements. (link)
Seattle. The recently adopted Mandatory Housing
Affordability (inclusionary zoning) legislation
includes a "performance option" which charges
a per square foot fee on all new commercial
development in designated areas, with funds
dedicated to affordable housing.
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
LIHTC program are applicable for developers only
The City can provide support for applications and
promote this program with developers.
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support staff
resources to process permits, and the costs that
would be distributed to other applicants.
Additional research required. Evaluation could
be informed by a comparison of developer cost
burdens in Edmonds to other communities.
Adopting a fee that is too high can be a
disincentive to development when similar
opportunities can be found in neighboring
communities.
Provides significant tax credits to support
development or rehabilitation. Under the LIHTC
program, up to around 9 percent of the amount
of a building's qualified basis annually for 10
years, up to a present value of 70 percent of the
building's qualified basis. A 4 percent annual credit
up to 30 percent of present value is available
for projects receiving federal subsidies or for
rehabilitation.
Support for special needs populations. Additional
consideration is provided in the application for
LIHTCs to projects that provide housing for the
homeless, large households, the disabled, and the
elderly.
Support for specific types of projects. In addition
to special needs populations, LIHTC applications
favor projects in transit -oriented areas and areas
at risk for market conversion, as well as projects
involving donations, nonprofits, and public funding.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing building permit fees can
reduce the costs to developers, which can help
to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
New funding source for permanent affordable
housing. Funds can be targeted to specific groups
in need who aren't addressed by other tools.
Applications and competitive review required.
Tax credits under this program are issued by the
Housing Finance Commission from a limited pool
under a competitive process, and receiving credits
under the program is not guaranteed.
Potential for reduced City revenue. Waiving
building permit fees will reduce the revenue
received by the City specifically to offset the
costs of permit review and processing. This would
require the City to offset these losses with other
sources of funding.
Potential increases in other building permit fees.
If the need for additional revenue from permit fees
is passed to other applicants, this can increase the
costs of other permits and reduce the feasibility of
these types of development.
Disincentive to development in Edmonds.
Particularly if not implemented in neighboring
communities. May reduce the production of new
housing supply.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
66
Packet Pg. 168
7.A.b
Develop mandatory inclusionary zoning.
A requirement that all new development
include a certain percentage of units that
are affordable and rented to qualifying low-
income households. Some programs provide
the option of paying a fee instead of providing
housing on site. Fees are then used by the
City to fund affordable housing elsewhere.
Apply for Washington State
Housing Trust Fund grants.
The Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC) administers a Housing Trust Fund (link),
which can be used to support projects involving
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. Other expenses related
to low-income housing may also be eligible.
Apply for CDBG and other HUD grants.
The US Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and other sources of grant
funding are administered by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Edmonds
is a member of an Urban County Consortium
in Snohomish County which administers funds
from HUD in partnership with cities through
an interlocal agreement. These funds can be
used to support rehabilitation and infrastructure
development to support affordable housing.
Redmond. Requires 10 percent of units to be
affordable to an 80 percent AMI household.
Applies to all new residential and mixed -use
development in several neighborhoods. "ink
Issaquah. The City of Issaquah provides both
mandatory and voluntary programs, with the
primary focus of the mandatory programs on 70
percent AMI households. link
Seattle. The Mandatory Housing Affordability
(MHA) program requires 5-11 percent of units
in new multifamily buildings to be affordable, or
payment of an in -lieu fee. (link
Federal Way. The City requires 5 percent of rental
units to be affordable at 80 percent AMI, with up to
10 percent additional market units permitted. link
Communities across Washington State.
Nonprofit housing providers across the region
access Housing Trust Fund support for financing
affordable housing projects.
Snohomish County. Deadline for 2019 grant
applications for public facilities and infrastructure
projects is likely to be in fall 2018. Applications
must be consistent with the 5-year consolidated
plan, and the applicant can be a city or nonprofit.
link
Must be paired with upzone. Washington State
law requires cities to implement a rezone allowing
additional height or density when implementing
mandatory inclusionary zoning.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine appropriate affordability
requirements that still incentivize market rate
production while also providing affordable units.
Funding uncertainty. For 2017, trust fund is
unfunded by Washington State legislature due to
failure to pass a Capital Budget. Future funding
availability will be dependent on future Capital
Budgets.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine the competitiveness of a
specific proposal from Edmonds.
Generally, only for low-income areas. There are
no Low -Income Housing Tax Credit qualifying
census tracts in the City of Edmonds. Additional
research would be required to determine if this
makes Edmonds less competitive for all grant
types.
New affordable housing. Provides new affordable
housing funded by developers, and thus requires
no city investment.
Mixed -income projects. The inclusion of
affordable units in market -rate developments
allows for a mix of incomes, providing better
outcomes for families and children.
State funding source for affordable housing
projects. The Housing Trust Fund represents a
state -level funding source available for housing
projects.
New funding source. These grants would provide
an external source of funds for public facilities
and infrastructure projects that support affordable
housing.
DRAFT
Can be a disincentive to new development.
Particularly if the requirements are set too high.
This can paradoxically result in less new affordable
housing than would be the case with lower
requirements.
Competitive process. An application under this
process may not result in a successful grant.
Focus of the grants. Priority for grants is given to
projects with local government contributions and
several other factors.
Requires successful application. Funding
from these grants is limited, and a competitive
application is required to secure funds for specific
projects or programs.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
N
r
R
L
IIr^
V!
a)
c
.y
0
2
c�
L
L0
4-
c
0
r
0
c
m
E
E
0
U
a�
67
Packet Pg. 169
7.A.b
91MA1212J044
RM DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
Institute a City affordable housing levy.
A City-wide affordable housing levy can
be instituted as part of the local property
tax. This levy is typically developed as an
excess levy, and requires voter approval
(with a 60 percent supermajority).
Institute a City sales tax for
affordable housing.
The local sales tax can be increased to fund
affordable housing programs serving households
with income below 60 percent of the Area
Median Income and within specific categories,
including: individuals with mental illness, veterans,
senior citizens, homeless families with children,
unaccompanied homeless youth, persons with
disabilities, or domestic violence victims. This
increase must be approved by a ballot measure.
Support employer -assisted
housing programs.
Employer -assisted housing programs typically
involve housing support programs funded by
major employers that provide financial and
educational assistance to employees, typically to
allow them to live within the community where
they work. These programs may be co -sponsored
or provided additional support by the City.
Seattle. Housing levies have been approved in
Seattle since 1981, with a median cost of $112 per
year over 7 years. (link)
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Bellingham. In 2012, Bellevue passed a 7-year
levy combining a single -year levy lid lift with an
affordable housing levy under RCW 84.52.105.
link
Ellensburg. In 2017 voters in Ellensburg, WA
approved a 0.1 percent sales tax to support
affordable housing projects. The tax passed with
61 percent in favor. link
Resort communities. Employer -assisted
housing programs are commonly found in resort
communities where local housing costs far exceed
that which is affordable to service workers, and
housing access is necessary to support the local
labor pool.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine potential level of public
and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential for future partnerships. Edmonds could
also pursue a countywide levy in partnership with
other cities and the county.
Additional research required. Further research
is necessary to determine potential level of
public and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential partnerships. Edmonds could also
pursue a countywide sales tax in partnership with
other cities and the county.
Requires a major employer partner. This tool has
only limited potential unless a willing partner is
identified in the city or surrounding area.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who aren't addressed by other tools.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who are not addressed by other tools.
Addresses housing options for the local
workforce. Affordable housing can meet the
needs of the workforce for a major employer, and
ensure that employees can live in the community
where they work.
Requires voter approval. Voter approval is
necessary to raise property taxes through a
housing levy.
Increases tax burden. Local residents and
property owners would need to pay additional
taxes under this levy.
Limited in scope. Increasing sales taxes beyond
the maximum allowed under RCW 82.14.030 are
typically allowed only for specific uses, such as
chemical dependency or mental health treatment
services. Housing subsidies would be limited to
these specific categories.
Can be repealed by referendum. Under the law,
increases in sales taxes require a referendum to
be upheld, and could be repealed by popular vote.
Impact on the cost of living in the City. Sale taxes
are regressive and can increase cost of living for
low income households.
Revenue reliability is tied to retail economy. As
more residents buy products online, revenues
from a sales tax can decline.
Requires a major employer partner. This
program requires a major employer or coalition
of employers in the city as a partner to provide
funding and/or other support for affordable
housing programs.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
68
Packet Pg. 170
7.A.b
Provide funding for affordable housing
from the City General Fund.
Another source of funding for affordable housing
programs is through specific allocations from the
General Fund in the City budget. While this does
not represent a new funding source and may be
subject to tradeoffs within the budget, this does
not require tax increases or ballot measures.
Contribute to down payment
assistance programs.
Some cities have down payment assistance
programs to help first-time low- or moderate -
income homebuyers. Such programs are
typically run in coordination with local
nonprofits and lending institutions.
Local funding for government programs is
typically drawn from the General Fund.
Seattle. The Office of Housing works with
nonprofit partner organizations to provide down
payment assistance to first-time homebuyers at or
below 80 percent of area median income. (link)
Political focus. The recent move by City Council to ' New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
allocate general funds for homelessness indicates Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
an openness to using funds for programs that that are not addressed by other tools.
address housing needs.
Regional coordination. The amount of funding
from this tool is not likely to be significant
compared to scale of need. In this case,
contributing to a regional fund may be more
effective.
Best when preserving long-term affordability.
Down payment assistance programs may be more
effective when paired with CLTs or other tool that
uses affordability covenants to ensure homes
remain permanently affordable. (link)
Supports moderate income households in
purchasing their first home. Providing assistance
with down payments addresses one of the main
obstacles to homeownership, and can target
demographics that may be excluded from the
housing market.
DRAFT
Tradeoffs in budgeting. The use of general fund
dollars requires a trade-off with funding other City
priorities.
Not viable for rental units. Low-income
households or other households that are not
seeking homeownership may not be directly
supported with this program.
69
Packet Pg. 171
7.A.b
91"12124#
Rn 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 2018
Reduce barriers to tiny houses, boarding
homes, and single room occupancy housing.
These are forms of multi -tenant housing where
residents occupy individual rooms and typically
share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are
typically rented as permanent housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals. Certain
code requirements in Edmonds may be less
applicable to this kind of housing. Modifications
or relaxations of code requirements can help
to reduce the costs of development, as well
as the associated costs of housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals.
Pursue partnerships to develop
winter shelter programs.
Edmonds 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 resources.
Pursue partnerships to develop
a housing first program.
Edmonds could partner with nonprofits or
regional partners to develop a housing first
program that prioritizes providing permanent
housing to people experiencing homelessness.
Pursue partnerships to develop
housing for veterans.
Military veterans can experience post -traumatic
stress, injury and other unique challenges
as they return from duty and re -integrate
into society. Edmonds could partner with
nonprofits to help fund and develop new
housing targeted towards veterans which
may include case management services.
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. Donations to LIHI fund the materials for
the tiny houses, with construction mostly 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.
(link)
Multiple communities. Many communities have
emergency winter shelters provided during
extreme weather conditions.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan, the County uses a
housing first approach to quickly move people to
permanent housing. (link)
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1,000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Additional research needed. The City will need
to determine there are any current legal or
development code barriers that would prevent tiny
house villages. Similar analysis would be needed
to evaluate whether there are barriers to more
permanent structures such as SROs or boarding
houses.
Appropriate locations would need to be
identified. One option is underutilized parking lots
owned by the City or a willing community partner
such as a church.
Edmonds currently has one winter shelter
program. We All Belong is currently located at the
Edmonds Senior Center near the ferry terminal.
It opens for night where the temperature drops
below 34 degrees. Outreach to this shelter
could help inform level of demand and need for
additional capacity. (link)
Requires the availability of permanent housing.
For a housing first program to work, housing
units appropriate for persons transitioning from
homelessness must be available. Therefore, this
tool may be best pursued as a regional strategy in
partnership with the County Office of Community
& Homeless Services or nonprofit developers of
permanent housing for individuals and families
transitioning out of homelessness.
Requires a partner seeking to develop a facility
in Edmonds. Census data and the Snohomish
County PIT report indicates there aren't likely to
be a lot of veterans in Edmonds that suffer from
poverty or housing instability.
Provides short-term housing that is inexpensive
to build. Tiny houses can be rapidly and
inexpensively built when sufficient long-term
affordable housing is not available.
Provides emergency shelter options in the
community. Winter shelter programs provide
a warm place to sleep when temperatures are
dangerously low, and potentially connecting
homeless individuals and families with resources
Housing stability. The purpose of these programs
is to provide stability and attend to necessities
like food and shelter without preconditions such
as sobriety, treatment, or service participation
requirements.
Provides options for additional support. New
affordable housing designed to meet the unique
needs of veterans can access programs and
Neighborhood opposition. Community outreach
would be required to hear and address concerns
of nearby neighbors. While Seattle's camps have
been controversial, the City has succeeded in
generating some community support in nearby
neighborhoods.
Temporary housing option only. Tiny houses do
not provide adequate long-term housing options
for formerly homeless individuals and families.
Does not provide long-term housing stability.
Limited long-term benefits for people suffering
from homelessness and housing instability,
although winter shelters can be an opportunity
to connect homeless persons with services and
permanent housing opportunities.
Additional research is needed. Research is
necessary to determine what kinds of partnerships
would be most effective and what role(s) the City
can play.
Limited impact on overall housing issues. The
needs assessment for the City indicates that there
is not a sizeable number of veterans in Edmonds
funding sources specifically for these households. I who are challenged by poverty or homelessness.
"Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce Homelessness" continued on the next page
70
Packet Pg. 172
7.A.b
Pursue coordination of housing and
social service assistance programs.
Many factors can contribute to homelessness
and housing instability. These can include
poverty, illness, domestic violence, mental
health, and addiction. Edmonds can explore
ways to address these root causes of
homelessness through support for and
coordination with social service providers.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan "The homeless housing
and service system, which uses a low -barrier and
housing first approach to quickly move individuals
and families to permanent housing consists
of: outreach services, Coordinated Entry and
navigation services, homelessness prevention,
emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid
rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and
other permanent housing" link)
Identify appropriate role for the City. If Edmonds
decides to develop more homeless housing in the
city, it can play a role in making sure it is integrated
in the county's coordinated homeless housing and
service system.
Connecting services to households in need.
Providing coordinating services can ensure that
residents are connected with appropriate services
from different agencies, presenting a "one -stop"
solution for accessing these services in the
community.
DRAFT
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not currently manage housing
or social service assistance programs as part of
municipal operations. Coordinating assistance
programs would require partnerships with public
housing agencies or other nonprofits.
71
Packet Pg. 173
7.A.b
91MAIIIIJ044
RM DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JULY 201 8
Create requirements to provide
fair housing information.
An ordinance which requires property
managers to provide information to all tenants
regarding tenant rights and property manager
responsibilities under federal fair housing law.
Create anti -discrimination
requirements for tenants.
Ordinances intended to prevent the discrimination
of prospective tenants based on source of
income, race, ability, or other factors.
city must provide state and city landlord/tenant
regulations as addenda to the lease, as well as
voter registration information. link
Seattle. A Source of Income Protection Ordinance
prohibits discrimination against renters who use
subsidies or alternative sources of income, among
other requirements. Landlords must accept first
qualified applicant. link
Provide rental housing inspection programs. Seattle. A Rental Registration & Inspection
An ordinance or program intended to educate
property owners, managers, and renters
about City housing codes. It may also include
requirements for owners to register all rental
units and verify their property meets standards.
Develop a tenant relocation
assistance program.
An ordinance or program that provides financial
assistance and/or services to households that
are physically displaced due to redevelopment
or renovation of their rental unit.
Ordinance helps ensure rental units are safe and
meet basic housing maintenance requirements.
link
Seattle. A Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance
(TRAO) aids low income (below 50 percent AMI)
households displaced due to demolition or
renovation of their rental unit. Half of the cost is
paid by the property owner and half paid by the
city. link
.-.......uv.c�.—..--.0 1-1IUI I o UI—I
may be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Controversial application in other communities.
Seattle's requirement for landlord to accept
first qualified applicant has been controversial.
However, without this requirement it is difficult to
enforce fair housing laws.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if significant
portions of Edmonds' rental housing stock present
unsafe or unhealthy conditions for tenants.
Range of options for tenant education and
assistance. There are many ways to crafts
ordinances to help educate tenants of their rights
and prevent property owners from exploiting
loopholes.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to assess whether there are
many building with renter households that are at
risk of demolition and redevelopment.
Potential to expand to include economic
displacement. City Council members in Seattle
have proposed expanding their program to include
economic displacement due to rising rents.
Promotes educated tenants that are aware
of their rights. If successful, could aid with the
education of and outreach to tenants who may be
at risk of discrimination.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Challenges to enforcement. Enforcing the
requirement could be difficult, and it does not
ensure that property managers abide by fair
housing laws.
Increases access to affordable housing by Additional costs to the City. Developing and
voucher users. Could provide significant benefits administering a program would be an additional
to low-income households who use vouchers to cost to the city.
subsidize rents.
Reduces potential discrimination in the housing
market. Could help reduce other forms of housing
discrimination that may exist in Edmonds.
Promotes healthy and safe rental units. Helps to
ensure that rental units in Edmonds are safe and/
or healthy to live in.
Assists with members of the community
displaced by rising rents. This program can help
current renters who are displaced during times
of rapid redevelopment. Financial assistance can
relieve some of the financial burdens of moving
and move -in costs.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Additional costs to the City. Developing and
administering a program would be an additional
cost to the city.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Households may relocate outside Edmonds.
These programs do not provide any assurance the
renters will find housing that is affordable or will
choose to remain in Edmonds.
Increase in costs to developers. Requiring
developers to pay for relocation provides a small
disincentive to redevelopment and therefore
could, potentially, reduce new housing production.
"Provide Protections for Low-income Tenants" continued on the next page
72
Packet Pg. 174
7.A.b
Support third -party purchases
of existing affordable housing
for long-term preservation.
Units in older, more affordable apartment
buildings may be at risk of loss due to
redevelopment, renovation, or expiration of
affordability requirements as rents continue to
rise. The City could provide funds to a nonprofit
to purchase for long-term preservation.
Assist property owners with improvements
in return for affordability covenant.
Owners of rental housing that is currently priced
for lower income tenants can face a tradeoff
between raising rents and making needed
improvements, or selling the property due to
inability to finance needed repairs. The city could
create a program to provide low cost rehab
loans in exchange for an affordability covenant.
Seattle. The City of Seattle uses Housing Levy
funds for housing preservation with a required
minimum affordability period of 50 years. (link)
Seattle. Assistance for renovations in exchange
for affordability covenants has been proposed
in Seattle's HALA Report as one option for
encouraging affordable housing. (link)
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Promotes preservation of existing affordable
housing. Third -party purchases can ensure the
long-term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
Cost-effective approach to maintain existing
affordable housing. Renovating existing housing
stock can be more cost-effective than building
new affordable housing. This can ensure the long-
term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
DRAFT
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
73
Packet Pg. 175
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/11/2018
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Board's current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
07-11-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 176
of EbAf
U� O�6
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
PUNKNO BOARD
M/p,
Extended
July 6, 2018
Meeting Item
JULY 2018
July 11 1. Public Hearing on Critical Area Update
2. Discussion on Draft Housing Strategy
July 25 1. SMP Periodic Review
2. Public Hearing on Rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 (File No.PLN20160044)
3. Public Hearing on Code Update for Permit Decision Making
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.
NOVEMBER 2018
November 14 1.
November 28 1.
r
a
Packet Pg. 177
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. 178