2023-07-12 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
V
,HvREGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JULY 12, 2023, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
Meeting Link:https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287
2194 Passcode:007978
This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial
meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m
Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 28 Meeting Minutes
4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Draft Code Language for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004)
B. Comprehensive Plan Update and Highway 99 Proposed Approach
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. July 12 Extended Agenda
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
July 12, 2023
Page 1
12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
July 12, 2023
Page 2
3.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/12/2023
June 28 Meeting Minutes
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning & Development
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes from June 28 joint meeting with Tree Board.
Narrative
June 28 draft meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
June 28, 2023 Draft Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
3.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS JOINT PLANNING BOARD
(including Joint Session with Citizens' Tree Board)
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
June 28, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds
City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Martini
Planning Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Richard Kuehn
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell
Planning Board Members Absent
Lauren Golembiewski (excused)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep; excused)
Citizens' Tree Board Members Present
Janelle Cass, Chair
Bill Phipps, Vice Chair
Wendy Kliment
Kevin Fagerstrom
Citizens' Tree Board Members Absent
Ross Dimmick
Crane Stavig
Chris Eck
Jenna Nand (City Council Liaison)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
David Levitan, Planning Manager
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXEWLL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 14 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 4
as
c
c
W
d
a�
00
N
N
c
M
3.
3.A.a
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion on the negative effects that some trees have on active
or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do so?
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
as
c
PUBLIC HEARINGS
c
W
None
as
00
UNFINISHED BUSINESS N
as
c
A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) 3
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals.
Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically
unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation.
Key concepts for consideration with this code update:
• Number of removals
• Frequency
• Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions)
• Landmark trees
• Tree removal in critical areas
• Replacement requirements
Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of
allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question
about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She
reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board
had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees
would be 24" DBH or greater.
Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it
would depend on the size and number of trees.
Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of
allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 5
3.A.a
Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees?
Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had
indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers
reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes.
Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather
than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he
noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this
could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but
with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the
resources to deal with administering a complex code.
Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that
there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be
easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even
though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per
12 months rather than three trees.
Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had
previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit
would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code
enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas.
Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The
response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers
noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix
showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements.
Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private
property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree
canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning
Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest
Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan
with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in
the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest
Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent
public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that
went into the management plan.
Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger -
sized properties.
Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they
are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and
whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have
made it clear they don't want a tree code.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 6
as
c
W
d
as
CO
N
N
c
M
Z
3.A.a
Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the
existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage
but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be
some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that
there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair
Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of
the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest
Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on
private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is
minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds.
Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to
protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational
approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations
around those because of landslides.
Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be
greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall
market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get
information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact
on their neighbors.
Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not
statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board
Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager
Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral
testimony.
Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban
Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may
not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few
goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. In 2024 there will be a gap analysis
of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest
Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board,
etc. She noted that Goal IA related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was
direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting
for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone
asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied
that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed.
Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land.
PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION
OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS
SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 7
as
c
W
d
a�
00
N
N
c
THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN.
Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not
they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined.
Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they
would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are
concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a
canopy problem.
Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board
Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they
would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but
those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not
cut them down.
Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She
believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban
temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to
retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension between
private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in
navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan,
but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible.
Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged
there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is
a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree
canopy is important for helping with climate change.
MOTION PASSED 4-2.
Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there
is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy
protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and
workable to Council.
Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next
most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification)
not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance
and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet
the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 8
as
c
W
d
a�
00
N
N
C
7
Z
3.A.a
Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost
effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from
future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly
slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals.
Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public
hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree
replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards
are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He
wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not
increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment.
Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed
that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace
the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do
replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile
to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could
require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance.
Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between
how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify
the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of
code for both the property owner and for staff.
Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed
at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him.
He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was
similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off
anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom said it should change with
the size of the lot.
Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also
thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in
tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees.
Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what
it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table.
Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is
a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she
also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at
a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept
that Kirkland used.
Tree Board members departed.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 9
3.A.a
NEW BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Manager Levitan gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff is bringing forward the
scope of work for the consultant team to Council on July 5. The proposed approach will have a big focus on the
neighborhood level with six different neighborhood districts. In coordination with that staff has identified dates
to do the first round of community outreach later in July. The intent is to go out to individual neighborhoods
and hold a series of events. There has been significant focus on the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Council had
a lot of discussion on the Community Renewal Plan as well as the property acquisition of the landmark site. In
addition, there are a lot of community engagement opportunities with the Transportation Plan update, the
Climate Championship Series, Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets, etc. Other topics which will be focused?
N
on include climate change and climate adaptation specifically related to the waterfront, housing needs, and
c'
conceptual land use possibilities within neighborhoods. A more detailed Comprehensive Plan update and scope
of work will be coming to the Planning Board on July 12. He welcomed the Board's participation at upcoming
public outreach events.
W
Chair Gladstone said she really appreciated the public engagement going out into the neighborhoods.
00
a
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
c
3
Planning Manager Levitan reviewed the extended agenda.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted that she would be gone for work at the July 12 meeting but she would get
comments back to the group via Planning Manager Levitan.
Board Member Mitchell asked if it made sense to break the Tree Code discussion up into smaller chunks (like
two concepts per meeting) so they can actually get a recommendation into place. Planning Manager Levitan
noted that the concepts are very intertwined so it might be difficult to isolate topics.
Board Member Maxwell recommended at the next meeting regarding the Tree Code they start with questions
rather than background.
Chair Gladstone thought there might be ways they could organize the way the material is presented to get
through it more efficiently. She recommended that staff come back with a proposal reflecting what they talked
about tonight as a starting point for the next discussion. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and indicated that
is the plan for the next meeting.
Chair Gladstone requested that Parks Director Feser come in once a year for her report rather than always just
giving written reports. It would be valuable to have some facetime and ask questions directly to generate
discussion. Other board members agreed and suggested maybe having Director Feser visit in person twice a
year would be nice. Planning Manager Levitan suggested he could see if she could come in early in the year
with a look back with an annual report.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 10
3.A.a
Chair Gladstone expressed concern with the pace of the Comprehensive Plan and that November and December
only have one meeting. She wondered if they might want to plan on an extra meeting in early December in case
they need it. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and said he would look at some potential dates.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Kuehn said he and his family attended the opening of Civic Park last weekend. He was very
excited for this to be part of the city. There is so much good that can come from this in terms of bringing the
community together and the inclusive playground He was very proud to be part of the moment.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thanked everyone for the meeting. N
as
Board Member Maxwell thanked everyone for the good meeting. c'
Board Member Mitchell echoed previous comments about Civic Park and the productive meeting.
W
d
a�
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
CO
N
N
Chair Gladstone said if anyone has not seen the Council survey on budget priorities, she recommended that they
find it and voice their opinion on it. She is also pleased that the City is hosting a Pride Night on Friday night. 3
d
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 28, 2023
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 11
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/12/2023
Draft Code Language for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
Staff introduced this code update project to the Planning Board on May 24, 2023 (see Attachment 1 for
excerpt minutes and Attachment 2 for slides).
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies
from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater availability. They are required by and
treated as critical areas under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and defined in Chapter 23.60 ECDC,
which was last updated in 2016 and states:
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(2). CARAs have prevailing
geologic conditions associated with infiltration rates that create a high potential for
contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of
ground water. CARAs are protected as critical areas under the Washington State Growth
Management Act. However, no areas meeting criteria for CARAs exist in the vicinity of the
city of Edmonds. Thus, additional specific provisions for protection of this critical area type
are not provided within this title. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
In 2022, Edmonds became aware of the presence of CARAs within the City's jurisdiction when the
Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) appealed the City's SEPA Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for a stormwater code update (page 39 of May 24, 2023 meeting packet weblink).
While OVWSD's appeal was denied by the hearing examiner, staff committed to updating the City's code
to reflect the presence of CARAs within its boundaries. OVWSD provided mapping of their wellhead
protection areas to the City, which were added to the City's geographic information system (GIS). This
code update is a follow-up to that work and will establish regulations for those areas consistent with the
GMA in RCW 36.70A.020 and RCW 36.70.330. The purpose of the updated code is to establish CARAs
together with groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from degradation and depletion to
minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of supply wells for public drinking water,
and to prevent contamination of groundwater.
Using guidance from the Washington State Departments of Ecology (page 64 of May 24 meeting weblink)
and Commerce (Attachment 3) together with best available science (BAS) created for Olympic View in
2018 (page 213 of May 24 meeting weblink), staff developed draft regulations for critical aquifer
recharge and wellhead protection areas in Edmonds (Attachment 4). In combination with the City's
existing stormwater code which protects groundwater throughout Edmonds, the CARA code would
provide additional protections specifically within Olympic View's mapped wellhead protection areas and
buffer.
Packet Pg. 12
8.A
Staff Recommendation
Staff will provide a presentation about the draft critical aquifer recharge code language. Planning Board
members are encouraged to ask questions and provide feedback on the draft language in advance of a
public hearing on the topic which has been scheduled for July 26. Staff continues to engage with Olympic
View on potential refinements to the code language, so additional revisions may occur prior to the July
26 public hearing.
Narrative
The draft regulations in Attachment 4 are based on the City of Issaquah's CARA and groundwater
protection codes, which are recommended templates in the Department of Ecology's March 2021
guidance for critical aquifer recharge and wellhead area protection. The codes from Shoreline,
Mountlake Terrace, Woodway and Snohomish County were also analyzed since those jurisdictions have
portions of Olympic View's wellhead protection areas.
Staff from Olympic View and the Edmonds' Public Works Department reviewed an initial draft of the
code in June 2023 (redline/strikeout) and held a series of meetings to work on refinements that are
included in the current draft (yellow highlights). The draft contains three subsections:
1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the chapter is to establish critical aquifer recharge areas
(CARAs) and groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from degradation and
depletion. The intent is to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of
supply wells for public drinking water, and to prevent contamination of groundwater.
2. Mapping, Classification, Applicability, and Local Consultation
Olympic View has two Group A wellhead protection areas in Edmonds: Deer Creek Springs and
the planned 228th Street Wellfield. Deer Creek Springs itself is located west of Edmonds in the
Town of Woodway while the 228th Street Wellfield is located in Esperance (unincorporated
Snohomish County), which is surrounded by Edmonds. Both areas have been mapped and
modeled using best available science and include four travel time zones (6 month, 1 year, 5 year,
and 10 year) plus an additional buffer, which is the entire zone of contribution for the wellhead
protection area. An area of exposed highly sensitive soils (Ova aquifer) is also mapped.
These areas are classified based on the Issaquah model using travel times:
Class 1 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the 6 month, one (1) and five (5) year
capture zones of a wellhead protection area.
Class 2 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the ten (10) year capture zone of a
wellhead protection area.
Class 3 CARAs include those mapped areas in the wellhead protection area buffer.
Uses that are proposed to be prohibited or restricted in each of the classes is described in the
Regulated Activities section. At the request of Olympic View, a local consultation process is
included to memorialize the relationship of the City and District during project reviews.
3. Regulated Activities
A proposed use table includes prohibited and restricted activities based on the location of the
use relative to the three classes of CARAs. The uses are further regulated by the location of the
use relative to the QVa aquifer, an area of exposed soils which are more sensitive to potential
contamination. While many of the uses in the table will never occur in Edmonds due to the
existing zoning that applies within both CARAs and the fact that Edmonds is a built -out city, a
wide range of potential limitations are included for discussion.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 13
8.A
Attachment 1
- Planning Board minutes May 24, 2023
Attachment 2
- PB 5.24.23 CARA intro slides
Attachment 3
- Commerce CARA Guidance 2023
Attachment 4
- Draft CARA Code Language
May 24, 2023 Planning Board Meeting Packet
Packet Pg. 14
8.A.a
Board Member Golembiewski also thought more clarity was needed around the consequences of lack of
payment. She asked if there is a fee for using other city utilities such as electricity or water. Deputy Director
Burley replied there is not but some coordination is needed to make sure everything is ready. Board Member
Golembiewski asked if the indemnification agreement is for the individual signing it or if they are signing it on
behalf of the organization. Deputy Director Burley explained she had asked the attorney to ensure that the
definitions clarify the role of the organizer, the person filling out the application, as a representative of the entire
organization and that the indemnification clause was representative of the entire organization and that the City
was indemnified.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to the decision to not include the hours of operation because they are
subject to change and requested that an explanation of that be included. Deputy Director Burley agreed. Vice
Chair Tragus-Campbell summarized that staff would work on additional clarifications for when payment is due
and the consequences of when payment is not received. She also suggested a line item in the introductory
document that this is not for large special events; for large special events there is a separate process. Deputy
Director Burley indicated she would also clarify about running events in November and parks closing.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN, TO SUPPORT THIS DOCUMENT WITH THE SUGGESTED CLARIFICATIONS AS
DISCUSSED TONIGHT. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Introduction to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment
Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained that critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are established to protect
public groundwater drinking supplies from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater
availability. They are required by and treated as critical areas under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The
current Edmonds code from 2016 states that there are no CARAs in the City. In 2022, the City learned there
were two CARAs in Edmonds (Olympic View Water & Sewer District wellhead protection areas) that need to
be regulated.
Senior Planner Clugston reviewed maps showing the Olympic View Water & Sewer District service area and
wellhead protection areas for Deer Creek Springs and the 228d' Street Wellfield. Regulations being considered
would integrate with existing stormwater codes; prohibit land uses with the most potential for contamination
(auto wrecking yards, dry cleaners using chlorinated solvents, cemeteries, underground hazardous material
storage and pipelines); and regulate new and existing facilities handling and storing hazardous materials.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked if there can be a plan to phase in changes to warehousing requirements for
existing facilities. Senior Planner Clugston affirmed that there could be. He also noted that the goal is to make
sure they are using best management practices, not to say that the materials can't be there.
Senior Planner Clugston explained that the draft code is being reviewed by stormwater staff and Olympic View
now. It could return to the Planning Board for an additional work session if desired or go to a public hearing.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended that the Board should see the draft code before it goes to a public
hearing.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about requiring pollution liability insurance for certain uses in these areas.
Planning Manager Levitan and Senior Planner Clugston replied that they had not seen any jurisdictions do this
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 24, 2023 Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 15
8.A.a
but indicated they could look into it. Board Member Golembiewski replied that is where all the money for
cleanup comes from these days. She also recommended that metal plating uses be added to the list of uses with
potential for contamination.
Board Member Maxwell asked clarification questions about the intention for regulations inside CARAs versus
outside them. He asked if they expect to prohibit certain uses and how that would impact existing businesses.
Planning Manager Levitan explained that still needs to be worked out. There are issues with uses that have long-
term leases, displacement, economic disparities, etc. Staff will be getting feedback from the stormwater team
and Olympic View about the draft code and will be welcoming feedback from the Planning Board as well.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented that it looks like most of the impact is going to be with commercial
uses in the CG zone. What kind of changes are they looking at for residential areas? Planning Manager Levitan
explained that most of the language addresses the commercial uses but they will also be looking at impacts of
various residential uses. They can look at what other cities have done with regard to residential uses.
Board Member Martini asked if staff feels that ideally all commercial uses would be vacated in these areas.
Planning Manager Levitan explained that they are balancing a lot of competing interests including economic
development needs of the city as well. Some of these areas spill out onto Highway 99 which is an incredibly
important commercial corridor. There are a lot of factors to consider. This is basically another layer to the critical
areas inventory that is considered when regulating specific land uses. There are going to be uses that will be
prohibited in those areas.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if the code gets more prohibitive the closer you get to the well. Senior
Planner Clugston replied that generally, in other codes, the closer you are the higher the level of regulations.
Board Member Golembiewski noted that maps like these seem a little arbitrary because something might be
allowed in one location and then a hundred feet away not be allowed. How do they intend to handle land use
issues like that. Senior Planner Clugston explained that the intent is to have different regulations in different
areas (10-year, 5-year, 1-year, 6-month, etc.).
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked how often the science gets updated to make these maps. Planning Manager
Levitan replied that it would get updated periodically. He thought perhaps when the critical areas ordinance is
being updated would be a good opportunity to look at updated science.
Board Member Mitchell asked if other jurisdictions are required to adopt Edmonds' regulations when the areas
on the map branch into adjacent jurisdictions. Senior Planner Clugston replied they are not; they have their own
regulations. Board Member Mitchell asked if it would be worthwhile to look at what adjacent jurisdictions are
doing to try to align the regulations. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the four different jurisdictions he
looked at were wildly different in what they were looking at. The City of Issaquah's ordinance seemed like a
reasonable place to start.
Board Member Maxwell noted that if Olympic View had located the well further west, they could have avoided
having the CARA overlap with the commercial district on Highway 99. He asked if the City had considered
other locations that would be less likely to bump into businesses that would be disrupted. Planning Manager
Levitan was not sure about the types of discussions there were and what kinds of interagency and
interjurisdictional discussions they had. Board Member Maxwell said he just wanted to be explicit that the issue
existed. He added that no matter what they do now the businesses that are currently on Highway 99 are going
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 24, 2023 Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 16
8.A.a
to pollute the water for the next ten years. Olympic View must have been okay with that when they selected
that site.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell did not think staff should spend their time looking into the question of the well
selection process for this issue. She would prefer that staff s limited time be spent elsewhere. She suggested it
would be reasonable for the City to express that if in the future Olympic View decides they want to put another
well in that could potentially impact the City of Edmonds, the City should have a seat at the table to help with
that placement. Planning Manager Levitan wasn't sure what the interlocal agreement with the water district
related to this looks like, but he thought it would be fair to have some opportunity for commenting because it
does impact Edmonds' land use regulatory framework.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Discussion followed.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked staff to discuss the opportunity for an Economic Development Commission
liaison. Planning Manager Levitan explained that in the past there was a Planning Board member who served
as an ex oficio member. If someone is interested in serving in that role, the Board has the ability to appoint that
position. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought it would be great for the Board to be able to fill that role provided
that somebody has the time to do so. There was no one available, but Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell
recommended bringing it up again later to see if someone can handle it in the future.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Maxwell requested the results of the tree survey and the vision survey. Planning Manager
Levitan replied that staff could provide those.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed appreciation for everybody's thoughts and feedback. She thanked staff
for their hard worked and commended Deputy Director Burley for her incredible work putting together the
athletic field use and reservation policy.
I\ 1 Lei I] -,]0 1 �1►Y W
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 24, 2023 Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 17
8.A.b
w
C>/
EDP
d
C)CiUC:iic)ri TCJ
..)oe-%l�eNrt-4o A ra
*1A [��M sII
by'JIMAIIIIIII
Packet Pg. 18
8.A.b
E
Packet Pg. 19
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs)
are established to protect public
groundwater drinking supplies from
What is a potential contamination and to ensure
CARA? adequate groundwater availability. They
are required by and treated as critical
areas under the Growth Management
Act (GMA).
Current Edmonds code (from 2016)
states the are no CARAs in the city
why (Chapter 23.60 ECDC)
Update? In 2022, City learned there were two
CARAs in Edmonds (Olympic View
Water &Sewer District wellhead
protection areas)
Best Available Science (BAS) provided
by Olympic View (2018)
Literature Ecology CARA guidance (2021)
Review Codes from Issaquah, Shoreline, MLT,
Town of Woodway, Snohomish County
IF
q6dj 7L 16 l,
.' } of ; #'
F 4� *-Iwo yid JI.
;Yfv00,.
A NA
# ar 0 # *► 4pp
Olympic View Water and Severer District'Service Are "�
4+
* `' ` ;"
IF
■ 'b . 0
'■ �� L )
Plop-
2 tWe 11 fie
Deer ' Springs � -
� � a
r.J. s v
y N
•�_ _
d.
# F
# x +
#ITd
L++iF ,. + *" • # . f *' 'mot` . #• 4,W " .1'; cC
} •
%e — .
rlr
A j L.1114
^ ` f PA
Packet Pg. 23
8.A.b
Model
Boundary
V-/ Precipitation
V- V
Runoff
QVt Infiltration
Discharge Flow Direction
uget ound
r
Precipitation
well
Di5chae
1r S,
Runoff
�rr�rltrat�o.rr
Ova
Leakage
Stream~
L
0
Q�
Model
Boundary
O
U
r
R
0
QVt
Water Tal
M
N
N
_ - LO
m
a
N
c
a�
E
r
a
r
E
r
a
PM; M7W
Snohomish County
F19L
WE
August 2018
T 27 N1R 3.4 E
Con
ROB 1 N SON
16 -�47A
Drawing Noll. to Scale
Packet Pg. 24
NOBLE
Olympic View Dater and Seer DlatrlC:ll
I
a
�4
EDMONDS
,. Olympic View Group A Wellhead
Protection Areas near Edmonds
>
5,1 T 11
f0 }
NI'
Deer Creek Springs
W 00DWAY
■
I
t
1 _ + n .— - .
r�
■
■
228t" Street Wellfield
F.
1 Ila-THSI s
Buffer
k
J T, ■ 4,
PL S%
LAKE 8ALLIN(AR %,o Packet Pg. 25
Q
TH T
I
10 q
1f �
SHORELINE
8.A.b
Edmonds
Zoningin DeE L
4-
Creek Springy
Wellhead J
• ~. Protection Ar U D
� L
_ Q
ED f OND +-
4 N
L
_ k
U
Cl)
N
RM-1.5
L Y'f r T7 ] 1 7 Y
N
C
N
E
L
V
a
I =
C
i
cc
*:
Packet Pg. 26
? r' 91 / —
Edmonds
Zoning in 228th
Street Wellfield
Wellhead
Protection Area
U
r
0
L)
0
.1 �7
Packet Pg. 27 1
Integrate with existing stormwater
codes (ECDC 18.30)
Prohibit land uses with most potential
Regulations for contamination
Auto wrecking yards, dry cleaners using
being chlorinated solvents, cemeteries,
considered underground hazardous material
storage and pipelines
Regulate new and existing facilities
handling and storing hazardous
materials
Board questions and feedback
Draft code being reviewed by
Next Steps stormwater staff and Olympic View
Could return for an additional work
session if desired or go to public
hearing
8.A.c
2.6 Designating and Protecting Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas
Potable water is an essential life sustaining element for humans and many other species. Much of
Washington's drinking water comes from groundwater sources. Once groundwater is contaminated it is
difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid
exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential physical harm to people and ecosystems.148 Local governments
should know where their community's drinking water comes from, how their community depends on
groundwater for drinking water, what could contaminate drinking water sources, and how to prevent
contamination.
The Minimum Guidelines define critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) as areas with a critical recharging
effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is
vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced
recharge.149
The quality and quantity of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area. Where aquifers
and their recharge areas have been studied, affected counties and cities should use this information as the
basis for classifying and designating these areas. Where no specific studies have been done, counties and
cities may use existing soil and surficial geologic information to determine where recharge areas exist.
Wellhead protection areas defined by drinking water purveyors can provide information about recharge area.
The Department of Health maintains a map of these areas."' To determine the threat to groundwater quality,
existing land use activities and their potential to lead to contamination should be evaluated.151
The risk of groundwater contamination depends on two main sets of conditions. One set of conditions relates
to the ground itself and how easy it is for water to pass through to groundwater. If soils and the underlying
ground are very permeable and the groundwater table is shallow, then the hydrogeologic conditions are
susceptible to contamination. In addition, a source of recharge, like rain or irrigation, must be present before
contaminants would be carried down to the water table. This is what is meant by hydrogeologic susceptibility.
The other set of conditions relates to how likely it is for potential contaminants to reach groundwater. The
amount of potential contaminant material, chemical composition, and how the material is handled all
contribute to how easily potential contaminants may reach groundwater. This is commonly known as
contamination loading potential or source loading. To determine the threat to groundwater quality, existing
land use activities and their potential to lead to contamination should be evaluated.
148 WAC 365-190-100(1)
149 WAC 365-190-030(3)
150 https://fortress.wa.aov/doh/eh/dw/swap/maps/.
151 WAC 365-190-100(2)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 30
8.A.c
Hydrogeologic susceptibility provides the basis for classifying CARAs in terms of relative risk of
contamination. Evaluation of potential contaminant loading provides information for policy, planning,
management, and regulation of land uses that pose a risk to highly susceptible areas so that contamination
can be prevented.
Counties and cities must classify CARAs according to the aquifer vulnerability. Vulnerability is the combined
effect of hydrogeological susceptibility to contamination and the contamination loading potential. High
vulnerability is indicated by land uses that contribute directly or indirectly to contamination that may degrade
groundwater, and hydrogeologic conditions that facilitate degradation. Low vulnerability is indicated by land
uses that do not contribute contaminants that will degrade groundwater, and by hydrogeologic conditions that
do not facilitate degradation. Hydrologic conditions may include those induced by limited recharge of an
aquifer. Reduced aquifer recharge from effective impervious surfaces may result in higher concentrations of
contaminants than would otherwise occur.'52
Important Considerations for Designating Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas
Characterize Hydrogeologic Susceptibility
Depth to ground water is a main factor used in contamination risk assessment for CARAs. Other factors are
helpful in understanding the hydrogeologic system. These parameters help with understanding where ground
water is, where it comes from, where it moves to, and how much there is.
To characterize hydrogeologic susceptibility of the CARA to contamination, counties and cities may consider
the following physical characteristics:
O Depth to groundwater
O Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity, gradients, and size
O Soil (texture, permeability, and contaminant attenuation properties)
O Characteristics of the vadose zone including permeability and attenuation properties
O Other relevant factors153
Evaluate Potential Contaminant Loading Risk Factors
The following may be considered to evaluate vulnerability based on the contaminant loading potential:
O General land use
O Waste disposal sites
O Agricultural activities
O Water quality test results
O Proximity to marine shorelines
O Other information about the potential for contamination
152 WAC 365-190-100(3)
153 WAC 365-190-100(3)(a)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.c
Classification Strategy
A classification strategy for CARAs should be to maintain the quality, and if needed, the quantity of the
groundwater, with particular attention to CARAs with high susceptibility. In CARAs that are highly vulnerable,
studies should be initiated to determine if groundwater contamination has occurred. Classification of these
areas should include consideration of the degree to which the aquifer is used as a potable water source,
feasibility of protective measures to preclude further degradation, availability of treatment measures to
maintain potability, and availability of alternative potable water sources.154
Examples of areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water may include:
O Recharge areas for sole source aquifers designated pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
O Areas established for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management program, chapters 90.44,
90.48, and 90.54 RCW, and chapters 173-100 and 173-200 WAC
O Areas designated for wellhead protection pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
O Areas near marine waters where aquifers may be subject to saltwater intrusion
O Other areas meeting the definition of "areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water" in these guidelines.155
Even if an area is not designated in the above list (sole source aquifer, wellhead protection area, etc.), the
physical characteristics such as depth to water or permeability should to be used to designate CARAs.
Tools to Help Evaluate, Classify, and Designate Critical Aquifer Recharge
Areas
Some helpful information sources and tools for CARA analysis include:
O Professional expertise from staff hydrogeologists, consultants, or resource agencies
O Well logs and site reports — permitted sites, cleanup sites, civil engineering sites
O Water level measurement and water quality sampling
O Models
O USGS topographic maps
O Geologic and hydrogeologic studies and maps
O Soil surveys and maps. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey's soil infiltration
map layer can be used to classify susceptibility of CARAs to contamination if other science is unavailable.
O Contaminant inventories and contaminated site maps. Ecology's toxic cleanup program maintains a list
and map of known and suspected groundwater contamination sites.
O Wellhead protection areas. DOH's Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)Map shows wellhead
protection areas, which should be given special consideration to limit land uses that could cause
contamination. Group A public water systems must designate wellhead protection areas that typically
encapsulate the six month time of travel for contaminants ("time of travel" refers to how long it would take
for contaminants released on the ground to enter the groundwater and wells). Group B public water
systems have wellhead protection areas with a set 600 foot radius. The SWAP map shows the six month
time of travel, as well as one, five, and ten year times of travel. DOH encourages local governments to use
the online map because wellhead protection areas can change over time as water system plans are
154 WAC 365-190-100(4)(a)
155 WAC 365-190-100(4)(b)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 32
8.A.c
updated, added, or removed. In some small jurisdictions, there may be very little land outside a wellhead
protection area, and it may be easier to designate the entire jurisdiction as a CARA.
O Nitrate priority areas. A map of nitrate contamination across the state shows nitrates in well water
samples from the DOH, USGS, and Ecology. Ecology used this groundwater sampling data, along with the
geology, soils, and USGS nitrate risk analyses to develop recommended nitrate priority areas. When
drinking water supplies contain high levels of nitrates, water systems may have to treat the water, blend it
with another water source, drill a new well or deepen a well, all of which are very expensive.
In some cases, local water purveyors have already performed significant portions of the foundational work
necessary to enable a local government to designate and direct aquifer recharge protection.15' A local
government needn't "reinvent the wheel" in performing its CARA analysis. It can use studies, maps, and other
information the water purveyor provides. In all cases, water purveyors have data about the aquifers they use
for their supplies, which can help delineate specific CARAs and their susceptibility. At the same time, local
governments should regard this as valuable resource information only, keeping in mind that relevant case law
(see below) contradicts merely adopting a protective area identified by a water purveyor without a more
encompassing analysis.
This information -sharing is often easier with a municipally owned water system, as staff -to -staff consultation
can occur internally. With a separately operated system such as a special purpose district, the jurisdiction
should engage the purveyor in stakeholder communications when looking at CARA regulations. This is
intended to be a back -and -forth communication. As part of their water system planning responsibilities, public
water purveyors must:
O Ask each local government with jurisdiction over the service area (recognizing that it may overlap) to
provide a consistency review on its water system plan. This takes the form of 60-day notice similar to GMA
updates/amendments. If the local government requests it, an additional 30 days' review time can be
provided.
O Include a consistency review with supporting documentation describing how it has considered consistency
with local plans and regulations.157
Resources for more information about designating and protecting CARAs include Ecology's Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas: Guidance Document15' and a list of maps and data.
GMHB Decisions: Designating CARAs
WAC 365-190-040(5)(b) states that in circumstances where critical areas cannot be readily identified, these
areas should be designated by performance standards or definitions. WAC 365-190-040(5)(c) provides that
designation could be satisfied by the adoption of a policy statement. The Eastern Washington GMHB found
that CARAs expressly fall within this realm because, unlike wetlands or streams that can be visually delineated,
156 See, generally, Chapter 246-290 WAC for water system planning requirements, including wellhead protection plans. Source documentation is set
forth in WAC 246-290-130, source protection is addressed in WAC 246-290135, and watershed control is included in WAC 246-290-668. Source control
areas, watershed control programs, and wellhead times of travel are particularly related to emplacing meaningful land -use regulations that protect
source water, particularly constraints on certain uses that could pollute.
157 WAC 246-290-108
158 DRAFT - Draft - 2021 Critical Aquifer Recharae Areas: Guidance Document (wa.aov)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.c
the underground nature of an aquifer provides for a more challenging determination as to their location and
boundaries.159
The Eastern GMHB found that Walla Walla County relied exclusively upon pre-existing "wellhead protection
areas" as satisfying the GMA requirement to designate CARAs. The GMHB found that this approach is not
supported by the science. The scientific information did not indicate that using wellhead protection areas
alone is sufficient to protect the large gravel aquifer. Individual wellhead protection areas may protect some
wells that constitute regulated public water systems, but there was no evidence in the record that this
approach protects the large number of unregulated individual or exempt wells, nor was there any evidence that
this approach is sufficient to protect the larger gravel aquifer which underlies a land area of about 190 square
miles.160
The WAC 365-190-[100(2)] guidelines state that to determine the location of CARAs, counties may use existing
soil and surficial geologic information. The Eastern GMHB found the record did not show that Walla Walla
County made any such determinations as to the gravel aquifer recharge areas. In the absence of basic
locational information on specific recharge areas, the County could not effectively determine which areas are
"critical" to preventing adverse impacts to the aquifer. Moreover, the record didn't not show a consideration of
the WAC guidelines that prescribe (1) an evaluation of the threat of ground water contamination from existing
land use activities,16' and (2) the designation of aquifer specific recharge areas based upon vulnerability of the
aquifer to contamination.162
The GMA does not necessarily require designation of the entire 190 square mile aquifer. Rather, the GMA
requires designation and protection of "areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water." The GMHB concluded that the extent of these designated critical recharge areas, as distinct from the
underlying aquifer itself, is determined through a substantive consideration of best available science, which
has not yet occurred in Walla Walla County.163
WAC 365-190-080(4) states that counties and cities should designate critical areas by using maps and
performance standards, and counties and cities should clearly state that maps showing known critical areas
are only for information or illustrative purposes. The Eastern GMHB found that, during its compliance efforts,
Yakima County's CARA map, which was based on older, superseded science, was not reviewed or revised to
reflect updated best available science. Without a mapping update to include best available science, the pre-
existing CARA designation map did not comply with the GMA.16a
159 Hazen, et al v. Yakima County, 08-1-0008c (April 5, 2010), FDO at 22-23..
160 Citizens for Good Governance v. Walla Walla County, 09-1-0013 (May 3, 2010) Final Decision and Order at 6-7.
161 WAC 365-190-100(2)
162 Citizens for Good Governance v. Walla Walla County, 09-1-0013 (May 3, 2010) Final Decision and Order at 7-8, quoting WAC 365-190-100(3).
163 Id, at 10.
164 Hazen, et al. v. Yakima County, Coordinated Cases 08-1-0008c and 09-1-0014, Coordinated Compliance Order/Issuance of Stay (April 27, 2011) at
10.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS 41
Packet Pg. 34
8.A.c
Protecting Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Local jurisdictions may require additional precautions for land uses located in CARAs. For example, a county
might require a tow yard operator to use a building pad for storage in a wellhead protection area. Ecology's
guidance document lists concerns for land use types within CARAs, which include car -related uses with special
concerns for petrochemical leaks, illegal dumping, tire piles, auto graveyards, car washes, chemical storage,
and warehousing.
In some cases, there are legacy groundwater issues from facilities built many years ago. Groundwater
contamination can occur over time until it is finally discovered. A high profile example is PFAS contamination;
PFAS is a forever chemical that does not degrade, moves around readily in groundwater, and accumulates in
the human body. Legal cases have impacted multiple water districts in other states and local governments are
encouraged to consult their attorney or other legal counsel to manage their risk from these types of
contamination issues.
It is important to note that the "no net loss" concept does not readily apply to groundwater protection. No net
loss means maintaining the same functions and values of critical areas that existed in the baseline year of
2011,165 but there is no good baseline for groundwater. Groundwater is always moving, so if contamination
was detected in a well, this would require that same level of pollution to be maintained, which is illogical. No
net loss also implies that some degree of loss might be okay as long as it is compensated, but that is not the
case with drinking water. Department of Health (DOH) emphasizes that the compensatory mitigation
provisions of WAC 365-196-830 are carried through to only two specific critical areas types - geologically
hazardous areas (WAC 365-190-120) and wetlands (WAC 365-190-090) - but do not extend to CARAs (not
included in WAC 365-190-100) or other critical area classes. Attempting to apply compensatory mitigation to
CARAs implies that some degree of degradation to an aquifer is acceptable, while allowing even a limited
degree of harm to an aquifer could result in lost potability, and it is impossible to create a new aquifer as an
offset.
CARA planning and the associated ordinances may take into consideration existing groundwater protection
programs such as:
0 Sole source aquifer recharge areas designated pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
4 Groundwater management areas established for special protection pursuant to a ground water
management program, Chapters 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 RCW, and Chapters 173-100 and 173-200 WAC.
O Source water/wellhead protection areas designated pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and
state requirements.
The bottom line is to maintain your drinking water in a drinkable condition. The GMA land use element requires
attention to both quality and quantity. Water sources for all types of water systems must be protected, not just
publicly owned systems. It is much cheaper to take the necessary steps to prevent water contamination than
to try to clean it up later.
Ecology and DOH offer additional guidance, resources and assistance for protecting CARAs. Ecology's CARA
guidance document can be found on their website. DOH offers review and technical assistance for CAO and
comprehensive plan updates related to wellhead protection areas. Wellhead protection areas are a type of
165 WAC 365-196-830(8)(a)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.c
CARA166 for which separate guidance exists. In addition, Ecology has produced its own guidance specific to
CARAs.167
Saltwater Intrusion in Coastal Freshwater Aquifers
Saltwater intrusion, or encroachment, is defined as the migration of saltwater into freshwater aquifers under
the influence of groundwater development.168 Saltwater intrusion becomes a problem in coastal areas where
freshwater aquifers are hydraulically connected with seawater. When large amounts of fresh water are
withdrawn from these aquifers, hydraulic gradients encourage the flow of seawater toward the pumped well or
wells. Whether or how fast this may occur depends on several factors, including the nature of the aquifer, the
amount of precipitation recharging the aquifer, and the amount of ground water used. Seawater intrusion can
and has occurred in various coastal and island communities in Washington state. Seawater intrusion into
potable water aquifers could affect any of at least 13 counties in Puget Sound and the Washington coast.
As popular shoreline areas are increasingly developed, the limits to relying on ground water for potable water
supply may be reached. Saltwater intrusion can be an intractable problem to solve once it has occurred. A
commonly proposed solution in some shoreline areas is to provide a public water supply where salt water
intrusion is suspected. In the absence of a reliable public water supply, setting reasonable limits to shoreline
development may be needed. If the jurisdiction has designated the area as a CARA, then delineation of the
boundaries based on locally developed geologic and hydrological information will be a useful tool in
developing strategies and determining future land use designations and densities.
It should be understood that providing a public water supply may not be a complete planning solution. Other
development impacts, such as wastewater disposal, vegetation removal, and stormwater runoff also cam
degrade the shoreline environment and potentially can threaten the potable water aquifer serving existing
residences. Thus, while this problem primarily involves potential impacts of ongoing population growth on
ground water supply limits, it can also be just one part of a planning problem that requires addressing
fundamental planning issues, such as appropriate rural shoreline population density, rural area service delivery,
and critical areas protection.
How can it be controlled? The first step in correcting problems with salt water intrusion is to evaluate the size
and extent of the problem. This is commonly accomplished by the installation of monitoring wells, used to
determine the boundaries of the salt/fresh water interface and the rate at which salinity levels increase.
Monitoring data and other information on the hydrologic and geologic properties often is incorporated into
problem analysis in order to predict future conditions and to evaluate remediation alternatives.
Possible approaches for local governments to consider include adopting regulations that control the
development of new water wells based on analyses of existing nearby water well chemistry, known aquifer
sensitivity, or water supply limits. Such options to consider include:
O Prohibit new wells
166 https://www.doh.wa.aov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/331-018.pdf. Health expects to begin updating this document soon.
167 https://fortress.wa.aov/ecY/publications/documents/0510028.pdf. Ecology expects to begin updating this document soon.
168 See Freeze, S.F. and J.A. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Inc. 1979.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 36
8.A.c
O Require water quality and quantity monitoring in areas suspected of high salinity
O Reduce pumping (metering withdrawal will be a useful tool to monitor results)
O Relocate wells
O Directly recharge aquifer (primarily surficial aquifers)
O Recharge fresh water into wells paralleling the coast, creating a hydrodynamic barrier
O Extract seawater before it reaches wells
O Establish seasonal or periodic water use restrictions
O Prepare scientific hydrogeologic reports to support new well development.
GMHB Decisions: Saltwater Intrusion
The Western Washington GMHB was not persuaded by Jefferson County's argument that it has no authority to
impose some form of water conservation measures, limiting the number of new wells allowed, or other
measures to reduce the withdrawal of groundwater from individual wells if that withdrawal would disrupt the
seawater/freshwater balance and lead to greater seawater intrusion. The exemption of RCW 90.44.050 does
not limit a local jurisdiction from complying with its mandate for protection of groundwater quality and quantity
under the GMA.169
In a subsequent Jefferson County decision,170 the Western GMHB found that a county that has considered the
best available science and adopted less stringent protection standards that balance the need for protection of
potable water supplies against the chilling effect of regulation against development has complied with the
GMA only if the county also adopts a monitoring strategy that includes stricter development regulations that
will be implemented at once if the less stringent protection standards prove to be inadequate to protect
against seawater intrusion.
The GMHB also found:
O Both the GMA and Jefferson County's own comprehensive plan require a county to protect not only those
places where freshwater enters the ground, but also the aquifers they feed. The Board held the County
must classify and designate seawater intrusion areas as critical areas, including best available science in a
substantive way.
O Although the County claimed that the data in the record were not adequate to designate vulnerable
seawater intrusion areas, this did not nullify the County's obligation to take action to designate and protect
CARAs including aquifers used for potable water.
O A county's decision to use a different approach than previously adopted does not necessarily make that
choice non-GMA compliant. However, the new approach must comply with the Act. The county's approach
of failing to designate any vulnerable seawater intrusion areas as critical areas does not comply with the
Act.
O It makes great sense for the intergovernmental planning group to study water issues on a watershed basis.
However, that group has no authority to take binding action on this issue. The county cannot abdicate its
GMA responsibility for seawater intrusion designation to the planning group.
The Western GMHB also addressed expansion by San Juan County of an urban growth area (UGA) into a CARA
and found, in light of the limitations of its ground water model and the data assembled to date, the studies did
not conclusively show that the increased densities of the UGA will not result in saltwater intrusion into the
169 Olympic Environmental Council v. Jefferson County, 01-2-0015 (FDO, 1-10-02).
170 Olympic Environmental Council, et al. v. Jefferson County, 01-2-0015 (Compliance Order, 12-4-02).
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 37
8.A.c
water supply. The GMHB held that the adaptive management program recommended by the advisory group is
a necessary part of the County's protection strategy. Until the County completed these missing pieces, the
Board found that the Lopez Village UGA failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a)-(d), RCW 36.70A.070(1),
and RCW 36.70A.020(10) and (12).17'
Special Consideration for Anadromous Fisheries
Some aquifers may also have critical recharging effects on streams, lakes, and wetlands that provide critical
fish and wildlife habitat. Protecting adequate recharge of these aquifers may provide additional benefits in
maintaining FWHCAs.12
CARAs contribute to groundwater quality and instream flow. While CARAs are designated and protected to
ensure availability of potable water, the groundwater resource also interacts with streams. Both discharge and
recharge areas help cool summer daytime temperatures and provide year-round habitat for invertebrates, an
important salmonid food source. Protecting CARAs from stormwater pollution helps protect water quality for
salmonids.
171 Stephen F. Ludwig v. San Juan County, Case No. 05-2-0019c (FDO, Compliance Order, April 19, 2006)
172 WAC 364-190-100(4)(c)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGNATING AND PROTECTING CRITICAL AREAS
Packet Pg. 38
8.A.d
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
Chapter 23.60
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
. .
11IM"•.
...
. .•.
. .. .. . .
.
...
Sections:
23.60.010 Purpose and Intent.
23.60.020 Mapping, Classification, Applicability and Local Consultation.
23.60.030 PerferMange-StapAaf& Regulated Activities.
23.60.010 Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) and
groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from degradation and depletion. The
intent is to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of supply wells for
public drinking water, and to prevent contamination of groundwater.
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.d
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
23.60.020 Mapping, Classification, Applicability, and Local Consultation.
A. Mapping. Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic View) has two Group A
wellhead protection areas in Edmonds: Deer Creek Springs and the 228t" Street Wellfield.
Deer Creek Springs itself is located west of Edmonds in the Town of Woodway while the
228t" Street Wellfield is located in Esperance (unicorporated Snohomish County), which is
surrounded by Edmonds. Both areas have been mapped and modeled using best available
science and include four travel time zones (6 month, 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year) plus an
additional buffer, which is the entire zone of contribution for the wellhead protection area.
An area of exposed highly sensitive soils (Qva aquifer) is also mapped.
B. Classification. CARAs are classified using the following criteria:
1. Class 1 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the 6 month. one (1) and five
(5) year capture zones of a wellhead protection area.
2. Class 2 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the ten (10) year capture zone
of a wellhead protection area.
3. Class 3 CARAs include those mapped areas in the wellhead protection area buffer. that
C. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to regulated activities occurring within
Class 1. Class 2 and Class 3 CARAs as identified in the Citv of Edmonds GIS. which may be
updated as new information becomes available.
D. Local Consultation. The City of Edmonds will notify Olympic View when new development
applications are submitted within the mapped CARAs. Typical applications will include but
not be limited to: single family/multifamily/commercial building permits, and short/formal
subdivisions.
23.60.030 °crfarmaTce Gptanda4s Regulated Activities.
A. Generally. In addition to this chapter, standards and requirements for stormwater
infiltration are found in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Stormwater Management.
B. Table 23.60.030.1. CARA Prohibited and Restricted Uses. establishes land uses and related
activities that are prohibited and restricted within a specific CARA classification and applies
to any new use or activity proposed after [MONTH DAY], 2023. New land uses or activities
that pose a hazard to the City's groundwater resources, resulting from storing, handling,
treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other
deleterious substances, are prohibited in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 1 and 2. Some uses
are prohibited in all CARA classes. Uses and activities lawfully established prior to [MONTH
DAY], 2023, are not considered to be legal nonconforming uses subject to Chapter 17.40
ECDC. and may continue to operate within the scope of the existine use.
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.d
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
Table 23.60.030.1. CARA Prohibited and Restricted Uses
Use Activity I CARA Restriction
All mineral resource uses Mining, processing and reclamation of any type
below the water table or the upper surface of the
Cemeteries
Hazardous liquid transmission pipelines
3turated groundwater is prohibited in Class 1 and 2
hydrogeologic report is required for the use
3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa.
nd in exK
ianaaem
rohibited in the Class 1 and 2
Va soils in Class 3 CARA. Best
BMPs) and i
•Pnuirt-d fnr
As defined in Chapter 81.88 RCW, pipelines are
ort is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside
he area of exposed QVa.
Hazardous waste storage and/or Hazardous waste storage and/or treatment facilities
treatment facilities and/or processing, or as defined by Chapter 173-303 WAC are prohibited
disposal of radioactive substances in all CARA classes.
All automotive uses
bstances as defined in RCW 170.99.0201 is
efined by RCW 170A.390.0201, that is held for
isposal.
boveground storage tanks for hazardous
seconclary Containment area(s) ano Spill protection
plan are prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as
in exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A
hydrogeologic report is required for the use in Clas!
3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa.
ehicle towing yards that store vehicles on
ermeable surfaces are also prohibited. Service
xposed QVa soils in CI
outside of the area of
nd 2 CARA as vv
:ARA. In Class 3
ed QVa. vehicle
3
Packet Pg. 41
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
repair and servicing must be conducted indoors over
impermeable pads. For underground storage tanks
(UST) with hazardous substances, applicants must
demonstrate that the facility complies with federal
and state laws.
Dry cleaning
Dry cleaning using chlorinated solvents or using
solvent perchloroethylene is prohibited in all CARA
classes.
Large on -site sewage systems, as defined
Prohibited in all CARA.
in Chapter
246-272
WAC
Solid waste landfills
Prohibited in all CARA.
Solid waste is defined in WAC 173-304-100.
Solid waste transfer stations
Prohibited in all CARA.
Solid waste is defined under WAC 173-304-100.
Petroleum refinement processes,
including any related reprocessing or
storage
Prohibited in all CARA.
Bulk storage facilities where flammable or
Prohibited in all CARA.
combustible liquids, solids, or gels are
received by pipeline or tank vehicle, and
are stored or blended in bulk for the
purpose of distributing such substances
by pipeline, tank vehicle, portable tank, or
container
Chemical manufacturing, including but not
Prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as in
limited to organic and inorganic
chemicals, plastics and resins,
pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds,
exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A hydrogeologic
report is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside
of the area of exposed QVa. Applicants must
paints and lacquers, and agricultural
chemicals
demonstrate that the facility complies with federal
and state laws.
Primary and secondary metal industries
Prohibited in all CARA.
that manufacture, produce, smelt, or
refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from
molten materials
Wood preserving and wood products
preserving
Prohibited in all CARA.
Mobile fleet fueling oaerations (Prohibited in all CARA.
4
Packet Pg. 42
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
"Mobile fleet fueling" means the practice of filling
fuel tanks of vehicles from tank vehicles. Mobile fleet
fueling is also known as wet fueling and wet hosing.
Mobile fleet fueling does not include fueling at
construction sites.
Refer to the City's adopted Surface Water
Refer to the City's adopted Surface Water
Management Codes for regulations related to
underground infection wells.
Management Codes for regulations
related to underground infection wells
Permanent dewatering of the aquifer
when done as part of remediation action
Prohibited in all CARA.
that is approved by the Department of
Ecology
Irrigation and infiltration of greywater
Prohibited in all CARA.
Reclaimed or recycled water use with the
Prohibited in all CARA.
exception of uses that discharge to the
sanitary sewer
Hydrocarbon extraction
Prohibited in all CARA.
Metal recycling facilities with outdoor
storage and handling activities
Prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as in
exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A hydrogeologic
report is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside
of the area of exposed QVa.
C. Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous materials.
Activities may only be oermitted in a critical aauifer recharize area if the aoolicant can show
that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the groundwater by
compliance with the best management practices (BMPs) for handling and storing hazardous
materials. The Citv may imaose develoament conditions in accordance with BMPs to
revent degradation of groundwater.
1. Best Management Practices for Handline and Storine Hazardous Materials.
Packet Pg. 43
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
Any facility, activity, or residence in the City in which hazardous materials or other
deleterious substances are present must be operated in a manner that ensures safe
storage, handling, treatment, use, production, and recycling or disposal of such
materials and substances and prevents their unauthorized release to the environment.
Businesses, cemeteries and schools that store and/or handle hazardous materials must,
at a minimum, comply with the following BMPs:
a. Waste disposal and record keeping of disposal and use activity;
b. Spill containment supplies and an emergency response plan;
c. An emergency response training plan for all employees;
d. Hazardous materials must be stored using secondary containment measures at all
times;
e Periodic monitoring of the storage areas and methods used for containment must be
reviewed:
i. On a regular basis;
ii. Whenever business practices change regarding hazardous materials; and
iii. As required by laws and regulations;
f. In no case may hazardous materials or other deleterious substances be stored,
handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or disposed of in a way that would pose
a significant groundwater hazard within the City.
2. Hazardous Materials Inventory (HMI).
The HMI statement is intended reflect all current and anticipated types and quantities of
hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or
disposed of at a facility. The HMI must always be kept on site. New and existing
commercial land uses, schools and cemeteries located in Class 1 and Class 2 CARAs must
submit an HMI statement:
a. Within 1 vear of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chanter:
b. With any new land use or building permit application;
c. With a new business license; and
d. At periodic intervals as needed to keep up with changing business practices.
3. Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). Hazardous materials auantities
correspond to the aggregate total of all hazardous materials, not individual chemicals.
Facilities that use aggregate auantities of hazardous materials eaual to or greater than
0
Packet Pg. 44
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
20 gallons or the equivalent of 200 pounds, or that use hazardous materials that may be
a potential risk to the WHPA, are reviewed to determine the potential risk to the
groundwater and the need for an HMMP. Commercial land uses and activities using
aggregate quantities of hazardous materials equal to or greater than 50 gallons or the
equivalent of 500 pounds, or that use hazardous materials that are considered to be a
potential risk to the groundwater in lower quantities, must submit an HMMP to the City.
a. The City requires an HMMP based on the type and aggregate quantity of inventoried
material. The following are exempt from an HMMP:
i. Retail sale of containers 5 gallons or less in size when the business has fewer than
500 gallons on the premises at any one time; and
ii. Hazardous materials of no potential risk to the wellhead protection areas.
b. HMMPs must demonstrate implementation of BMPs. An HMMP must be completed
by the facility operator and must always kept on site and include:
i. A description of the facility including a floor plan showing storage, drainage and
use areas. The plans must be legible and approximately to scale;
ii. The plan must include and identify all hazardous materials containers, sizes,
storage locations and methods of secondary containment of the hazardous
materials; and
iii. The plan must, at a minimum, include how the facility implements the BMPs as
identified in this code.
4. Inspections. The City has the right to inspect a facility at reasonable times for the
purpose of determining compliance with this chapter. Inspections may include, but are
not limited to:
a. Visual inspections of hazardous materials storaEre and secondary containment area
b. Inspections of HMMP; and
c. Sampling of soils, surface water and groundwater.
5. Third -Party Review. The City may employ a hydrogeoloPic consultant licensed in
Washington State at the applicant's expense for third -party review for compliance with
the BMPs, the HMI and the HMMP.
6. Enforcement. Whenever a person has violated any provisions of this chapter, the City
may take code enforcement action based on the nature of the violation including, but
not limited to. abatement. iniunction. mitieation. fines and Denalties as set forth in
Section 18.30.100 ECDC, Stormwater Management.
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.d
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
23.40.005 Definitions pertaining to critical areas.
For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types
(Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply:
"Adjacent" means those activities located on site immediately adjoining a critical area; or
distance equal to or less than 225 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel.
"Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical
area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining;
channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation;
applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants;
paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes;
or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife
or wildlife habitat value of critical areas.
"Aquifer" means a body of soil or rock that contains sufficient saturated material to conduct
groundwater and vield usable auantities of eroundwater to sarines and/or wells.
Best Available Science. See ECDC 23.40.310.
"Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that:
1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste,
and toxics;
2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities;
3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation
patterns; and
4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
critical areas.
"Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide
hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide
hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area
immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or
wetland ecosystem.
"Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits.
"City" means the city of Edmonds.
City Council or Council. See ECDC 21.15.030.
8
Packet Pg. 46
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
"Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities
within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Cowardin, et al., 1979).
"Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include
grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide.
"Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project -induced
critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not
limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value
assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and
contingency plans.
"Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area,
and includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it
did not formerly exist.
2. "Reestablishment" means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an
area that was formerly a critical area, where the former critical area was lost by past
alterations and activities.
3. "Rehabilitation" means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is
an existing critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental
processes supporting the critical area have been disrupted.
4. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded
wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality.
5. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -
quality wetlands.
"Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or
stream at a site where one did not formerly exist.
"Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs)" means areas that are determined to have a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used as a source for potable water, and are vulnerable to
contamination from recharge, as identified in the City's GIS.
"Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas,
frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC,
respectively.
Packet Pg. 47
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
"Deleterious substances" include, but are not limited to, chemical and microbial substances that
are not classified as hazardous materials per this chapter, whether the substances are in usable
or waste condition, that have the potential to pose a significant groundwater hazard, or for
which monitoring requirements or treatment -based standards are enforced under Chapter 246-
290 WAC.
"Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land
requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or
residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way
permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development;
shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance,
short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit;
utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly
exempted by this title.
"Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee.
"Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services
department.
"Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area.
In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to
improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional
value.
"Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural
agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow.
Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
"Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "100-year flood"
means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
"Footprint of existing development" or "footprint of development" means the area of a site that
contains legally established: buildings; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or
other areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; patios.
Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC.
"Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality
protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage,
conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave
attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of
priority.
10
Packet Pg. 48
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
"Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the
state of Washington. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a geologist or
engineering geologist licensed in the state of Washington to assess the potential hazard.
"Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a
professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least five years of professional
employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with
landslide evaluation.
"Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion
of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter.
"Habitats of local importance" means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element
with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the
likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include
areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement
corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability
to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats
of local importance include biodiversity areas and corridors, which are characterized by a
framework of ecological components which provides the physical conditions necessary for
ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human -dominated landscape.
"Hazardous materials" means any material, either singularly or in combination, that is a physical
or health hazard, whether the materials are in usable or waste condition; and any material that
may degrade surface water or groundwater quality when improperly stored, handled, treated,
used, produced, recycled, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged. Hazardous materials also
include: all materials defined as or designated by rule as a dangerous waste or extremely
hazardous waste under Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; hazardous materials
also include petroleum or petroleum products that are in liquid phase at ambient temperatures,
including any waste oils or sludges.
"Hazardous materials inventory (HMI)" is an inventory of all current and anticipated types and
quantities of hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced,
recycled, or disposed of at a facility as required in ECDC 23.60.030.C.2, Hazardous Materials
Inventory (HMI).
"Hazardous materials management plan (HMMP)" is a plan completed by the operator that
demonstrates how the facility implements required BMPs as required in ECDC 23.60.030.C.3,
Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP).
"In -lieu fee program" means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to
permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in -
lieu program sponsor, a governmental or nonprofit natural resource management entity.
11
Packet Pg. 49
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
Landslide Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(B).
"Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending
order of preference:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as
project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded
areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of
the initiation of the project;
4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through
engineered or other methods;
5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently
flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and
7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when
necessary.
"Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the
Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the
site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington
or federal agencies.
"Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees
(less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year.
Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the
past five years.
"Noxious weeds" means any plant that is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control
by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed list
contained in Chapter 16-750 WAC.
"Planning staff" means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds
development services department.
12
Packet Pg. 50
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
"Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the
qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make
recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areas, the qualified
critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the state of
Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development is to take place within a geologically
hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing mitigation plans and design
shall be a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington and familiar with landslide
and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant
shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of
five years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest.
Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are
contained within the chapter on each critical area type.
"Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled
under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or
violation of substantive due process.
"Recharge" means the arocess involved in the absorption and addition of water from the
unsaturated zone to Lyroundwater.
"Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their
entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if
the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the
redevelopment of a property or subject parcel.
"Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to
a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as
possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include reestablishment or
rehabilitation.
Seismic Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(C).
"Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their
population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species.
(See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).)
"Storm Water Management Manual" means the storm water manual specified in
Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
"Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which
demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The
channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include
irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other
entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams
13
Packet Pg. 51
Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023
8.A.d
naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into
Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See
ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).)
"Title" means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits
23.
"Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications
(clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped
land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a
property or subject parcel in the past.
"Wellhead protection area (WHPA)" means the surface and subsurface area surrounding a well
or well field that supplies a public water system through which contaminants are likely to pass
and eventually reach the water well(s) as designated under the Federal Clean Water Act.
"Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating
food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic,
terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge
and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm
water flows.
"Wetland mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory
mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources.
"Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do
not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland 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 of a
road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally
created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the
city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See
ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord
3527 § 2, 2004. Formerly 23.40.3201.
14
Packet Pg. 52
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/12/2023
Comprehensive Plan Update and Highway 99 Proposed Approach
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
At their July 5, 2023 special meeting, the City Council reviewed a draft scope of work and budget from a
consultant team lead by VIA Architecture to provide services related to the 2024 Comprehensive (Comp)
Plan Periodic Update, which must be adopted by December 31, 2024. VIA was selected by staff following
a competitive request for proposals (RFP) process that resulted in four proposals, with the top two
teams being interviewed in May 2023. Weblinks to the July 5 staff report and attachments (including the
draft scope of work, which is also included as Attachment 1) and meeting video (the discussion starts at
the 1:25:00 mark) are provided above.
City Council had a robust discussion about the VIA scope of work on July 5, including numerous
questions about their proposal to integrate the Highway 99 Planned Action Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) - which was approved by Council as part of the 2023 city budget and was
included as an optional task in the Comp Plan RFP - into the Comp Plan EIS. Lindsey Amtmann from
Herrera Environmental (the SEPA subconsultant for the VIA team) was in attendance to answer Council
questions about the proposed approach.
Ms. Amtmann emphasized that a consolidated approach would be the most efficient process in that it
would take a holistic look at potential impacts and needed mitigation measures across the entire city,
while allowing for the same level of environmental review and community engagement within the
Highway 99 subarea that a separate SEIS would. She and staff also noted that per guidance from the
Department of Ecology, a SEIS is typically reserved for situations where environmental conditions have
changed significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, or where a proposal has changed in
a way that is likely to result in additional significant adverse environmental impacts.
There are currently no specific changes to the Highway 99 subarea plan or implementing code language
(both of which were approved in 2017) currently being proposed, and the number of residential units
and non-residential square footage that have been approved (or are in the development pipeline) under
the subarea's planned action ordinance are nowhere near the development thresholds covered by the
planned action (3,325 units and 1.6 million square feet). As noted by staff on July 5, any changes to the
development thresholds within the subarea will need to be reallocated to other areas of the city so that
it can meet its 2044 growth targets, which will already require the city to provide zoned capacity for an
additional 9,000 residential units over the next 21 years. Given this, should the Council wish to explore
changes to development thresholds, building heights, or other zoning regulations within the subarea, it
would be best to do so as one of the Comprehensive Plan EIS alternatives, so that citywide impacts can
Packet Pg. 53
8.B
also be evaluated.
Staff Recommendation
No formal action is required. The Planning Board is asked to review and provide feedback on the
approach and scope of work, including VIA and staff's recommendation that the Highway 99 SEPA
analysis be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Staff will also be continuing the discussion
with the City Council's Public Safety, Planning, Human Services and Personnel Committee at their July 11
meeting and sending out notices to community members that provided public comments in
Summer/Fall 2022 (during the 5-year review of the Planned Action Ordinance) requesting the
preparation of a standalone Highway 99 SEIS. These community members will be invited to provide
written comments and/or oral testimony at the upcoming City Council and Planning Board meetings.
The VIA scope of work is currently scheduled to return to the full council at their July 18 regular meeting
for potential approval of the contract.
Narrative
The proposed scope of work includes a significant amount of community engagement and a major focus
on illustrative and graphic -rich processes and materials, which is one of the main assets of selecting an
architecture/urban design firm as the prime consultant. A series of meetings are planned at the
neighborhood level, which will allow for targeted feedback on important topics such as a waterfront
vision, neighborhood commercial uses, middle housing, and environmental impacts.
The preparation of one comprehensive EIS would allow the city to take a citywide approach to
accommodating expected growth over the next 20 years, identifying potentially significant
environmental impacts, and ensuring that adequate mitigation measures are proposed for the entirety
of the city. The areas highlighted in red in Attachment 2 (to the July 5 staff report) identify the specific
tasks, engagement efforts, and deliverables related to the Highway 99 SEPA analysis.
Staff is currently working to align the scope of work and outreach strategy for the Comp Plan Update
with other planned and potential projects, including the Transportation Plan Update, Reimagining
Neighborhood and Streets, Climate Champions, and Highway 99 Landmark Site master planning.
Planning Board feedback is requested so that the city can finalize the Comp Plan Update scope of work
and complete this important work by the December 31, 2024 statutory deadline.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - VIA Draft Scope of Work
Video of July 5 City Council Discussion
July 5 City Council Staff Report and Attachments
Packet Pg. 54
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
SCOPE OF SERVICES
May 2023
Phase 1 Project Management, Meetings and Community Engagement
Task 1 Project Management and Meetings
Task 1.1: Project Management:
The Project Manager acts as the point person that coordinates with the City/Steering Committee
regularly to address data needs, coordinate review meetings, and other issues as needed. The Project
Manager will coordinate with subconsultants to ensure consistency in the products and coordination of
scope items under their purview.
The Project Manager will attend bi-weekly meetings to provide progress reports. This budget assumes
1.5 Consultant attendee for approx. 32 meetings for the 18-month period.
Deliverables
• Project Schedule updates per scope document
• Project Management meeting action items, and minutes
Task 1.2: Meetings with Planning Board:
The consultant team will coordinate with City staff for up to five meetings at strategic milestones to
keep the Planning board abreast of Plan progress, debrief on community engagement events, and
prepare for upcoming events.
Select key members of the consultant team will attend all meetings, with other members attending as
appropriate. Meetings will be held in -person or virtually, depending on the preference of the Board.
For each meeting, consultants will prepare a presentation (as per planning phase) and a meeting
summary, identifying relevant information shared during the meeting and board's feedback for
subsequent incorporation of comments into deliverables.
Assumptions
• The City of Edmonds Planning and Economic Development Staff will assist the Consultant in
preparation of agendas for Planning Board.
• The City of Edmonds will conduct follow ups as needed with individual Board members.
Task 1.3 Meetings with City Council:
The Consultant will brief the City Council on Comprehensive Plan progress at two milestones before the
public hearing. First, City Council will be briefed at the end of Task 4 to review high level Plan and Policy
alternatives and then second, during Task 8 to review draft comprehensive plan document.
Packet Pg. 55
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Task 1.4 Coordination with Transportation Plan Update:
The consultant will coordinate with the City's transportation planning consultant team for identified
Subtask 7C (Neighborhood Open Houses) and 7D (Planning Board and City Council Meetings) to present
a complete vision to the community.
Assumptions
• The City of Edmonds will support the team in consultant coordination through regular reporting
at Project management meetings.
• The Transportation Consultant will provide materials for milestone meetings.
Task 2 Community Engagement
Task 2.1 Community Engagement Plan (CEP)
Consultant will develop a community engagement plan consistent with the city's Equitable Engagement
Framework to ensure broad participation from constituencies such as: businesses, artists, seniors,
youth, social service providers, advocates, low-income residents.
The CEP will work with identified City "Community Champions." Organizations to include in the
engagement strategy may include: Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds School District, Edmonds Chamber
of Commerce, Communities of Color Coalition, Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds, Edmonds Youth
Commission, Compass Housing Alliance, and Edmonds Diversity Commission, Sound Transit, Community
Transit and Edmonds College.
Deliverables:
• Community Engagement Plan, including strategies for working with Community Champions,
schedule of meetings, events, and desired collateral.
Task 2.2 Neighborhood Community Meetings
The Consultant will host up to two focused rounds of neighborhood meetings to address issues and
opportunities pertaining to the five neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds. Neighborhood
meetings will be organized to effectively consolidate similar issues and questions, at minimum, meetings
will be conducted to gather information building from the existing visioning material and test
alternatives/design options. In some cases, and if warranted, smaller commercial centers may be held
concurrently. Meetings will be scheduled to provide input before project "milestone" with City Council
and Planning Board.
Task 2.2.1 Highway 99/Lake Ballinger Sub Area Focused Engagement
The team will conduct 3-meetings with Highway 99 community supporting the 6t" Neighborhood
Commercial center at Lake Ballinger to coordinate the Sub Area Plan with the Comprehensive Plan, and
address community concerns and opportunities
2
Packet Pg. 56
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Materials will address identified gaps and explore how to best integrate strategies proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan process (missing middle, neighborhood commercial, and equity measures) to the
Highway 99 sub area.
Assumptions
• Assumes two rounds of community engagement to be completed within 15 months.
• All direct expenses related to community outreach including translation, interpretation, printing,
mailers, room rental, online licenses, CBO compensation etc. to be directed to and paid for by the
City of Edmonds.
• City of Edmonds will provide additional staffing support for neighborhood meetings
• Additional and/or alternative touch points with community will be discussed with staff. In this
instance, neighborhood meetings may leverage City events, and the City may provide support
for logistics and facilitation.
Deliverables:
• Neighborhood Commercial events and topics (see table below)
• Hwy 99 sub area focused sessions (3— meetings)
• Consultant attendance, thematic findings; summarized comments
Minimum Number and Topics for Community Meetings:
Project
July -Sept 2023
Oct -Nov 2023
Feb -March
Aug -Sept 2024
Oct -Nov
Timeline
2024
2024
Overall Phase
Visioning and first
Existing
Plan Alternatives,
Draft
Public Hearing
listening sessions
Conditions and
Neighborhood
Comprehensive
Draft goals and
Commercial Urban
Plan and policies
objectives
Design Scenarios
Waterfront
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Downtown
✓*
✓
✓
✓
Perrinville
✓*
✓
Five Corners
✓*
✓
Westgate
✓*
✓
Firdale
✓*
✓
Lake Ballinger
✓*
✓
Highway 99
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
(Task 2.2)
*Builds from
previous visioning
work
(Task 2.2)
Includes potential
staffing by the
City
(Task 2.2)
Associated with
Comp Plan EIS
(Task 2.4)
Associated with
Comp Plan EIS
(Task 2.4)
Personnel assumption: 2 Consultants for neighborhood commercial (1 PE, 1 S+A); up to 4 for
Waterfront, Downtown, Highway 99 (PE + S+A)
o Est. 2 hours per meeting
3
Packet Pg. 57
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Task 2.3 Comprehensive Plan EIS Scoping and DEIS Public comments Meetings:
The Consultant (led by S+A) will plan and lead outreach meeting(s), prepare materials including
presentation, handouts, and forms. The team will plan, staff, document, and report on two (2) project -
hosted public hearings for community members to learn about the project and provide formal comments.
For planning purposes, one meeting will be in person and the other will be virtual.
• Public Hearing (1)
• Draft Policy Plan (2)
■ Comment Summaries from two (2) public hearings for Draft plan/DEIS and Final Plan/FEIS (.docx)
Task 2.4 Online engagement and Public Material:
A community engagement hub through infocommunity.org will be created and linked to City website.
The community hub will include online community priority surveys and identify upcoming community
events on topics including housing, economic development, urban form, capital facilities, utilities, and
environmental quality/natural resources. This budget includes up to four updates to infocommunity.org
The infocommunity.org updates will be led by S+A.
Public Material will be created for
1) Neighborhood Meetings listed in Task 2.2 and 2.3
2) Planning Board Meetings (4), Economic Development Committee (1)
3) City Council Briefings (2)
Assumptions
• Team will make use of City "Everyone Edmonds" branded material
• The city will lead promotions of community events and other opportunities for engagement.
Deliverables:
Communications boards including diagrams, illustrations, and graphic visualizations to support
public feedback.
o Materials will be produced in formats confirmed with City team (VIA), formats will be
designed to be reused and circulated in related City media materials (e.g., Facebook,
Instagram).
o Visual Preference Survey will be made available (VIA)
• Community engagement online portal, messaging on community engagement hub with up to four
updates. (S+A)
• Content for online open houses and/or survey
• Support the City in creation of public -facing materials such as: Fact sheet, FAQ housing topic
sheet, community priority questionnaire, city-wide mailer (1), neighborhood event invite or
poster. (S+A supported by VIA)
4
Packet Pg. 58
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Task 2.5 Engagement with Community Champions
In partnership with the City, the Consultant will work with a "Community Champions" Steering
Committee composed of a diverse set of stakeholders with a focus on historically underrepresented
communities, to ensure that the plan's engagement strategy, as well as its goals and policies, are
equitable and inclusive. For planning purposes, one in person meeting, and up to three virtual "check
ins" to support co -created activities/events — in addition to, and/or to supplement planned public
meetings.
S+A will lead Community Champions events making use of materials developed in Task 2.4.
Assumptions:
• City will lead the formation of the "Community Champions" Steering Committee, and negotiate
compensation model.
Phase 2 Project Understanding and EIS Scoping
During this Phase, the Consultant team will assess existing conditions including review of
economics, urban form, land use, environmental and demographic attributes. This project phase
will allow the team to confirm what issues need to be resolved and identify the key
opportunities to be explored as options in the next project phase. The Consultant team will
prioritize those items identified in the RFP including — a) waterfront vision and public realm
strategy, b) housing intensification and coordination with recently adopted legislation, c) transit
and land use coordination, d) integration of climate action planning in the Comprehensive Plan
and c) harmonization with the Highway 99 Sub Area Plan and PAO.
Task 3.1 Project Understanding and Existing Conditions Review
Existing Conditions will substantially build from background documentation and materials listed
following:
Comprehensive Plan Gap Analysis
Equitable Engagement Framework
2023 Climate Action Plan
Edmonds Waterfront Issues Study
2018 Housing Needs Study
Citizens Housing Commission Policy recommendations
Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets
Shoreline Master Program
Revisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form Based Code
Five Corners Alternatives Analysis and Fact Sheet
Highway 99 Lake Ballinger Sub Area Plan and PAO
2022-2027 Parks, Recreation, and open Space Plan
Comprehensive Water System Plan (2017)
Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (2013)
Storm & Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010)
5
Packet Pg. 59
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan
To develop a clear understanding of the City of Edmonds conditions, the team will conduct the
following activities:
■ Site visit, and compile photo inventory
■ Data information request memo
■ Develop an ESRI GIS database
■ Conduct targeted one-on-one briefings (up to 5) with City -identified stakeholders to
understand market conditions (economic issues) and planning topics such as waterfront
issues study, community development, public facilities, transportation, and other. One
on one meetings will highlight key city challenges and visioning goals. Meetings will be
conducted virtually.
■ The Highway 99 area has a recently adopted Sub Area Plan. Up to (2) one -on -one meetings or
small group session (remote) will focus specifically on review of identified challenges and
confirm approach in coordination with City staff. Participation in on -on -one meetings may
include in addition to the PE team, 1 consultant from Herrera, and Forum. A summary of the
meeting will be circulated. Meetings will be conducted virtually.
Building from Task 3.1 findings, the team will prepare a draft Existing Conditions memo for the Land Use
Plan. The Memo will interpret findings on
■ Environmental and natural systems characteristics based on available information
■ Review and inventory of existing City zoning and legislation associated with housing
intensification, and existing buildable lands report
■ Parks open spaces and cultural and historic resources
■ Public Services and utilities approach
■ Waterfront
■ Downtown redevelopment
■ Brief memo on Highway 99; environmental and planning approach to address (MS Word)
Task 3.2 Economic Development — Existing Conditions Review
Conducted concurrently to the Existing Conditions Review, the team will assess Economic Development
and real estate factors contributing to development onditions in Edmonds. Consultant activities will
include:
■ Barriers to middle housing
collecting data on measures such as the increase in home and rent prices, vacancy rates,
household incomes to identify displacement and gentrification risks
■ Assess real estate development patterns for employment uses (office healthcare, commercial,
and industrial); remote working trends; employment characteristics and regional growth
industries; projected high growth industries in the Puget Sound Region
0
Packet Pg. 60
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Assumptions and Exclusions
• City will provide:
o Geographic Information Systems (GIS) geodatabase layers (aerials, streets, zoning, land -
use, tax parcels, utilities, public services etc.)
o Copies of available land use studies and plans
• As applicable, City will consolidate comments and send to the consultant's team
• Logistics and planning for one on one, and small group sessions
• City will share transportation findings, and direction developed by Transpo Group
Deliverables
Compiled Draft existing conditions: summary memo (.docx)
Draft Vision Document with updated goals for the Comprehensive Plan (.ppx format)
• Draft outline of exiting conditions section for EIS
Task 4: EIS Scoping
Led by Herrera, the Consultant will conduct a SEPA scoping session for the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The
budget assumes two conceptual alternatives and the no action alternative for scoping.
Deliverables:
• Draft Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for City review (in MS Word)
• Revised Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice for City review (in MS Word)
• Determination of Significance and Scoping notice for distribution (in MS Word)
• Attend public scoping meeting
• Review scoping public comments, discuss with the City if there are any new topics that would
lead to a change in the purpose and need of the project, alternatives considered, and potential
impacts (summary sent via email)
• Develop SEPA EIS scoping materials that specifically address Hwy 99 Plan; e.g. incorporation of
Hwy 99 PAO into Comprehensive Plan document by reference.
Phase 3 Scenario Planning and Plan Alternatives
Task 5: Scenario Planning
Task 5.1: Creative Analysis and Plan Alternatives:
The team will develop options based on the findings in Phase 2. During scenario planning we will
develop a GIS model to test land use, zoning, and massing as well as public realm, parks and recreation,
policy and urban form options. The options may include plan and/or high-level massing changes and/or
the testing of specific program elements.
Options will include factors such as the context, land economics, community needs, transportation
choices, walkability, environmental resilience, governance, regulations, and partnering opportunities
This task will culminate in the selection of a preferred set of strategies and key elements to update in
7
Packet Pg. 61
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
the draft and final comprehensive plan. For purposes of this scope of work a "draft vision" constitutes a
high level vignette and/or diagrammatic exploration of a proposed concept.
Land Use capacity: conduct land use tests using as inputs; urban form, zoned capacity, use, and
market conditions. High level land use model will be prepared to the level of detail required for
transportation modeling.
Circulation, Placemaking and Urban Design scenarios will be prepared to include explorations of
items such as:
o Areas of change, focusing on 6-neigborhood commercial centers
o Placemaking concepts/opportunity sites
o Public realm opportunities
o High level mobility characteristics
• Develop vision for waterfront with coordination with City of Edmonds Transportation Consultant
to address various issues as identified in "Edmonds Waterfront Issues Study" including
replacement of the Edmonds' Crossing proposal.
• Develop strategy and policy options for integrating Climate Action goals with land use
alternatives.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
Assume minimum of two Alternatives that provide distinguishing features. Each alternative
(other than no action) should assume compliance with HB 1220 and 2023 state legislation.
Deliverables:
• Presentation with options for review by stakeholders and public, including diagrams, graphics,
maps and illustrations Package Plan options and strategies for discussion with Planning Board,
and City Council
• Options and "visions" for neighborhood commercial centers in coordination with Task 5.2
• Draft table of contents and chapter outlines for Draft Comprehensive Plan document (in MS
Word)
Task 5.2 Draft Economic Development Vision and Strategies Memo
• Prepare high level pro forma financial analysis of middle housing types with a focus on
ADUs/cottages, attached duplexes to fourplexes, and potentially other types of middle housing
of interest to the city.
• Prepare high level pro forma financial analysis of neighborhood commercial areas (i.e., small
commercial and/or mixed -use projects). Key outputs of the pro forma will include total cost of
construction, required sales price or rental rate, area median income required to purchase or
rent, commercial affordability, expected levels of demand, key barriers including
zoning/regulatory, land availability, and others.
• Draft economic development vision and strategies memo: A vision that is consistent with the
community's values, based on Edmond's existing assets, industry clusters, and regional growth,
and addresses opportunities for lower -income households.
W
Packet Pg. 62
8.B.a
VIA
Deliverables:
• Presentation for Economic Development Vision and Action Strategy to EDC and Planning Board
in a joint session
Task 5.3 Highway 99 Approach Memo:
Develop high-level strategies and approaches to define relationship to comprehensive plan design goals
and principals.
Deliverables:
• Graphically -rich memo and PowerPoint outlining Hwy 99 approach and high-level design options
Phase 4 Comprehensive Plan Draft and SEPA Draft EIS
Task 6: Comprehensive Plan Draft — Preferred Option
Task 6.1 Comprehensive Plan Draft
• Based upon feedback and agreed upon priorities the Consultant will create draft comprehensive
plan including a future land use map, zoning map for future action and adoption by the City of
Edmonds and Draft policy approaches. Draft chapters will be included outlining policy action on
Vision, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Urban design, Sustainability + Climate,
Equity, Utilities and Capital Facilities.
• Based on two community meetings and feedback from Community Champions Streeting
Committee, Planning Board and City Council, consultant will submit a brief memo with vision for
neighborhood commercial areas and two illustrations each.
Task 6.2 Final Economic Development Vision and Strategies Memo Based upon feedback from EDC,
Planning Board and City Council, consultant will submit Economic Development Vision and Strategies
Memo. It will include pro forma financial analysis for middle housing types and neighborhood
commercial areas, and economic development vision and strategies.
Task 6.3 Highway 99 Planning Support Documentation
Develop Hwy 99 Overlay Zone and/or Design Guidelines approach concurrently with preferred land use
options.
Assumptions and Exclusions:
• Consultant will base their assumptions and analysis for adequacy of utilities and public services
provisions for various growth scenarios on existing comprehensive plans for each utility and
recommendations from the City.
Deliverables:
• Draft Comprehensive Plan Document with draft maps (in MS Word)
• Economic Development Plan Memo (in MS Word)
0
Packet Pg. 63
8.B.a
VA EASTMAN STUDIO
• Memo of recommended and required changes in Community Development Code (in MS Word)
• Presentation with vision for neighborhood commercial areas (.ppx format)
• Draft Comprehensive Plan (including edits/ inputs from City Council, Planning board and
Community Champions Steering committee) for distribution (in MS Word and PDF)
• Highway 99 coordination
Task 7: SEPA Draft EIS
Led by Herrera the team will prepare the SEPA Draft EIS.
Deliverables:
• Draft outline of Draft EIS that includes the No Action Alternative and two Action Alternatives
that analyze different growth alternatives. The EIS will analyze potential impacts on at least the
following elements: public infrastructure and capital facilities (including water, sewer, and
wastewater treatment), parks, transportation, water resources, and climate change (in MS
Word). Additional elements may require a change of scope of work depending on complexity.
• Revised outline of Draft EIS (in MS Word)
• Preliminary Draft EIS for City review (in MS Word)
• Draft EIS that incorporate responses to City comments (in MS Word)
• Draft EIS for distribution (in MS Word and PDF)
• Draft Coordinated and Updated Environmental Review for Hwy 99
Task 8: Public Hearing for SEPA Draft EIS and Draft Comprehensive Plan
Deliverables:
• Public Material as outlined in Task 2.5
Phase 5 Final Comprehensive Plan and SEPA Final EIS
Task 9: Review and Edits
Deliverables:
Task 9.1 Preliminary Draft for Comp Plan
Preliminary draft Final Comprehensive Plan document with maps that incorporates responses to City
comments and public comments for City review (in MS Word)
Task 9.2 Preliminary Draft for SEPA EIS
Preliminary draft Final EIS that incorporates responses to City comments and public comments for City
review (in MS Word)
Task 9.3 Coordinated and Updated Environmental Review for Hwy 99
Task 10: Final Comprehensive Plan and SEPA Final EIS
Deliverables:
Task 10.1 Final Comprehensive Plan Document for distribution
Task 10.2 SEPA FEIS for distribution
Task 10.3 Final coordinated and Updated Environmental Review for Hwy 99
10
Packet Pg. 64
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Phase 1: Project Management, Meetings and Community Engagement
Task 1
Project Management and Meetings
$50,000
1.1
Project Management
$25,000
1.2
Meetings with Planning Board (5)
$13,000
1.3
Meetings with City Council (2)
$8,000
1.4
Coordination with Transportation Plan Update
$4,000
Task 2
Community Engagement
$92,000
2.1
Community Engagement Plan
$5,000
2.2
Neighborhood Commercial Area - Community
Meetings
$31,000
2 2 1
Highway 99/1-ake Ballinger Sub Area Focused
Engagement
$15,000
2.3
Comprehensive Plan EIS Scoping and DEIS Public
Comments Meetings
$8,000
2.4
Online Engagement and Public Material
$24,000
2.5
Engagement with Community Champions
$9,000
Phase 2: Project Understanding and EIS Scoping
Task 3
Project Understanding and Existing Conditions
Review
$50,000
3.2
Economic De
Review
$5,000
Task 4
EIS Scoping
$55,000
Includes SEPA scoping addressing Highway 99 PAO
Phase 3: Scenario Planning and Plan Alternatives
Task 5
Scenario Planning
$83,000
5.1
Creative Analysis and Plan Alternatives
$52,000
5.2
Draft Economic Development Vision and Strategies
" Demo
$25,000
5.3
Highway 99 Approach Memo
$6,000
Phase 4: Draft Comprehensive Plan and SEPA Draft EIS
Task 6
Comprehensive Plan Draft — Preferred Option
$88,000
6.1
Comprehensive Plan Draft
$48,000
6.2
Final Economic Development Vision and Strategies
Memo
$10,000
6.3
Highway 99 Planning Support Documentation
$301000
11
Q
Packet Pg. 65
8.B.a
VIA
- A PERKINS EASTMAN STUDIO
Task 7
SEPA Draft EIS
$100,000
Task 8
Public Hearing for SEPA Draft EIS and Draft
Comprehensive Plan
$10,000
Phase 5: Final Comprehensive Plan and SEPA Final EIS
Task 9
Review and Edits
$70,000
9.1
Preliminary Draft for Comp Plan
$20,000
9.2
Preliminary Draft for SEPA EIS
$20,000
9.3
Draft Coordinated and Updated Environmental
Review for Hwy 99
$30,000
Task 10
Final Comprehensive Plan and SEPA Final EIS
$46,000
10.1
Final Comp Plan Document
$6,000
10.2
SEPA FEIS
$10,000
10.3
Coordinated and Updated Environmental Review
for Hwy 99
$30,000
$649,000
*Hwy 99 PAO Supplementary Scope $111,000
*Economic Development Vision $40,000
Reimbursable Expenses not included in above
• Travel for Katherine Howe: 3 trips
o Hotel (approx. 260)
o Airfare (approx. 350)
o Per Diem (59.25)
• Travel for Brian Vanneman: 2 trips
o Hotel (approx. 260)
o Airfare/Train/Auto (approx. 200)
o Per Diem (59.25)
• Printing expenses for community workshops: $100 per foam mounted poster (A0: 36" x 48" size)
12
Packet Pg. 66
10.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/12/2023
July 12 Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Narrative
The July 12 Extended Agenda is attached. Staff made several changes based on feedback and discussion
at the board's June 28 meeting, including:
Adding a special meeting on November 29 to make up for the cancelled meetings on November 22
and December 27;
Adding another Tree Code work session on September 13 and pushing the public hearing date out
to October 11;
Adding a special joint meeting with City Council at 5:30 pm on September 19 (before the Council's
regular meeting) to discuss the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan, with
the public hearing the following week (September 27);
Adding a biannual presentation from Parks Director Feser, which would occur next on November 29
(to provide an assessment of the year to date)
Adding a site -specific rezone proposal (PLN2023-0024) to rezone one parcel from RM-EW
(Multifamily Residential, Edmonds Way) to BC-EW (Community Business, Edmonds Way), with an
introduction on July 26 and the public hearing on August 9.
Attachments:
July 12 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 67
10.A.a
Planning Board Extended Agenda - July 12, 2023
v
�
v
�
�
o
�
0
o
>
z
>
z
U
a)Q
1
N
4
-1
06
N
N
-i
1.6
CV
0)
rn
lV
r+
-1
rn
r-I
�
N
-i
Ln
CV
2F
00
N
CV
rn
rn
-I
BN Zone Use Change (Citizen -initiated Code Amendment)
PH
Tree Code Update (Code Amendment)
D/R
D/R*
D/R
D/R
PH
Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment)
I
D/R
PH
Recommendation on Athletic Field Use & Reservation Policy
D/R-
6 pm Special Meeting with Council - 2023 Housing Legislation
I
Comprehensive Plan Discussion
I
D/R
D/R
D/R
D/R
Multifamily Design Standards (Code Amendment)
I
D/R
Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update
D/R
D/R
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report (^
Biannual presentations)
R
R^
Capital Improvement Program/Capital Facilties Plan
D/R
PH
Planning Board update at City Council - Report rather than
presentation? September 26 City Council
PLN2023-0024 - Rezone Proposal from RM-EW to BC-EW
I
PH
Accessory Dwelling Units (Code Amendment)
I
I
I
I D/R
Wireless Code Update (Code Amendment)
I I
I
I
I PH
* Joint Meeting with Tree Board
September 19 Joint Special Meeting with Council (5:30 pm)
November 29 special meeting in lieu of November 22
KEY
I- Introduction & Discussion
PH- Public Hearing
D/R- Discussion/Recommendation
B- Briefing
R- Report with no briefing/presentation
Future Items
Neighborhood Center Plans
Additional Code Modernization Projects
ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review
Housing Bills Policy Implementation
Packet Pg. 68
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 69