2011-07-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 27, 2011
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernan Lien, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
WITH BOARD MEMBERS STEWART AND REED ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reviewed that at the Board's June 22nd meeting there was considerable discussion about the three Urban Mixed Use
shoreline environments, particularly the proposed Urban Mixed Use III environment. At the request of the Board, staff
prepared a comparison of the proposed designation criteria for the Urban Mixed Use environments with the current
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the areas. Staff also compared the uses that would be allowed in the
proposed Urban Mixed Use environments with what is allowed under the current SMP. He pointed out that most of the
commercial development within the shoreline jurisdiction area will take place in the Urban Mixed Use environments and
reminded the Board that the current SMP identifies the marsh as an associated wetland and not a shoreline. However, the
DOE has recently notified that City that the portion of the marsh that is tidally influenced must be considered shoreline. That
means the shoreline jurisdiction must extend 200 feet beyond the marsh into the area identified in the proposed SMP as
Urban Mixed Use III.
Mr. Lien reviewed that one SMA policy found in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.020 states, "It is the policy of
the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses." He explained that the proposed SMP identifies different shoreline environments and identifies the varying
reasonable and appropriate uses for each one. He also reviewed Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-
221(4)(b)(ii), which talks about protecting the rights of navigation and space necessary for water dependent uses. He
advised that because Edmonds does not have any significant rivers or lakes, this policy would only apply to the Puget Sound
shoreline. He said WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)(ii) goes on to state that non -water -oriented development is prohibited in these
areas unless navigability is severely limited at the proposed site and the commercial use would provide a significant public
benefit with respect to the SMA's objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. He explained that
because the area identified in the draft SMP as Urban Mixed Use III is located east of the railroad tracks, future
redevelopment would not impact navigability on Puget Sound. Therefore, staff is suggesting that this is an area where the
City could allow different types of uses than those allowed in the Urban Mixed Use I and II environments.
Mr. Lien advised that RCW 90.58.100(c) states that when contemplating major updates to their SMP's, local jurisdictions
should "consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories and systems of classification made or being made by federal, state,
regional, or local agencies, by private individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state." He
reminded the Board that the Port of Edmonds is in the process of creating a master plan for the Harbor Square property, and
they have made presentations before the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC). Staff believes the timing is
appropriate to consider a new environment designation for that area that would better accommodate the Port's proposed
development concepts. He noted that the Urban Mixed Use I and II environments prohibit residential development, which
will likely be a key aspect of the Port's redevelopment plan for Harbor Square. Designating Harbor Square as Urban Mixed
Use I or II would require the Port to request an amendment to the SMP at some point in the future in order to implement their
master plan proposal. Amending the SMP requires a formal public hearing process before both the Planning Board and the
City Council, and then the amendment must be forwarded to the DOE for a public hearing and final approval.
Mr. Lien provided a map of the current shoreline designations, particularly noting the location of the existing Urban I and
Urban II environments. He reviewed that the Urban Mixed Use environments have been intensely developed with a mixture
of commercial uses, Port facilities, multimodal transit facilities, railroad facilities and limited light industrial uses (ECDC
23.10.105.B.4). He advised that the proposed SMP identifies three Urban Mixed Use environments. He reviewed the
designation criteria (ECDC 24.30.070.B) for each of the three environments and identified where each designation would be
applied as follows:
The Urban Mixed Use I designation is appropriate for water -related and water -enjoyment commercial and
recreational uses. This designation would apply to the upland area above ordinary high water north of the northern
border of the Edmonds Fishing Pier to the southern edge of the area known as Brackett's Landing, including the
waterfront commercial area. In the current SMP, the Urban Mixed Use I designation extended all the way out into
the water. However, based on new guidance from the DOE, the waterward areas would be designated as either
Aquatic I (low intensity) or Aquatic 11(high intensity) environments.
The Urban Mixed Use II designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -intensity, water -
dependent uses related to commerce, transportation and recreation. This designation would apply to the upland area
above ordinary high water between the old Union Oil dock and the northern border of the Edmonds Fishing Pier
and between the southern and northern edges of the Main Street ferry terminal, including the Edmonds marina and
associated facilities and the Main Street ferry terminal. Because a portion of the marsh must now be identified as a
shoreline, the shoreline jurisdiction has been extended 200 feet beyond the marsh onto the Harbor Square property,
as well as 200 feet waterward. He noted that the area west of the railroad tracks has been identified as Urban
Railroad environment, and Willow Creek has been identified as Conservancy environment.
Chair Lovell requested further clarification of the DOE's recent direction regarding the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien
answered that the current SMP considers the marsh an associated wetland, which means it is a shoreline
environment, but not a shoreline. The DOE has recently informed the City that the portion of the marsh that is
tidally influenced (about half) meets the definition of a shoreline. That means the shoreline jurisdiction must be
extended 200 feet beyond that portion of the marsh. He referred to a map that clearly delineates the proposed new
shoreline jurisdiction associated with the marsh.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 2
Board Member Ellis requested further clarification about why Willow Creek was identified as a Conservancy
environment. Mr. Lien said this change was made as a direct result of the DOE's requirement to designate a large
portion of the marsh as shoreline. Because the shoreline jurisdiction will now extend 200 feet beyond the marsh, it
was necessary to identify a specific environment for Willow Creek.
Board Member Stewart asked if the SMP update would address the impacts associated with daylighting Willow
Creek. Mr. Lien advised that daylighting Willow Creek is addressed in the restoration plan, which is part of the
SMP. He noted that the Port is researching options for daylighting Willow Creek as part of their redevelopment of
Harbor Square. Board Member Johnson referred to Mr. Lien's earlier reference to RCW 90.58.100(c), which states
that when updating their SMP's, local governments should consider all plans, surveys, studies, inventories and
systems of classification that have been or are being made. She asked if the proposed SMP update would take into
account that the tidally -influenced portion of the marsh may expand as a result of daylighting Willow Creek. If this
occurs, the shoreline jurisdiction area would need to be expanded, as well. Mr. Lien agreed that daylighting
Willow Creek and increasing the saltwater influence into the marsh could expand the shoreline jurisdiction, and
these changes would be considered if and when the daylighting occurs.
Board Member Stewart observed that there are a few options being considered for daylighting Willow Creek. One
option is to restore the historic hydrological function, which would result in more tidal influence. That means more
of the marsh would be classified as a shoreline. Mr. Lien provided a map prepared by the Washington State
Department of Transportation to identify the portion of the marsh that could turn into shoreline if the creek is
daylighted. Mr. Chave cautioned that it is not a foregone conclusion that daylighting the creek will result in
expansion of the marsh. He summarized that while there is a strong interest in moving forward with the project and
that it seems to make sense, the issue is complex and additional study is needed. At this point, the City cannot pin
down what will happen if daylighting occurs because they do not know all the outcomes yet. Board Member
Stewart suggested the SMP should take a conservative approach as to how close to the marsh development can
occur. If the marsh performs its intended function of dealing with excess stormwater to control flooding, the City
will benefit from the improvement. She summarized that the SMP should be conservative enough to allow future
possibilities for the creek.
• The Urban Mixed Use III designation is appropriate for those areas that have been intensely developed and that
have no direct access to navigable waters. It is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for mixed -use
development, including high -intensity, commerce, transportation, recreation and residential development. This
designation has been applied to the Harbor Square property, the area south of the Edmond Marsh, and a few parcels
north of Main Street along Sunset Avenue, which are currently zoned Office Residential.
Board Member Clarke observed that, generally, zoning lines are consistent with property ownership lines, and it is
rare to have a property with split zoning. However, because of the irregular shape of the shoreline, the Harbor
Square property would actually have two different shoreline environment designations. Mr. Lien pointed out that
shoreline environments are intended to address environmental concerns and do not typically follow the zoning lines.
For example, the shoreline jurisdiction is measured 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. He emphasized
that the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction is not intended to be a buffer area. However, any new development within
this area must comply with the SMA and the City's adopted SMP. He specifically referred to the shoreline bulk and
dimensional standards found in Table 20.40.90, which describe the setback requirements for the various shoreline
designations. Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide additional information about how the bulk and
dimensional standards were created for each of the Urban Mixed Use environments, particularly Urban Mixed Use
III.
Next, Mr. Lien reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the properties identified in the draft SMP as Urban
Mixed Use I is Shoreline Commercial, which allows a mixture of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water -
oriented and water -dependent uses. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the Harbor Square properties is Downtown
Master Plan. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development that provides for a mix of uses and
takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The Port of Edmonds and Edmonds
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 3
Crossing properties are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Master Plan Development. These areas are governed by the
master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards and Edmonds Crossing.
Mr. Lien observed that most of the area west of the railroad tracks is designated on the zoning map as Commercial
Waterfront. The purpose of this zone (ECDC 16.55.000) is to reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and
for uses that will attract pedestrians to the waterfront; to protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront and
encourage public use of the waterfront; and to ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public. Permitted
primary uses in the Commercial Waterfront zone are marine -oriented services, retail uses that are either marine -related or
pedestrian -oriented, petroleum product storage and distribution, offices above the ground floor, local public facilities with
marine -oriented services or recreation, and neighborhood parks, natural open spaces and community parks.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that, currently, there are no water -dependent or water -related uses in the area identified in
the draft SMP as Urban Mixed Use I. Mr. Lien agreed that there are no water -dependent uses in this area right now, but the
Urban Mixed Use I designation is intended to encourage water -related and water -enjoyment commercial and recreational
uses such as the boardwalk. He reminded the Board that allowing public access and enjoyment of Puget Sound and
mountain views is a key element of the SMA. He agreed that there are currently non -conforming uses in the Commercial
Waterfront zone, but when updating the SMP they should consider the appropriate uses for the area and not necessarily what
currently exists.
Board Member Clarke noted that the senior center, the Ebb Tide Condominiums and the office buildings are not water -
dependent uses. The senior center and office buildings are allowed uses under the current zoning, but the condominiums are
nonconforming because residential uses are not allowed. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that one of the key functions of
the Urban Mixed Use 1 area is to provide facilities and infrastructure for the public to access the water. Therefore, the
existing office and residential development is inconsistent with the SMP.
Board Member Clarke referred to a condominium development near the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal where moorage space is
provided under the residential units to allow residents of the development access to the water. He questioned why staff is
recommending that residential uses be prohibited in the Urban Mixed Use I environment when other non -water -related uses
are allowed and already exist. Again, Mr. Lien reminded the Board that access to the shoreline is an important element of
the SMA. The regulations and policies in the SMP are intended to convey what the City wants to occur in this area if and
when redevelopment takes place in the future. He also reminded the Board that the SMP must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as Mixed -Use, which allows a
mixture of public uses, supporting commercial uses and water -oriented and water -dependent uses. The current zoning calls
for marine -oriented and pedestrian -oriented retail and service uses, with office space allowed above the ground floor. He
summarized that both the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code identify water -oriented uses as the preferred type of
development. Allowing other uses in the Urban Mixed Use I area as suggested by Board Member Clarke would require the
City to amend both the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent.
Board Member Clarke said there are no water -dependent commercial uses along the entire Edmonds waterfront, and he does
not foresee any in the future. Mr. Chave clarified that the Urban Mixed Use I designation does not require water -dependent
uses, as does the Urban Mixed Use II designation. Board Member Clarke referred to Carillon Point as an example of an
active waterfront that was redeveloped with residential and commercial uses located adjacent to marina activity. Mr. Chave
agreed that this type of mixed -use development can be successful, but the City's current height and bulk standards are
restrictive. If the Board is interested in allowing a residential component on this narrow strip of land, they should consider
allowing a hotel or some other type of tourism activity that engages the public in the waterfront. Multi -family residential
development would not accomplish this goal unless greater densities are allowed. He noted there are numerous policies in
the Comprehensive Plan related to tourism.
Board Member Clarke suggested the Board consider the potential of allowing hotel development to take advantage of the
uniqueness of the Edmonds Marsh. This could also encourage people to enjoy the waterfront by allowing hotel development
in the Urban Mixed Use I area. Mr. Chave cautioned that the marsh is a substantially different kind of shoreline environment
than the shoreline along Puget Sound, and that is the reason for the different environment classifications. Again, Mr. Lien
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 4
reminded the Board that the SMA clearly indicates that navigable shorelines should require water -dependent uses. The non -
water -dependent uses should be located in areas where navigation is severely limited.
Mr. Lien advised that the zoning code identifies the Point Edwards site and the area at the base of the hill that is within
shoreline jurisdiction as Master Plan Hillside. The purpose of this zone (ECDC 16.75.000) is to reserve an area where a
mixture of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and water views; to promote a mix of residential, commercial and
other uses in a manner that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and to encourage visual access to the water for
the public from public spaces within the development. All uses permitted in the Mixed -Use I and II are permitted in this
zone, along with neighborhood -oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area, service uses as a
primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area, multimodal transportation center, and educational facilities.
Permitted secondary uses include off-street surface parking and structure parking to serve a permitted use, shared parking to
serve more than one permitted use, and off-street loading facilities to serve a permitted use. Mr. Lien further advised that the
Harbor Square area is zoned General Commercial (CG) with a contract rezone that was approved in 1981. The zone allows
all the uses allowed in the CG zone, except those specifically listed as prohibited.
As requested by the Board at their June 22nd meeting, Mr. Lien highlighted the differences between the Urban Mixed Use I,
H and III designations (in bold) as follows:
• The Urban Mixed Use I and II areas are located west of the railroad tracks and adjacent to Puget Sound, but
there is no direct access to Puget Sound or any other navigable waters from the Urban Mixed Use III areas.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Urban Mixed Use I and II areas as Master Plan and Shoreline, which
generally encourage water -oriented type development. The Urban Mixed Use III areas are designated as
Master Plan and Residence -Office, which encourages mixed -use development including residential.
• The zoning for the properties identified as Urban Mixed Use I and II is Commercial Waterfront, which
encourages water -dependent and water -related uses. The zoning for the Urban Mixed Use III properties is
Master Plan 2, General Commercial and Office -Residential, and mixed -use developments are encouraged.
• Commercial development is allowed in the Urban Mixed Use I and II areas, but water -oriented development
is preferred. Commercial development is also allowed in the Urban Mixed Use III areas, and staff is
recommending language be added to specifically allow non -water -oriented development.
Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, when regulating uses in the Urban Mixed Use environments, first priority
would be given to water dependent uses. Second priority would be given to water -related and water -enjoyment
uses. Non -water oriented uses may be allowed as part of mixed -use developments and in limited situations where
they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to
the shoreline (ECDC 24.30.070.D.1).
Board Member Clarke pointed out that, based on the hierarchy in ECDC 24.30.070.D.1, the existing Arnies and
Anthony's restaurant buildings would be considered legal, non -conforming uses in the Urban Mixed Use I and II
environments. Mr. Lien said commercial waterfront zoning is limited and it is sometimes difficult to figure out
what uses are allowed. It would be helpful to clear this up in the updated SMP. However, he noted that ECDC
24.60.030.A specifically lists restaurants as an allowed type of commercial development in the Urban Mixed Use I
and II environments. Board Member Clarke asked if hotels would be an allowed commercial type development.
Mr. Lien answered that the current zoning and SMP do not allow hotels in the Urban Mixed Use I and II areas.
Mr. Chave suggested that after the SMP update has been adopted, it would be appropriate for the City to review
their zoning map to make sure it is consistent with the newly adopted SMP. He noted that the zoning map was
created more than 20 years ago, and it was not updated when the SMP was updated the last time. Board Member
Clarke suggested that if the City's goal is to be forward thinking, they should consider making the SMP more
flexible now and then updating the zoning map to be consistent. If they want to encourage flexibility to create
economic development and sustainability and enhance the waterfront amenities, perhaps they should make these
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 5
adjustments now. Chair Lovell noted that the proposed language in ECDC 24.60.030 describes what is meant by
commercial development. If the Board desires, hotels could be included as one of the examples of commercial type
development.
Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 24.60.030.C.1.b, which states that "water -related commercial and light industrial uses
may not be approved if the use displaces existing water -dependent uses. Because the marsh area is not considered
navigable water, they may want to allow non -water -oriented type development in this area.
• View corridors would be required in the Urban Mixed Use I and II environment, but not in the Urban Mixed
Use III environment.
Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 24.40.040.B.11, which requires view corridors in the Urban Mixed Use I and II
shoreline designations. No buildings or other major structures can be located within these view corridors. When
drafted the view corridor requirement was in reference to Puget Sound and the mountains, and was not applied to
the Urban Mixed Use III designation. However, specific language could be added to require a view corridor
looking towards the marsh.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that those who know it is there visit the marsh and appreciate the unique
environment in an urban setting. He suggested that consideration should be given to requiring some type of view
corridor to the marsh. Mr. Lien agreed that additional language related to the marsh could be added, but it would be
different from the language that references view corridors in the Urban Mixed Use I and II shoreline designations.
Chair Lovell reported that he has attended public meetings sponsored by the Port regarding redevelopment at
Harbor Square, and tremendous recognition has been given to the power of the marsh as an attraction to both the
residents of the City and tourists. The Port has discussed the importance of providing infrastructure to enhance and
encourage viewing opportunities for the marsh.
Board Member Stewart agreed the marsh is an incredible asset that does not exist elsewhere in the region. She
recalled there has been some discussions about an interpretive center located adjacent to the marsh to educate the
public about the benefits of the marsh and the diversity of wildlife it supports. She noted that Mercer Slough
environmental education center provides some revenue and takes advantage of their asset. She suggested that rather
than talking only about the types of mixed -use development that would be allowed in the Urban Mixed Use III
environment, the SMP should also include language to encourage appreciation of the marsh habitat as a wonderful
ecological amenity. Mr. Lien pointed out that educational opportunities should be allowed and encouraged in all the
different shoreline designations.
Vice Chair Reed pointed out that Dayton Street is the only roadway in the City that takes a person to the waterfront,
and he would like to require some type of view corridor from Dayton Street to the Marsh through the Harbor Square
property. He said he also supports the concept of enhancing public access to the marsh. He said he takes the train
to work each day and last weekend on a beautiful day there were 20 cars lined up along Railroad Avenue all the
way to 5th Avenue and down Dayton Street. This made it very difficult for people to cross Railroad Avenue to
access the waterfront. He expressed his belief that the City needs to find other ways for people to access the
waterfront besides Dayton Street.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the SMP would not apply to a large portion of the Harbor Square property
because it is not part of the shoreline jurisdiction. Therefore, the City cannot use the SMP to require a view corridor
from Dayton Street all the way to the marsh. Any view corridor language related to the marsh would only apply to
the portion of Harbor Square that is located within the shoreline jurisdiction area.
The parking setback for the Urban Mixed Use I environment is 60 feet, and this can be reduced to 40 feet in
the Urban Mixed Use II environment. The parking setback would be 25 feet in the Urban Mixed Use III
environment.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 6
• Residential development is prohibited in the Urban Mixed Use I and II environments, but multi -family
residential development is allowed in the Urban Mixed Use III environment.
Chair Lovell expressed his belief that the comparisons provided by staff for the Urban Mixed Use I, II and III environments
was extremely helpful. He suggested that this information should be incorporated into the draft SMP in an executive
summary format. Mr. Lien suggested that the comparison could be added to ECDC 24.30.070.13, which outlines the
designation criteria for the Urban Mixed Use environments.
Board Member Stewart suggested that the language be written to encourage or even require development in the Urban Mixed
Use I, II and III environments to meet LEED Gold level or equivalent to ensure there is adequate low -impact development
features to protect the environment. It is important to be sensitive to the environment, particularly along the shoreline, by
using features such as pervious pavement, etc. She suggested the City's goal should be no net loss of ecological function in
these three environments. Mr. Chave suggested that LEED might not be the right standard since it is heavily weighted
towards energy conservation. There are other methods of measuring low -impact development in shoreline areas. Mr. Lien
agreed to provide draft language to incorporate this concept for the Board's consideration.
Board Member Cloutier asked if any thought has been given to establishing standards for access across the railroad tracks.
For example, any proposed development on the west side of the tracks could be measured against the restrictions posed by
the existing train crossing and the ferry terminal. Mr. Chave pointed out that the height and bulk standards in the Waterfront
Commercial area are fairly limited to address the impacts associated with the train and ferry terminal. The City has never
entertained the potential for high-rise development along the waterfront, and this would continue in the new SMP. The
zoning standards for properties east of the railroad tracks are more open because there is no direct access to the waterfront.
He summarized that the location of the railroad tracks and the ferry terminal drive the overall intensity of the uses allowed in.
He noted that the Mixed -Use zoning does talk about providing access across the track, but it is not an SMP requirement. In
addition, he reported that the City has discussed options for an additional crossing over the tracks, and the SMP talks about
circulation within the waterfront area, as well.
Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that with the additional tracks being constructed in Edmonds, there is an
opportunity to create an additional railroad track crossing. He referred to Shoreline Park and Carkeek Park, which both
provide angular bridge crossings over the railroad tracks to the waterfront. Perhaps this is an option Edmonds should
consider, as well. Mr. Lien recalled that a railroad overpass was considered as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project, which
is currently on hold. Mr. Chave added that angular crossings are costly and require more engineering work. Because
angular crossings have to be quite high, there is typically more view impact. He said most discussions have been about
putting the crossings near existing public ways so they can fit in with the overall pedestrian scheme.
Board Member Clarke stressed the importance of having public disclosure about the proposed SMP language, particularly
related to the new Urban Mixed Use III environment. He said it appears the City is looking for guidance from the Port on
how to designate the Harbor Square property to be consistent with the Port's plans for redevelopment. He noted that the
Planning Board was not aware until recently that a new environment was being proposed, and the public has no idea about
the proposed new environment and how it impacts potential redevelopment at Harbor Square. He recommended the City
solicit input from the public rather than asking the Port what it wants. Mr. Chave cautioned against updating the SMP in a
vacuum without involving the Port in the discussions. He suggested the Board should take advantage of the Port's extensive
public outreach program and perhaps meet with representatives of the Port to discuss what the City wants to see done at
Harbor Square. He emphasized that the Port has shown significant interest in enhancing the environment around the
development, which fits nicely with the City's SMP.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, said it is important for the Board to understand that the Port has
not been coaching the City staff to shape the SMP into what the Port wants. He said the required change to the shoreline
jurisdiction area around the marsh came as a surprise to both the Port and the City and has a direct impact on the Port's plans,
which are already in progress. The goal now is to shape the Harbor Square Master Plan into something that is workable
using the technical advice and collaborating with City staff to make their plans consistent with the proposed new SMP. He
emphasized that the Port is not behind the fence trying to cause a predetermined outcome.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 7
Mr. McChesney said he has been doing economic development on the shoreline for his entire career, most recently at the
Ports of Everett and Port Angeles. He understands the technical and policy issues that must be considered. The Port's
Harbor Square planning process has been very transparent and open, and they have tried to put together a master plan that
works not only from an SMP standpoint, but to integrate some form -based zoning that results in something special. He
summarized that the Port's approach for the Harbor Square Master Plan is quite different than what you might expect from a
private developer who seeks to increase the development envelop and maximize the economic potential of the site. The
Port's goal is to do the minimal development necessary to allow redevelopment at Harbor Square to be economical and
feasible. The Port believes that redevelopment of Harbor Square would be a benefit to the marsh, and the Port can be a
catalyst for improving the marsh to accomplish the goals identified by the community and the group, Friends of the Edmonds
Marsh. He stressed the importance of the Port and City working together to bring forward a master plan for Harbor Square
that will benefit the community.
Vice Chair Reed asked if Friends of the Edmonds Marsh know about the required change to the marsh's shoreline
designation. Mr. McChesney answered that a representative from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh has actively participated on
the steering committee for the Harbor Square Master Plan, and the Port feels very comfortable working with the group.
However, he has not spoken to them about the new requirement.
Board Member Clarke said his first reaction is that the new Urban Mixed Use III environment was proposed to accommodate
the Port's development proposal for Harbor Square. This is a special environment that did not exist previously. He
emphasized the need to make sure this information is clearly pointed out to the public. Mr. Lien explained that the draft
SMP must be approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology (DOE), both of which would require public
hearings. Chair Lovell explained that the City must update the SMP by the end of December, as required by the State, with
the understanding that the DOE has required them to update their designation for the marsh area. It is not secret that the
entire downtown waterfront area is being looked at for potential redevelopment, and staff s goal is to create an SMP that is
broad enough to accommodate what they currently perceive might happen in this area or at least to a greater extent than the
current SMP does. He emphasized that no zoning or Comprehensive Plan changes have been proposed as part of this
process.
Mr. Chave stated that the idea that the Urban Mixed Use III environment was created to accommodate the Port is not true.
The SMP is part of and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Port's master plan. When
considering the SMP, it is important to look at all applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Port's
planning process. He explained that because the Port will not likely be ready to move forward with a master plan proposal in
2011, the Board could decide to move ahead with an SMP that is inconsistent with the Port's current planning. However,
this approach would likely require additional amendment to the SMP in conjunction with any proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments put forward by the Port. Staff is recommending that the SMP be updated now to accommodate or allow the
Port to move forward with its planning. This would set up the possibility for the Port's master plan to be consistent with the
SMP without prejudging what the City will decide to do with the Port's plan. He cautioned against doing the SMP in
isolation. Instead, he suggested the Board meet with the Port to discuss what they are planning as far as redevelopment
within the shoreline jurisdiction. He suggested the Board may be surprised to learn that the Port's plans actually fit well with
the goals of the SMP. Rather than dealing with the marsh and port properties as separate issues, he urged the Board to
consider the SMP holistically so it is consistent with all existing and anticipated plans for the downtown waterfront area.
Mr. Lien emphasized that the Urban Mixed -Use III environment would apply to more areas than just a portion of the Harbor
Square property. It would also apply to properties that are currently zoned to allow a mixture of uses such as hotels,
restaurants, multi -family, parking structures, and office development. Mr. Chave explained that while the SMP is part of the
Comprehensive Plan, it also has some regulations attached to it. However, in some cases, the zoning regulations are more
restrictive than what the SMP allows. If and when the Port goes through its process to amend its master plan, they may find
that what the City agrees to is more restrictive than what they would like. He reminded the Board that when reviewing the
draft SMP, they should look at the overall policy direction and framework they are trying to set in place. In some cases, the
specific details will be deferred to a zoning or other more specific regulatory mechanism.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 8
Mr. Chave advised that the public is very aware of the Port's planning process, but not that the marsh is now part of the
shoreline rather than a related wetland. This is a new development based on feedback from the DOE and will come out
during the public hearing process.
Board Member Clarke observed that if not for the Port's proposed master plan, which will likely include a multi -family
residential component, there would be no need for the new Urban Mixed Use III environment. The change is being proposed
because the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation does not allow for residential development. Therefore, an
Urban Mixed Use II environmental designation would be consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations,
and there is no need for the Urban Mixed Use III environment. Mr. Lien referred to RCW 90.58, which requires the City to
consider all current plans as well as those in progress when updating their SMP. The City knows the Port is working to
update their master plan and several public meetings have been held. As currently discussed, the Port would likely propose a
residential component for the Harbor Square property, and it would be appropriate for the Board to consider this potential
when updating the SMP. If they fail to acknowledge the Port's plan now, they may be required to update the SMP again if
the Port moves forward.
Mr. Chave also reminded the Board that the Urban Mixed Use III environment would not just apply to the Harbor Square
property. It would also apply to the area north of Main Street towards the water and the lower Unocal yard. It is likely the
Port will propose a residential component as part of their master plan for Harbor Square. Because the Harbor Square
property is not located adjacent to the sound and is separated from the water by the railroad tracks it makes sense to create a
separate environment type. The question is whether the Urban Mixed Use III designation should be different enough to
allow a residential component. Staff believes this is a worthwhile option to consider.
Board Member Johnson asked staff to describe the procedural issues associated with the Port's anticipated master plan
amendment and adoption of the SMP update. She also asked what would be required to change the SMP at some point in the
future if they choose to retain the current Urban Mixed Use I and II designations only at this time. Mr. Chave said he is
confident the Port's master plan would not come before the City for review and adoption in 2011. The SMP update must be
finished by the end of 2011, which means they cannot wait to learn the outcome of the Port's proposed master plan
amendment. Mr. McChesney advised that the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan process has been going on for several years
and is currently being guided by a feasibility study that was done by LMN Associates, which identifies the need for a
residential component in order for redevelopment to be feasible. They have completed their most recent phase of the public
outreach process, which further defined the development concepts. He emphasized this is a process driven plan, and a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review would be required before the Port Commission can conduct any formal public
hearings on a proposed master plan. Once the Port Commission has adopted the plan, it will be presented to the City for
public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council before it is formally adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan
by the City Council. He summarized that while the Port's master plan amendment is on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan
amendment docket, they are likely looking for a 2012 submittal to the City. Mr. Chave explained that if the Port's proposed
master plan is inconsistent with the City's SMP, the Port would have to apply for an amendment to the SMP in addition to
their proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Amending the SMP would likely take six months or more since approval
from the DOE would also be required.
Mr. Lien reviewed that once the Board has conducted a public hearing and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council
on the draft SMP update, the City Council would conduct its own hearing and make a final decision. This must be
completed by the end of December 2011. The document would then be forwarded to the DOE for a public hearing, and they
may send it back to the City to address additional issues before final adoption. Mr. Chave noted that the DOE has reviewed
the draft language and recommended numerous changes to get to the current draft. Therefore, staff does not anticipate a lot
of changes would be required by the DOE during final review.
Board Member Stewart said she is also concerned about getting sufficient information out to the public about the proposed
SMP. She noted that the Cities of Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace use their websites to provide information about items
that are currently before their planning boards. She suggested the City also consider this option to provide additional
information to the public. She also suggested the City publish articles in the local newspapers to announce the upcoming
SMP hearing and provide additional information. Board Member Johnson agreed and noted that this would be a good time
to consider the option since the City is currently updating their website. She said she has also been impressed with the way
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 9
the Port of Edmonds publishes their agendas and meeting summaries in THE EDMONDS BEACON. This make it easy for
citizens to find out what is going to be on the Port Commission's agenda and what happened at their most recent meetings.
She suggested this is a wonderful model for the City to follow to inform the public of the activities of the Planning Board
Board Member Johnson asked if the Senior Center would be considered a nonconforming use based on the proposed SMP.
She noted there has been some discussion about potentially redeveloping this site. Mr. Lien answered that the Senior Center
would be allowed as a local public facility.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that they discussed the idea of prohibiting aquaculture within the shoreline jurisdiction areas,
which staff recently learned is not possible. He explained that Jefferson County submitted an SMP update to the DOE that
identified aquaculture as a prohibited use, and the DOE indicated that aquaculture cannot be prohibited because it is a water -
dependent use. However, the City does have the ability to place some restrictions on the use.
Board Member Clarke asked if there would be any advantage to changing the zoning designation for the two Brackett's
Landing Parks to Public (P). Mr. Lien agreed this zoning change could be made, but not as part of the SMP update. A
separate process would be required. Again, Mr. Chave suggested that once the City has adopted the SMP Update to address
policy issues, the Board could review the zoning to make sure it is consistent with the SMP.
Mr. Lien recalled that the Board also asked staff to consider how sea level rise could be addressed in the SMP. He explained
that while the SMA and the SMP guideline contains no explicit reference to climate change or sea level rise, the draft SMP
handbook that is currently being developed by the DOE contains Appendix A, which provides some information on sea level
rise and how it might be addressed in SMP updates. He said he is prepared to discuss this latest guidance, as well as the
potential impact of sea level rise on the Edmonds shoreline. He explained that Appendix A references a report completed in
January 2008 by the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and the DOE titled, "Sea Level Rise in the Coastal
Waters of Washington State," which indicates that sea levels in Puget Sound are expected to rise between 3 to 22 inches by
2050 and between 6 and 50 inches by 2100. He emphasized that the calculations have not been formally quantified and are
intended to be used for advisory purposes rather than actual projections.
Mr. Lien reviewed Appendix A, which identifies the various coastal landforms and the impacts that can be anticipated as sea
levels rise as follows:
• In the low-lying areas (river deltas, historically -filled lands, spits and barrier beaches) more frequent and
persistent flooding and damage to infrastructure can be expected. There will be an increased need for more robust
dikes and drainage systems if the existing uses are to continue.
• Along the coastal bluffs there may be higher erosion rates and greater instability of landslide prone areas. The
demand for seawalls may increase, which will have adverse impacts on shoreline habitat and erosion patterns.
• Along spits and barrier beaches there could be increased flooding during storms and high tides and more rapid
erosion.
• In tidal environments (beaches and tide flats) there may be additional inundation and some beaches and tide flats
may be lost or undergo conversion to another habitat type.
• Along marsh shorelines in small estuaries and river deltas there may be a loss of salt marsh and related habitats
in systems constrained by surrounding development.
• Developed shorelines (ports, marinas, roads and railroads, urban and residential shorelines) are typically
heavily armored with seawalls and riprap. Vulnerability in these areas may be a function of elevation. Low-lying
areas will be vulnerable to losses from erosion, storms or flooding.
• The rocky shorelines will be fairly resilient to modest increases in sea level.
Mr. Lien provided a map to identify the areas in Edmonds that are particularly susceptible to the impacts associated with sea
level rise. He noted that the railroad is heavily armored and can be raised as the sea level rises. However, the public beaches
are susceptible to erosion as the tides come up. The Port of Edmonds is protected by a sea wall, but there is a potential for
increased flooding at the marsh and Harbor Square as the tides come up. To address these impacts, Mr. Lien said the SMP
could include language that makes it clear that the shoreline jurisdiction may change as the sea level rises. The Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization could identify the areas that may be impacted. When the City updates the SMP again in
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 10
seven years, they can revisit the inventory and characterization study and review new scientific and technical information,
including the future Edmonds Marsh Study. In addition, public access boardwalks and trails could be placed above the
elevation of the projected sea level rise.
Mr. Lien reviewed policies the City already has in place to deal with climate change and rising sea levels. Comprehensive
Plan Goal D.3 calls for the City to undertake a policy review of their comprehensive, strategic and specific plans to assure
that policies are appropriately targeted to prepare for and mitigate potential impacts of climate change. In addition, ECDC
24.20.050.B.10 (shoreline use goal) states that the City should develop adaptive management strategies to increase capacity
to respond to future possible impacts on the Edmonds shoreline from climate change in the Puget Sound region. This is the
only policy within the current draft SMP that has to do with climate change or rising sea levels.
Mr. Lien again referred to Appendix A, which provides the following examples of policies used by other jurisdictions to
address sea level rise and climate change:
• King County Policy 5-650 states that habitat protection and restoration projects in the shoreline jurisdiction shall
consider implications of sea level rise and other climate change impacts to promote resiliency of habitats and
species.
• Jefferson County encourages all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change
and sea level rise.
• The City of Burien's Policy FLD4 calls for monitoring sea level rise and adjusting development standards such as
building setbacks accordingly to minimize flooding potential.
Mr. Lien suggested the Board consider using Jefferson County as a model and establish a policy that encourages developers
to consider the impacts associated with sea level rise. This type of policy, along with the policies already contained in the
draft SMP to address flood hazard reduction (ECDC 24.40.030), general modifications and policy regulations (ECDC
24.50.010), shore stabilization (ECDC 24.50.020), and residential development (ECDC 24.60.070) within the shoreline
environments, would be sufficient to address the current concerns. When the SMP is updated again in seven years, the City
will likely have more scientific information to address the issue in more detail.
Chair Lovell referenced a survey done by a University of Washington student regarding the issue of sea level rise as part of
her master's thesis. Just today, she sent participants a summary of her findings, which he forwarded to each of the Board
members for their information. Using the survey data, the student concluded that:
• Certain cities are already undertaking studies and incorporating policies related to sea level rise into their waterfront
plans and SMP's. These cities include Bellingham, Seattle, Des Moines and Everett.
• The most effective actions or policies for dealing with the impacts of sea level rise are limiting shoreline
development and using policies and planning to address the issues. The least effective way to deal with the impacts
is to develop more barriers and taller buildings.
• Discussions related to sea level rise and other climate issues are stymied by the local prevailing opinion that climate
change is not occurring.
• The DOE should be the lead agency in addressing impacts associated with rising sea levels and climate change.
Mr. Chave observed that Edmonds is unique in that much of their waterfront is already armored. Most of the impacts
associated with sea level rise in the next 50 years will be to exposed areas (beaches) where there is no armory. These
potential impacts could influence how Willow Creek is daylighted in the future. He summarized that, in Edmonds, sea level
rise, by itself, is probably not the biggest issue. The biggest issue for Edmonds will be the secondary flooding that occurs
inland during storm events as a result of higher waves and winds. He suggested that through mid century, the environment
will have a less significant role to play than hazard mitigation and other infrastructure problems that will occur through mid
century. However, the impacts will increase significantly beyond mid century if sea levels continue to rise. He summarized
that up to 2050 the problems will be less about inundation and more about storm event flooding. Beyond 2050 changes in
development activity may be required to address the impacts associated with rising sea levels. He agreed the City should
attempt to address the anticipated impacts of rising sea levels up to 2050 as part of this SMP update. However, it would be
more appropriate to address the impacts from 2050 and beyond as part of the next SMP update when more scientific
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Pagel l
information is available. He cautioned that it would be a mistake for the City to decide not to allow any more development
within the shoreline jurisdiction area because it is already developed and there is a fairly significantly armoring system in
place to mitigate the additional wave impacts that will occur. However, they need to be prudent and not encourage certain
uses such as residential development within the shoreline jurisdiction areas. It is also important to limit height and bulk.
Board Member Johnson suggested that if the City were to use a straight interpolation between the median expected sea level
rise from 2010 to 2050, they could get a fairly good idea of how much the sea level could rise within the next 20 years so
they can project the impacts of the rise in their SMP. Mr. Chave pointed out that within the next few years, the City's
Comprehensive Plan would be updated out to 2035, but the climate and sea level rise issues have a much longer time frame.
Mr. Lien said the City of Olympia did an excellent study that looks at the average high and extreme tides during the last half
century.
Board Member Johnson said she would like to know how changes to the marsh area will impact the Harbor Square property.
She observed that the biggest impacts associated with sea level rise will occur on the City's beaches and at the marsh. Mr.
Chave said that the City does not know if the Willow Creek daylighting project will occur nor the method that will be used.
They also do not know how the creek and marsh will be managed and what changes in elevation will occur. Therefore, it is
difficult to set the baseline to measure sea level rise against. In the near future, the City will embark on a study to assess the
marsh to determine the impacts daylighting will have in changing the marsh from fresh water to salt water. This study could
also address the impacts associated with rising sea levels.
Mr. Chave summarized that staff believes it is important to include policies in the SMP related to sea level rise and climate
change, but the current data is too sparse to make concrete decisions at this time. The policies could push forward additional
studies to provide information for the next round of SMP updates. Perhaps an appropriate policy would be to reevaluate the
SMP as soon as adequate scientific information is available. A policy could also be included to stress the importance of
completing the marsh study. Having a policy that identifies the study as a City priority could help them obtain grant funding.
He noted that staff is working with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh to identify potential grant opportunities not only for the
marsh study but to address the larger flooding problems that occur in the area. Board Member Johnson recalled that when
the Board reviewed the Surface Water Plan, they recommended a 100-year flood plain analysis of the marsh as a City
priority.
Vice Chair Reed questioned if Appendix A should be included in the City's SMP as an attachment. Mr. Lien said the City
already has regulations against development that requires shoreline modifications or stabilization, and adding an additional
policy that encourages all uses and development to address the potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea
level rise should address the issue sufficiently for now. Mr. Chave said the SMP also includes policies against increasing
armoring where it does not already exist. It also places limitations on development and discourages residential development
against the shoreline. The additional policy would reinforce those the City already has in place.
Board Member Stewart asked if it would be appropriate to seek information from a consultant about how development and
uses can address the adverse effects of climate change and sea level rise. She noted that spending money up front could save
the City a lot of dollars in the future by preventing buildings from being located in the wrong places. She said it is important
for the City to obtain copies of the analyses done by King County and Olympia. It is also important to complete the marsh
study so they have clear information about how the marsh will be impacted. In addition, the Port's master plan should also
address the potential impacts associated with rising sea levels. She suggested they ask the City Council to approve a
consultant to conduct an analysis for the City, or perhaps the analysis could be done in house by staff.
Mr. Chave said the Board has an opportunity, as part of the SMP update, to reinforce past recommendations to make the
marsh and flood plain studies a priority.
Mr. Lien agreed to bring back an updated draft of the SMP for the Board's consideration at their next meeting. The new
language would include all of the recommendations made by the Board thus far. At that time, the Board could provide
additional direction to staff regarding aqua culture. He agreed to provide additional information about the shoreline -specific
bulk and dimensional standards for each of the shoreline environments and explain how the standards were established,
particularly for the Urban Mixed Use III designation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 12
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Reed reminded the Board that the draft SMP must be approved by the City Council and forwarded to the DOE by
December 31, 2011. He questioned the timeline for when the Board's recommendation must be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration. He pointed out that the Board's September 141h meeting must be cancelled so that Board
Members can attend the kick off meeting for the strategic planning process, which has been scheduled for the same evening.
Mr. Lien agreed to provide a timeline for the SMP process at the Board's next meeting. The Board agreed it would be
necessary for them to forward their recommendation to the City Council no later than September 28th. Because the timeline
is short and the September 14th meeting must be cancelled, the Board agreed to have a special meeting on September 7th to
continue their work on the SMP. They also agreed not to cancel their last meeting in August. It was noted that a public
hearing on the outdoor dining regulation amendments is scheduled for August 10th
Vice Chair Reed reported that the City Council talked about the Board's recommendation related to proposed amendments to
the BD zones. They asked some questions and allowed the public to comment, then they tabled action so they could deal
with the levy.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Johnson announced that for the past few weeks, the Citizens Economic Development Commission's tourism
committee has discussed the concept of sports tourism. They have invited a Snohomish County staff person, whose job it is
to promote sports tourism, to conduct a tour of the City's parks and recreation facilities to evaluate the City's potential for
sports tourism. Interested Board Members are invited to attend, and they should contact Stephen Clifton for more
information.
Board Member Stewart shared a recent experience she had while trying to access the Indian restaurant located on the
waterfront without crossing a double yellow line. She tried to go around the block and had to wait 10 minutes for a passing
train only to learn that the only way to access the restaurant was by crossing the double yellow line. She suggested the City
work with the restaurant to address this problem so people can legally access the site. Vice Chair Reed added that buses are
also required to cross the double yellow line when they turn left off Sunset Avenue onto James Street to access the new bus
terminal.
Board Member Cloutier asked if it is possible to discuss the proposed amendments to the outdoor dining regulations now
when the item is scheduled for a public hearing on August loth. The Board agreed that comments related to the outdoor
dining regulations should be saved until the public hearing.
Board Member Clarke announced that SSA Marine has filed a permit application to build a huge shipping port at Cherry
Point in Bellingham. The intent is to ship coal from Montana and Wyoming through the Columbia Valley and then via train
to Bellingham where it will be exported by ship. He noted that a typical coal train is about 1.5 miles long, and if the project
is approved, there would be approximately 20 additional trains per day through Edmonds. He urged the City to figure out
how it can assert itself into the legislative process related to this issue to ensure all issues and concerns are addressed.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 27, 2011 Page 13