2014-10-22 Planning Board PacketMEETING AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
October 22, 2014
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Reading / Approval of Minutes: September 24, 2014
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments: (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
5. Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
6. Public Hearings: (Public participation is welcome)
7. Unfinished Business: (No public participation)
8. New Business: (No public participation)
a. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
b. Introduction of Comprehensive Plan's General Introduction and Land Use Element
9• Administrative Reports: Review Extended Agenda
10. Planning Board Chair Comments:
11. Planning Board Member Comments:
12. Adjournment
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations)
AI-7220
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 10/22/2014
Reading / Approval of Minutes: September 24, 2014
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Reading / Approval of Minutes: September 24, 2014
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Board review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Draft PB minutes 9.24.14
2.
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 24, 2014
Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5`h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair
Philip Lovell
Daniel Robles
Careen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Ellis (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Holt, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Ms. Hope referred the Board to the written Director's Report. In addition to the items outlined on the report, she announced
that the public has invited to a free program that asks the question, "What Does a Vibrant City of the Future Look Like?"
The event is being sponsored by Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and 8-80 Cities and will take place on
September 25`h at the Lynnwood Convention Center starting at 6:30 p.m. Gil Penalosa, Executive Director of the Canadian
non-profit organization 8-80 Cities will speak about how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for everyone. She
encouraged Board Member to attend.
Board Member Lovell requested a status report on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He recalled that the Council is
currently considering a modification to the Board's recommendation that would increase the setback area for development to
150 feet and the buffer area to 50 feet. Ms. Hope emphasized that the City Council has not taken final action on the SMP yet,
but the majority appear to be leaning towards a greater setback. Board Member Lovell advised that the Port of Edmonds has
gone on record in opposition to the increased setback and indicated they would likely take legal action if the greater setbacks
are adopted. Ms. Hope said staff indicated support for the 50-foot buffer, as recommended by the Planning Board and
supported by Best Available Science. Board Member Stewart clarified that the City Council is proposing the increased
setback requirement on a 2-year interim basis. At the end of the two years, the setback could be renegotiated.
Chair Cloutier noted that the City Council is also considering significant modifications to the Board's recommendation
related to Highway 99 zoning. Ms. Hope acknowledged that the Council conducted a public hearing and voted to amend the
recommendation, but they will not take formal action until a revised ordinance is presented to them at a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2015-2020 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (CIP) (FILE NUMBER AMD20150006
Mr. English explained that the CFP and CIP are different documents and have different purposes. The CIP is used as a
budgeting tool and includes both capital and maintenance projects. The CFP is mandated by the Growth Management Act
and is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not maintenance) to implement the City's level of service standards and
growth projections. The CFP must be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it can only be
amended once a year. He provided a graph to illustrate how the two plans overlap. He advised that the CFP is comprised of
three sections: general, transportation and stormwater. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects, and
each project is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. He announced that, this year, the 125 funds were combined
to include both transportation and parks projects to be consistent with the City's budget.
Mr. English noted that a description of each project was included in the draft CIP. He reviewed some of the projects
identified in the CIP and CFP, as well as the progress that was made over the past year as follows:
• The 5 Corners Roundabout Project is nearing completion. This significant project is intended to improve the level of
service (LOS) of the intersection and improve air quality by moving traffic more efficiently through the intersection.
• The City Council approved a $1.6 million budget for a Street Preservation Program in 2014. This has enabled staff to
overlay two streets and apply chip seal applications to three streets. Staff is proposing a budget of $1.56 million for the
Street Preservation Program in 2015.
• The 228th Street Corridor Improvement Project will start in 2015. As proposed, 228th Street Southwest will be extended
across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West, and the intersections at Highway 99 and 76th Avenue West will
be signalized. 228th Street Southwest will be overlaid from 80'h Place West to 2,000 feet east of 72"d Avenue West, and
76'h Avenue West will be overlaid from 2281h Street Southwest to Highway 99.
Chair Cloutier questioned if the proposed improvements would extend all the way to the border of Mountlake Terrace.
Mr. English answered affirmatively and noted that Mountlake Terrace is also planning improvements for its portion of
228th Street Southwest.
• Intersection improvements at 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest are currently under design and the City is in
the process of acquiring additional right-of-way. Construction is planned to start in 2016.
• 76th Avenue West will be restriped between 220th Street Southwest and Olympic View Drive. The section that is
currently four lanes will be reduced to three lanes, with a bike lane. Pre -design work for this project will start in 2015,
with construction in 2016.
• Design money has been identified to start the process of looking at the potential of creating a quiet zone or a trackside
warning system at the Dayton and Main Street railroad crossings. A consultant contract was recently approved, and a
kick-off meeting is scheduled for next week.
• The Sunset Avenue Walkway Project has received a lot of discussion at the Council level in recent months. The Council
recently approved a temporary alignment for the walkway as a trail and these improvements will likely be finished
within the next week or two.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 2
• A sidewalk will be installed on 15'b Street between SR-104 and 8th Avenue utilizing grant funding from the Safe Routes
To School Program. The project should be completed by November of 2014.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps will be installed on 3rd Avenue, and the project will be advertised
this week.
• A sidewalk will be installed on the north side of 238th Street Southwest from 100th Avenue West to 104th Avenue West.
Stormwater improvements will also be included with this project, which will be funded via a Safe Routes To School
Grant and Utilities Fund 422.
• A walkway will be constructed on the south side of 2361h Street Southwest from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary School.
Sharrows will also be added along this stretch. This project is also being funded through the Safe Routes to School
Program.
• 10,000 feet of water main was replaced in 2014, and two pressure reducing valves were replaced. The City just
completed 2,000 feet of street overlay where water mains were previously replaced. In 2015, they plan to replace 7,000
feet of water main, as well as some pressure reducing valves.
• The 4th Avenue Stormwater Project is in progress and is intended to address flooding issues in the downtown caused by
heavy rains. This project should be completed within the next month.
• The vactor waste handling facility was completed this year, and they are working to replace the filtration pipes.
• The City will build on the study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel
as part the Edmonds Marsh Project. Daylighting the creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and
the Edmond Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped.
• A lift station and other new infrastructure will be installed at Dayton Street and SR-104 to improve drainage and reduce
flooding at the intersection.
• A flow reduction study has been completed for the Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project, and the
project is currently at the pre -design phase.
• Sewer main on Railroad Avenue was replaced in July, and more work is scheduled in 2015. By the end of 2014, the City
will have replaced over 6,000 feet of sewer main in several locations. In 2015, staff is proposing 1,500 feet of cured -in -
place pipe application, 4,000 feet of sewer main replacement, and improvements at the Wastewater Treatment Plan.
Board Member Lovell noted that Meadowdale Beach Road is in poor condition, and it does not make sense to install a
sidewalk before the roadway has been repaved. Mr. English pointed out that repaving Meadowdale Beach Road is identified
as a project in the Roadway Preservation Program. If funding is available, it will move forward in 2015. He cautioned that
the street may need more than an overlay to address the problems.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe the differences between the cured -in -place pipe application and replacing
sewer mains. Mr. English said that the cured -in -place application is a trenchless technology that the City has used on a few
projects in the last several years. If a pipeline is cracked but has not lost its grade, you can apply a new interior coating. This
can be done by accessing the manholes within the pipe without having to excavate or cut the street. Staff has spent a
significant amount of time this year collecting data on the existing condition of the pipes to identify those in which the cured -
in -place option would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the cured -in -place application would address root
problems. Mr. English answered that the application is a good way to take care of roots. Depending on the age of the pipes,
they are most likely to connect at the joints, which provide a pathway for roots. The cured -in -place application would be a
continuous inner lining for the pipe so the potential for roots to find gaps or cracks goes away once it is installed.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 3
Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. English to describe how the Dayton Street Lift Station would work. Mr. English explained that
there are a lot of different inputs into the stormwater issues in this location such as the Edmonds Marsh, Shellebarger Creek,
and stormwater runoff. In this particular case, when the tide elevation is high, the water cannot drain into the Sound and
flooding occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104. The marsh does not drain as well, either. The proposed
project will re-establish the flow through the marsh, and install a lift station that will mechanically lift the water during high
tide so it can be discharged to Puget Sound.
Board Member Stewart referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project and asked about the definition for "multi -use
pathways." Mr. English answered that there is not really a definition for multi -use pathways. The concept is based more on
width. Ten feet is the standard width for a multi -use pathway, but some are as narrow as 8 feet or as wide as 12 feet. The
goal is to have walkers and bikers use the route together. Board Member Stewart asked if it would be possible to allow some
wheeled access on the pathway, while bikes are routed to the sharrows on the roadway. Mr. English agreed that would be
possible. He noted that while the sharrows for north bound bikers are not in place, bikers going south can use the trail that is
striped.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City would consider green infrastructure as a method of stormwater improvement such as
rain gardens, bioswales, and pervious pavement. Mr. English said they are considering a few green options for stormwater.
For example, the Shellebarger Creek High Flow Reduction Study recommends building bio-retention facilities within the
residential areas. These projects are about 90% designed, and the City plans to apply for grants to build them in 2015. There
is also an infiltration facility at Sea View Park to take some of the high flow off Perrinville Creek. Two previously
mentioned projects utilize infiltration methods versus collection and putting the water into the Sound. Board Member
Stewart suggested that these efforts should be noted in the plans.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed the project descriptions. She particularly found the history to be helpful in
understanding how each project originated. She would also like each project description to reference the plan that supports it
and explained why it was proposed. She noted that some of the descriptions provide details about the size of the projects
(i.e. length, square footage, acreage, etc.) She found this helpful to make a connection between a project's size and its
anticipated cost. She suggested that this information should be provided for each of the project descriptions. Mr. English
agreed that more information could be provided in the project descriptions related to size, but the City does not yet have this
detailed information for some of the projects in the CIP.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that walkway projects are referred to as both sidewalks and walkways. She asked if
there is a reason to make this distinction. Mr. English agreed that the terms could be more consistent. The City secured grant
funding for three sidewalk projects from the Safe Routes to School Program. His guess is that throughout the application
process, the projects were probably identified as walkways as opposed to sidewalks.
Ms. Hite advised that approximately $120,000 is set aside each year in the CIP for park maintenance items. She explained
that although it is not common for cities to use Real Estate Excise Tax (REST) funds strictly for parks operations and
maintenance, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows it. However, this provision will sunset at the end of 2016.
Unless it is extended for an additional time period, the City will have to be creative in 2017 to fill the funding gap.
Ms. Hite provided a brief overview of the accomplishments in 2014 related to parks, as well as projects anticipated for 2015:
• A new play area was installed at City Park. However, because of issues with drainage and the existing water table, the
spray pad had to be redesigned. Permits for the project were submitted earlier in the week, and the goal is to obtain the
permits and get the project out to bid before the end of the year so construction can start in February or March. It is
anticipated the spray pad will open by Memorial Day 2015. She briefly described some of the features of the new play
area and spray pad.
• The Dayton Street Plaza Project has been on the City's plan for the past few years, and demolition work started this
month. She provided a schematic design of the project for the Board's information.
• Some historic preservation plaques were installed on the 4tb Avenue Cultural Corridor, as well as other locations
throughout the downtown. In addition, the Arts Commission has been working on a temporary installation on 4th
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 4
Avenue to bring visibility to the corridor. They are holding public meetings regarding the project at this time. However,
the City does not currently have funding to create permanent features along the corridor.
The City has set aside $655,000 in the CIP and the School District has agreed to contribute $500,000 for redevelopment
of the Woodway High School Athletic Field. In 2013, the City received a $750,000 state appropriation from local
representatives, as well as a capital grant of $2.5 million from Verdant Health Care. They now have a total of $4.2
million for the project. In addition to a sports field for soccer, softball, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee, the play area will
be upgraded and a new walking path will be provided to connect to the oval track around the football field. The project
is currently in the design phase. The district will construct the project and the City will maintain it and have operational
control of the fields. The redeveloped facility is set to open in September of 2015.
• The Yost Pool boiler was replaced in 2014. In addition, new plaster was applied to the bottom of the pool, and a new hot
water tank was installed. They just recently discovered that the spa has a leak that will cost about $100,000 to fix, and
this money was built into the 2015 budget.
• The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working in partnership with the Stormwater Division on the
Marina Beach Master Plan, which will include daylighting of Willow Creek. Burlington Northern Santa Fe installed a
culvert that can be used for this purpose, and they are currently considering two different alignment options, both of
which will have impacts to Marina Beach Park and/or the dog park. Staff will work with the design team and the public
to come up with the best solution, and they are hoping the work can be completed by next September.
• The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and Community Cultural Plan were updated this year.
• The Anderson Field Amphitheater and Meadowdale Club House Playfield will be replaced in 2015.
• The City is working in partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Edmonds School District to further develop and
maintain the Meadowdale Playfields. They are looking at installing turf on the fields so they can be used year round.
The School District has allotted $1 million for the project, and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood have agreed to
contribute, as well. They have applied for a grant to help fund the project, and they are hoping to have enough money
put together to start within the next three years.
• The City has an aggressive goal to acquire waterfront property and has set aside about $900,000 from a Conservations
Future Grant and REET dollars for this purpose. The City has been negotiating with a property owner, and she is
optimistic that an agreement can be reached.
• Rehabilitation of the Fishing Pier has been on the City's radar since 2009. The facility is located on property owned by
the Port of Edmonds, but the facility is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW).
The City maintains the facility. While the pier looks nice on the outside and is safe, it was constructed 35 years ago and
the salt water environment has caused significant deterioration. WSDFW has offered to give the pier to the City, but the
City would like the rehabilitation work to be completed before ownership is transferred. The City is working in
partnership with the WSDFW to obtain the needed funds, which is estimated to cost about $1.5 million. About $200,000
has been allocated to the project, and the WSDFW has submitted a grant request to the Washington State Recreation and
Conservation Office (RCO) for $1.3 million. The grant scored well, and they are hoping it will be funded so the project
can move forward in 2015.
• The City has been working with the Edmonds School District to acquire the Civic Center Playfield. An appraiser was
hired to come up with an appraisal that is acceptable to both parties, and third -party appraiser was also hired to confirm
the findings. The City submitted a grant request for $1 million to the RCO, and the project scored within the range of
projects that were funded last year. However, if there are cuts in the RCO's budget, the grant may not be funded. If the
City is able to complete the acquisition in 2015, some money will be set aside in 2016 to do a master plan.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 5
Board Member Lovell asked if the City would continue to maintain the Civic Center Playfield in its current state until such
time as it is acquired and redeveloped. Ms. Hite answered that short-term goal is to acquire the property and maintain it as is
until a master plan has been completed and the park is redeveloped.
Board Member Lovell asked if the senior center was identified on the CFP as a placeholder or if the City will dedicate
funding for the project. Ms. Hite said this project will require a partnership with other entities. The City will support the
project as much as possible, but it will not be a City project.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City will partner with the Edmonds School District to redevelop the Civic Center Playfield.
Ms. Hite answered that the City is now pursuing a complete acquisition of the site. The district has indicated it does not have
a developer. Ms. Hite agreed that is possible, but the current lease, which runs through 2020, gives the City the first right to
purchase.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the new sports field at the Old Woodway High School would be turf. Ms. Hite answered
affirmatively. She explained that this is something that is desperately needed in the area. Because the City does not have any
turf fields at this time, the season is limited to just over four months each year. The City will continue to maintain its grass
fields, but having an amenity that allows year-round play is important to the parks system.
Vice Chair Tibbott noted that some parks in the City are underutilized. When it comes to thinking of bigger projects like an
aquatics center or acquiring property, he asked if the City has considered selling some of the underutilized park land to
provide funding for new parks and/or needed improvements. Ms. Hite answered that the City currently has a good balance of
neighborhood, community and regional parks, and there are still some deficiencies near Highway 99. They have not
considered the option of selling park land because they do not feel there are surplus parks in the system. All of the parks are
utilized, and even those that just provide green space are desirable to the community.
Board Member Robles referred to Ms. Hite's report that the City obtained the services of a third -party appraiser to study the
Civic Center Playfield. He asked if the City also uses third -party consultants to conduct condition assessments and feasibility
studies or is the work done in house. Ms. Hite answered that this work is contracted out, and the various grant guidelines
have very rigid rules for assessments and appraisals for parkland acquisition.
Board Member Stewart noted that rest room repairs are identified for Brackett's Landing. She asked if the City has
considered turning the restrooms over to a concessionaire. Ms. Hite said the City has a program for encouraging
concessionaires in parks, but none have located at Brackett's Landing to date. Every January, the City sends out a Request
for Proposals, inviting vendors who might want to operate a concession stand in a City -owned park. In total, concessions
brought in $10,000 last year to help with parks. She expressed her belief that the program is a win -win. It provides
additional amenities in parks, as well as funds for park improvements.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City has considered meters in parking areas that serve City parks. Ms. Hite said this
option has been discussed, but it has not received a lot of support from the City Council. If the Board is interested in
pursuing the option, she can facilitate the discussion.
Board Member Stewart noted that the project description for the Sunset Walkway Project indicates that a sidewalk will be
provided on the west side. She asked if this is the same project identified in the CFP. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively,
noting that the $200,000 identified for the project in 2018 will come from the Parks Fund. However, most of the funding for
the project will come from grants and the City's street improvement fund.
Board Member Stewart referred to the Fishing Pier and Restroom Project and noted that no funding has been set aside for the
Beach Ranger Station, which is old and very small. Ms. Hite agreed that there has been no discussion about replacing the
station, and it was not included as a project in the PROS Plan. However, staff could explore this option further as directed by
the Board.
Board Member Stewart referred to Page 48 of the draft CIP, which talks about Miscelleneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path
Improvements. He asked if the City's website provides a map showing where the bike paths are located within parks. Ms.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 6
Hite said there are not a lot of bicycle trails through parks, but the City's goal is to provide exterior connections. These are
not currently listed on the City's website, but they could be added.
Board Member Stewart observed that, although the draft CIP identifies $1.4 million for waterfront acquisition, the allocations
would be spread out over a seven year period. She suggested the City look for opportunities to partner with non -profits and
apply for grants to obtain additional funding. When land becomes available, the City must move quickly. Developers have
ready cash and the City doesn't, and that can result in missed opportunities. Ms. Hite agreed that the City needs to create
new funding sources so they are ready to move forward when opportunities come up. The goal is to continue to add money
to the fund each year, but there are also competing priorities for the available park dollars. She emphasized that waterfront
acquisition is identified as a high priority in the PROS Plan, and maintaining a separate fund for this purpose should also be a
priority.
Once again, Board Member Rubenkonig asked that each project description reference the plan/plans that support it and
explain why it was proposed. This allows the community to have a clear understanding of why the project is identified as a
priority for funding. She also asked that the descriptions provide details about the size of the project.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 4th Avenue arts walk, which starts at Main Street, extends all the way to 3rd Avenue.
Ms. Hite answered that it ends at the Performing Arts Center.
Ms. Hite said that in addition to the projects identified in the CFP, members of the Economic Development Commission have
requested that the City study the option of installing a restroom in the downtown area. She suggested that the concept could
be identified in the CFP as a potential project for the City Council's future consideration. She acknowledged that there is no
money available for a restroom right now, but including it on the CFP allows the City to explore funding opportunities. She
noted that the community has also indicated support for a public restroom in the downtown. The Board indicated support
for the concept, as well.
Mr. English reviewed the schedule for moving the CIP and CFP forward to the City Council for final review and approval.
He noted that the plans were introduced to the City Council on September 23rd. Both documents, along with the Board's
recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session on October 14th. From that point, the City Council
will conduct a public hearing and take final action. Once approved, the CFP will be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. English thanked the Board for providing comments. The documents are large and he appreciates the Board's thorough
review and thoughtful comments.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that impact fees were not identified in either plan as a potential funding source for
transportation and walkway improvements. Mr. English said this revenue stream is identified in the CIP under Fund 112. He
explained that the City has both transportation and park impact fee programs, and funds are collected when development
occurs within the City. However, it is important to understand that the money can only be used for certain projects. For
example, transportation impact fee dollars can only be used to address concurrency or LOS.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if some of the funding for the 5 Corners Roundabout Project will be used to study how
well the roundabout is working to determine if it meets its LOS expectation. Mr. English explained that projects of this
magnitude that are funded with federal dollars take quite some time to close out. The money identified in 2015 will be used
for this purpose.
Chair Cloutier opened the public hearing. As there was no one in the audience, the hearing was closed.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE 2015 — 2020 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW
AND SUBSEQUENT ADOPTION, AS WRITTEN, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL TAKE UP THE MATTER OF A POTENTIAL PUBLIC RESTROOM IN THE DOWNTOWN. VICE
CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 7
Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the motion, but questioned if it would be appropriate to also include the
changes she requested earlier regarding the project descriptions. Mr. English indicated that staff would add additional
information to the project descriptions wherever possible, recognizing that some of the details are not yet available. The
Board agreed that the issue did not need to be addressed in the motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Ms. Hope said the purpose of tonight's discussion is to talk more about the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, and
specifically the Housing Element. She recalled that, at the Board's last meeting, staff reported that the City is partnering with
other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish
County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating
jurisdictions. She introduced Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, who was present to walk the
Board through the findings of the Edmonds' Affordable Housing Profile.
Kristina Gallant, Analyst, Alliance for Housing Affordability, provided a brief overview of the AHA, which consists of 13
cities in Snohomish County, Snohomish County, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. She reminded the Board
that there is a Growth Management Act (GMA) mandate for cities to plan for housing to accommodate all segments of the
population. The purpose of the AHA is to allow participating cities to share resources and get the help they need in a cost-
effective way. The AHA was formed in November of 2013, and since that time she has been working to assess existing
conditions and prepare profiles for each of the participating cities.
Ms. Gallant explained that, when talking about affordable housing, people typically think about heavily subsidized housing,
which is an important element, but not everything. If housing is affordable, but not appropriate for the community, it does
not work. It is important to address the different needs and preferences of each community such as adequacy of safety,
proximity to transportation, jobs, and affordability.
Ms. Gallant provided an overview of the Edmonds Housing Profile, particularly emphasizing the following key elements:
• There are currently 39,950 residents living in the City, and Edmonds is projected to accommodate nearly 5,000 new
residents by 2035. This is a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20
years. The increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near the City's estimated capacity of
2,646 units.
• The 2012 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people compared to 2.6 for
the County. The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8 compared to 3.12 for the County.
• Housing in Edmonds is mostly comprised of single-family homes, but most growth will need to be accommodated
in multi -family development. About 31% of Edmonds residents and 33% of County residents currently live in
rented homes, and the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing
slightly from 68% to 69%. About 36% of Edmonds population lives in multi -family homes compared with 31%
across the County.
• The City's median income ($73,072) is relative high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are
general higher, as well.
• A significant number of the homes in Edmonds were built between 1950 and 1959 compared to the County overall.
• Currently, 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, which means they spend more than 30%
of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs.
• According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds rental housing market is generally affordable to households
earning at least 80% Average Median Income (AMI). Households earning between 50% and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable, as well.
• A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI, but market rents are not
affordable to extremely low-income households.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 8
• A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low-income households is very common. Some kind
of financial assistance is typically required in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today's
housing market.
• Assistance can be ongoing to make up the difference between 30% of tenants' income and market rents. Other
options include capital funding that reduces the overall project costs (considered workforce housing), making it
possible to keep rent levels down.
• Edmonds currently has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources. It also has 201
units of workforce housing distributed across three properties. These units received some form of one-time subsidy
(i.e. low-income tax credit, grants, etc.) in exchange for rent restrictions, but they do not involve rental assistance
and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase the supply.
• In 2012, the median sale price for a single-family home in Edmonds was $339,975. This would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income ($73,072).
• Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are
rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating.
• Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home values in Snohomish County ($351,100), which
represents a 10.7% increase over 2013.
• Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among Snohomish County cities; 25% of the
households have individuals 65 years or older. In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require
different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place.
Ms. Gallant advised that the City has already taken a number of steps to promote affordable housing, and there is a range of
options it can consider to respond to the continuing needs of the community. In addition to promoting, adjusting and
providing incentives for housing policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor and evaluate its policies to
make sure there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. The Housing Profile is meant to be a resource
for the City as it moves through its Comprehensive Plan update. The AHA's goal is to continue to work with participating
cities from a technical advisory standpoint, researching what is needed to help establish goals for housing, identifying
potential methods for implementation, and identifying funding sources that are available to support infrastructure related to
housing.
Board Member Robles asked what can be done to promote house -sharing opportunities in Edmonds. He suggested that this
opportunity is not always about making money; it is about people trying to hang on to their homes. Ms. Gallant replied that
many cities have ordinances in place that allow accessory dwelling units, but they vary significantly. It is important for cities
to review their provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to make sure they are easy to understand and that the
requirements and processes are not so onerous as to be cost prohibitive. The AHA's goal is to work with participating cities
to develop better policies and make sure there are no unnecessary barriers. At the same time, they must be cognizant to
balance the new policies with the other needs of the City.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that ADUs were not addressed in the AHA's report. Ms. Gallant agreed that data
related to accessory dwelling units was not included in her report, and she would definitely like to research this opportunity
more.
Board Member Stewart complimented Ms. Gallant for a great report and a good start for metrics. However, she agreed with
Board Member Rubenkonig that, at some point, the City must include ADUs in the metrics. She also suggested the City
consider expanding its ADU provisions as a type of housing option to help the City meet its growth targets. She expressed
concern that the numbers provided in the report is based on the number of bedrooms and size is not factored into the
variables. Ms. Gallant agreed that the data is not as detailed as it could be, but it is intended to start the conversation.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the AHA has studied whether or not it is less costly to develop high -density residential versus
low -density residential units. He said it would be helpful to have information about the average cost of producing the various
types of affordable housing compared to the outcome. Ms. Gallant said she would like to study per unit development costs at
some point in the future. In general, the housing costs are reflected through the rent and home sales, and there is a lot of
debate about whether high density produces more affordable units. Increasing the supply over the long term is what needs to
happen. When there is a choke point in the supply, housing prices will rise.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 9
Vice Chair Tibbott recalled the Board's previous discussion point to the fact that just building small units does not mean they
will be affordable. He noted that using lower cost finishes is one approach that can reduce the cost of the units, but he
questioned if it would be possible to produce enough of these units in Edmonds to make a difference. He asked if any
thought has been given to lowering development costs or allowing different types of development so developers can produce
more affordable units. For example, the City could consider reduced permit fees or tax incentives. Ms. Gallant said the
AHA is interested in researching this issue.
Ms. Hope explained that the next step is for staff to review the current Housing Element and come back to the Board with a
revised version that incorporates the new information contained in the Housing Profile and other census data. She explained
that one aspect of updating each Comprehensive Plan element is to identify a performance measure that will be meaningful,
yet easy for the City to replicate with data annually. In addition, an action (implementation) step may be identified to help
achieve progress on certain issues. Staff is recommending that the performance measure for the Housing Element be a set
number of residential units permitted each year. The exact number could be filled in later in the year when data is ready.
This information would enable the City track its progress in allowing housing that will accommodate expected growth. Staff
is also proposing that the action item for the Housing Element be to develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. She explained that there are many different ways to address
affordability and several tools can be utilized to encourage affordable housing while looking at the overall housing needs.
The proposed performance measure can get at the overall supply of housing units in Edmonds, but it is more difficult to
measure affordability.
Chair Cloutier expressed his belief that counting the number of bedrooms is the appropriate approach since the goal is to
provide "beds for the heads." The City could easily collect data for this metric. However, the affordability aspect is more
market driven than the City can control and it would be very difficult to measure. Board Member Robles suggested that one
option would be to offer a micro -tax incentive to encourage developers to report correctly.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Growth Management Act deals with affordable housing as more population
based. However, population translates into housing, and that is why it is a good proxy for population. You have to have
housing for people to live in. The Growth Management does not define affordable housing, and it does not provide specific
policies on how to encourage more affordable housing.
Board Member Robles asked if the City can track ADUs. Ms. Hope answered affirmatively, as long as they have a valid
permit. However, it would be very difficult to track rooms for rent.
Board Member Stewart asked if a three -bedroom unit would be considered three units. Ms. Hope answered that it would
only count as one unit. Board Member Stewart pointed out that household size has decreased in Edmonds in recent years, but
the size of the units has increased.
Board Member Lovell recalled that the City has fairly stringent building restrictions with respect to ADUs. If they are
serious about meeting the Growth Management Act (GMA) targets and accommodating an increased population, this issue
will have to be addressed. He noted that the Board has been talking about the growth targets and opportunities for affordable
housing for a number of years, but the City Council has a history of not taking action to accommodate mixed -use
development with higher densities. While it is fine for the Board to discuss the issue again and put forth plans, he is not
convinced anything will change in the near future unless the makeup of the City Council changes dramatically.
Mr. Chave clarified that ADUs are not considered multi -family apartments or second dwellings. The definition remains
single-family. Extended family members and/or parents could live in a permitted ADU, as long as all the occupants in both
units are related. It gets more complicated when unrelated people live in the units. The definition of "family" says that up to
five unrelated people can live on a single-family property. For example, a family of four could rent to a single person or a
family of three could rent to two people. In addition, ADUs must be attached to the main unit, and there are size limitations.
There has been a steady uptick of ADUs in the City, particularly involving large, older homes. He noted that no permit
would be required to rent a room to someone. The key distinction is whether or not there are separate living units.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 10
Ms. Hope added that the City has made the choice not to count ADUs as separate housing units. She suggested this is a
lesser issue compared to the policies that guide the use. Mr. Chave explained that if ADUs are counted as separate units,
requirements such as impact fees would come into plan. Chair Cloutier suggested that ADUs could be counted differently for
the metrics versus the code.
The Board expressed general support for the proposed Housing Element performance measure and action step. However,
they expressed a desire to forward with developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs sooner than 2019 if resources are available.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes the term "housing options" rather than "lower -income housing." She wants to
know that people can remain in the community of Edmonds at different stages of their lives. Although sometimes they can
afford larger houses, they need smaller units.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the older homes in Edmonds are being torn down and redeveloped into units
that are three times more costly than the prior home. She would like the City to offer incentives to property owners to retain
their existing homes. The City must offer a variety of housing options to serve the citizens. Ms. Hope agreed and said the
issue would be addressed as part of the strategy.
Board Member Lovell referred to an article in THE SEATTLE TIMES titled, "Builders Say Land in Short Supply. " This
article applies directly to the Board's current discussion. Until cities find ways to accommodate more multi -family housing,
the demand will remain high in the future, and the prices will continue to increase. Right now, the City does not have a great
track record for accommodating this kind of development. The City is already built out, and the only way to accommodate
more people is to allow more density.
PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
Ms. Hope and Mr. Chave made a brief presentation on development projects and activities. Ms. Hope noted that the same
presentation was made to the City Council on September 23`d. The purpose of the presentation is to recreate the story of
everything that has happened related to development in the City over the past several years, particularly highlighting the
present activity. She advised that the Development Services Department is comprised of the Engineering Division, the
Building Division and the Planning Division. Its goal is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing
their property via discussions, data, handouts, permitting and inspections. She reported that she has received number
compliments on the quality of service that staff provides. While not everyone is always happy, staff tries hard to be
courteous, respectful and helpful. Staff members work in different ways to serve the community. For example:
• Field inspections are performed by building inspectors, engineering inspectors and planning staff. Not counting site
visits, more than 6,000 inspections have been performed over the last year.
• Staff members meet together in teams to coordinate on different projects and activities.
• Staff also meets with applicants and developers to provide pre -application assistance for development projects that
are being planned.
Ms. Hope advised that the Planning Division is responsible for a number of different types of permits, including short plats,
variances, and other permits related to planning and land -use codes. A number of different planning permits were approved
over the past seven months. She provided a graph to illustrate the number of permits and revenue generated from January
through August in 2001 through 2014. She noted that the data reflects the economic climate over the last several years.
There as a big jump in development permits in 2006 through 2008, but permitting dropped off quickly after that. As the
economy improves, the City is once again seeing an increase in the number of permits.
Ms. Hope said the Building Division is responsible for certain types of permits, as well, some of which are reviewed by the
Planning and Engineering Divisions, as well. These projects added $38,000 to the City of Edmonds in terms of values and
buildings. It is anticipated that upcoming key projects will double that number in just a few months. Mr. Chave noted that
Swedish Edmonds Hospital's project was not factored into those numbers yet, and it should add $28,000 in value.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 11
Ms. Hope reported that the City issued significantly more solar panel permits in 2014 compared to 2012 and 2013, and most
of those permits were applied for on line. Mr. Chave advised that the City's Building Official has been working with other
cities, including Seattle, Bellevue and Ellensburg, on a program to encourage solar installations using grant funding from the
State Department of Commerce. The program has been implemented in a few cities as a pilot to figure out how to streamline
and reduce the costs of solar permitting. A few incentive programs were rolled out recently in Edmonds. He summarized
that it is through a combination of programs that the City is seeing a significant increase in the number of solar permits. This
speaks directly to the work they have done to improve the process and provide more information. The City will continue to
work hard to encourage solar in the community, and he anticipates the numbers will continue to increase.
Ms. Hope reported that for the period between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2104, the Engineering Division issued 591
engineering permits, for total permit fees of $93,285.44. They also performed 1094 inspections, for total inspection fees of
$124,815.82. In addition, they completed an estimated 1,200 reviews of plans.
Ms. Hope provided a map identifying the location of key development projects in Edmonds. Mr. Chave explained that the
Development Services Department currently has a total of 544 active issued building permits. These building permits are
typically issued early in the year and take time to progress through. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done on
most of them. Mr. Chave specifically noted the following:
• There are currently 52 active new single-family residence permits. This is a significant increase, and one
particularly large project is a 27-lot subdivision in the southwest part of the City that is starting to develop.
• Swedish Edmonds Hospital recently completed its three-story parking garage. This was an $8.4 million project with
over 108,000 square feet of space. They are currently working on an expansion that will add a 94,000 square foot,
state-of-the-art facility valued at about $28 million. This project was not reflected in the numbers provided earlier.
• Clearing and excavating work is currently taking place for a new mixed -use building in the downtown that will
include a somewhat down -sized post office. The project will provide 94,256 square feet of space, with 43
residential units, the post office, and retail space. The project is valued at $7.2 million.
• The Community Health Clinic is a new 24,750 facility that houses a medical and dental clinic. The project was
completed in July of 2014 and is valued at $2.6 million.
• The Salish Crossing Project will be a complete remodel of the "old Safeway site" into five new tenant spaces and a
museum within the existing building. Parking lot and pedestrian improvements are also proposed as part of the
proj ect.
• The Jacobsen's Marine Project will create a new 10,120 square foot marine service building valued at $810,000 on
Port of Edmonds property. This will be a big deal in terms of retail sales, as the company is a significant seller of
boats and marine supplies.
• Prestige Care is developing a new 48,782 square foot skilled nursing facility on 76th Avenue West. The project is
valued at $6.9 million. The new building will replace the existing facility.
• Excavation work is going on now for the 5`h Avenue Animal Hospital, which will be a 10,562 square foot veterinary
clinic that is valued at $891,000. The new building will help fill the gap between the strong retail uses on the south
end of 5`h Avenue and the downtown retail area.
• The City is transitioning to new technology, particularly on-line permit applications and digital permit reviews.
Chair Cloutier thanked Ms. Holt and Mr. Chave for the report, which he found to be enlightening and helped him understand
the big projects that are occurring in the City.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
The Board did not review their extended agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cloutier thanked the Board Members for enduring a long meeting. There was a lot on their plate and the issues are
important. He also thanked Vice Chair Tibbott for presenting the Planning Board's quarterly report to the City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 12
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig said she enjoyed being able to download the meeting packet. Mr. Chave explained that he will
work with the City Clerk to learn how to in bed page numbers into the documents so they are easier for the Board to use.
Board Member Stewart referred to the two links to videos that were forwarded to Board Members by Ms. Hope. The first
video is general about the value of comprehensive plans and important issues to consider when updating them. The second
video is called "Planning Roles and Citizen Participation." She said she reviewed both videos, and she encouraged the other
Board Members, as well as City Council Members, to do the same. She particularly recommended the second video, which
shows some striking parallels to not only the Planning Board's role, but how they interact with the City Council.
Board Member Stewart reminded the Board of the tour of the marsh and Shoreline that is scheduled for October 4th from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O'Connell and a representative from the Tribes. Participants
should meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. She explained that the tour is part of her citizen project called
"Students Saving Salmon." In addition to the students, members of the Planning Board, City Council and Mayor's Climate
Protection Committee are invited to attend.
Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that if the City is expected to accommodate an additional 5,000 residents before 2035, this
equates to about 250 addition people per year. If this number is divided by the average household size of just over two, the
number of new units needed each year is 125. This year the City added just 33 new single-family residential homes and no
duplexes or multi -family units. Mr. Chave clarified that the post office project will provide an additional 43 multi -family
residential units for a total of about 76 new residential units. It is likely the number will grow before the end of the year. The
best report to look at will be the year-end report that captures all the projects that were completed in 2014. He suspects the
final number will be about 100, which is a good year for the City.
Vice Chair Tibbott provided a brief review of the quarterly report he presented to the City Council on behalf of the Board.
He reported that several City Council Members said they read the Board's comments and recommendations and they
appreciated their work. One City Council Member was somewhat critical of the one meeting the Board held when there was
not a quorum of members, yet they reported information that was put together that evening. He didn't go into the details
about the nature of the meeting, but the City Council Member expressed concern that it seemed like the Board was pushing
forward an agenda that neither the City Council nor the City staff was ready for. Mr. Chave clarified that there was some
confusion about the timeline. The City Council had actually talked about the Highway 99 stuff at their retreat before the
Board met with the Highway 99 Task Force. The Board's discussion was a follow up to the points made by the City Council.
He did not feel the Board was out in front of the City Council in this situation.
Board Member Lovell asked if any progress has been made to fill the vacant Planning Board position. Mr. Chave answered
that Mayor Earling is in the process of interviewing four candidates.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
September 24, 2014 Page 13
AI-7225
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 10/22/2014
Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
Please see attached.
Attachments
Director Report 10.22.14
5.
�y oVEQAI
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 22, 2014
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director/Planning Manager Report
Planning Board Presentation
Vice Chair Neil Tibbott presented information to the City Council on September 16 about the
Planning Board's recent activities. His report noted key subjects that the Board has worked on
during the past several months. (See attachment.)
Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC)
The CEO of Edmonds/Swedish Hospital, David Jaffe, gave a presentation and responded to
questions about the hospital's current projects and future perspective at the October 15 CEDC
meeting.
Shoreline Master Program
Approval of submitting the draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP)—with any other changes —to the
state Department of Ecology is being considered by the City Council on October 21. The draft SMP
is similar to what was recommended by the Planning Board last year, except that a buffer would be
expanded from 50 feet to 150 feet. Once the draft SMP and supporting documents are submitted to
Ecology, the agency has 30 days to approve it or request changes. Upon the SMP's approval by
Ecology, the City would formally adopt it and may also incorporate portions of it into specific
development regulations. Regardless, under state law, the policies of the SMP comprise an element
of the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP regulations/standards have regulatory effect.
Westgate Zoning
On October 7, the City Council held another public hearing on the Westgate zoning proposal. The
Council listened to a presentation and testimony but did not make any decisions that night. A
decision on adoption is likely in November.
Other Zoning Code Proposals
❑ The Planning Board's recommendation for a zoning code amendment to modify allowed
uses and parking requirements in the commercial area of Highway 99 was the subject of a
City Council public hearing September 16. This was followed by discussion on September
23, at which time the Council voted on components of the proposal to be drafted and
presented at a later meeting. The components are different than those recommended by
the Planning Board. An ordinance to adopt them was scheduled for possible adoption on
October 7. At the October 7 meeting, one Council member began to propose amendments
and the matter was tabled until Council members could review the proposed amendments.
The draft ordinance (with any amendments) is now scheduled for possible action by the
City Council on November 3.
❑ An amendment to the zoning code to clarify "legal lot" definitions and criteria for
determining an "innocent purchaser" was the subject of a City Council public hearing
September 16. The Council discussed the issues and voted for an ordinance to be drafted,
consistent with the Planning Board recommendations, for consideration in the near future.
Strategic Action Plan
Progress in implementing the City's Strategic Action Plan continues. For example, 82 of the 86
action items have the commitment of a lead to help carry them out. The City's consultant on
implementation for this effort will make a presentation about progress to the City Council on
October 28. The consultant's effort will end in early 2015 and by then, the City should be able to
move forward, in cooperation with various partners, using the recommended implementation
system.
Electric Vehicle Charging Workshop
The Western Washington Clean Cities agency co -sponsored a regional workshop October 17. The
workshop took place in Edmonds and was geared to local government staff working on policies for
encouraging electric vehicle usage for employees.
Community Calendar
Upcoming community events include:
❑ Oct. 16: Edmonds Museum second annual Scarecrow Festival (see_
http://www.historicedmonds.org/ Voting begins on Oct. 16 open to everyone
❑ Oct. 25: Edmonds Street Scramble: For families, friends, runners, cyclists and walking
enthusiasts! With a special map as your guide, find as many checkpoints as you can before
time runs out! Registrations now open! (see
https:I/secure.getmeregistered.com/get information.php?event id=11685
❑ Oct. 25: Edmonds Marsh Volunteer Planting Event at 10 am - 2 pm (see
http://www.edmondswa.gov/visiting/events-calendar/event/1196-edmonds-marsh-
volunteer-planting-event.html
❑ Nov. 11: The City of Edmonds & Edmonds VFW invite the community to participate in a
Veterans Day observance at 11 am at the future Edmonds Veterans Plaza in downtown
Edmonds, 250 5th Avenue North
AI-7226
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 10/22/2014
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Staff Lead/Author: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Department:
Initiated By:
Planning
City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Staff Recommendation
Review and provide feedback to staff.
Previous Board Action
W
This is an initial review of proposed changes to the Housing Element to update data and integrate material from the
Alliance for Affordable Housing. Staff has more work to do, but this is a good time to review what we have so that a
final version can be brought back to the Board for approval on November 12th.
Narrative
Housing Element
Attachments
Housing Element
General Background
This section looks at the character and diversity of residential homes in the City of Edmonds. Part of
this process includes looking at housing_tyaes and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide
the necessary information to anticipate housingneeds.
eeds.
According to the Office of Financial ManagementOFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5 percent in the city's
housing stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 dwelling units (2000 Census). In comparison, over
the period 1990 — 2000, the city's housingstock 35.2 percent, or approximately 3.5 percent per
year. This increase can largely be explained by annexations occurring between 1994 — 2000 in the
south and southwest portions of the city. Table X summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for
the City of Edmonds.
eomparison,�ver- the period 1980 1990, the eity's hottsing stock grew 21 per -cent, or approximate!
units within the City of Edmonds in 1994. This represents an increase of less than one percent in the
0
for- the City f-Edmonds,
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.6 percent) were single-family units, 6,664 (36.32
percent) were multi -family units, and 29 (0.2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared to
Snohomish as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes and mobile
homes/trailers and a higher proportion of multi -family homes.
Housing
Table 8
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing
Units
Increase
Percentage
Increase
Average
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980
10,702
1990
12,945
2,243
21.0%
1.9%
2000
17,508
4,563
35.2%
3.1 %
2010
18,378
870
5.0%
0.5%
Growth Target: 202-52035
721
3,0712,79
4-7,615.2
0,70_6%
168
0
%
Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish
County Tomorrow.
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 as Edmonds expanded up Main
Street, through Five Corners, over to the west side of Lake Ballinger. As a suburb of Seattle,
Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County. As a result, a large portion of
the built environment is approaching 45 to 65 years of age. The number of units projected to
accommodate population growth over the next 20 years is just over the City's current capacity. A
majority of this potential will be in multi -family_ properties, and nearly half of all potential is in
redevelopable parcels'.
Mill
Fie.14 ON of Edmonds' annexed lands. 1950 - 1969
.41IN 4 4 ,j
1950 1955 196
A
r
Source: City of Edmonds
1969
Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County", 2014
Housing 2
Figure 15: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County
50%
40%
30%
2074
10%
0% •,
Before 1949 1950 1969 1970-1989 1990 or
Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau: American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
By 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% of the
housing stock; the result of multiple annexations between 1994-2000. Over the same period, the
average number of persons per housing unit declined from 2.37 persons in 1990 to 2.26 persons in
2000, with a further decline to 2.16 persons in 2010 (US Census). The average household size showed
a similar trend, falling to 2.26 persons per household by 2010. Compared with Snohomish Coun , as
a whole, Edmonds had fewer people per household in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65, respectively) and in 2010
(2.26 vs. 2.62). The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately
2.20 people by 2035".
Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insightplannin housing ousing hypes that
will be in demand. Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish
County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared
with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years,
compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, population growth of Edmonds
residents 15 years and shrank in each age gory. A natural increase in population is likely to
decline as an aging female population ages beyond childbearing age.
.Tim.•
.•.
1.1
...
_
...
...
-
-
"Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013
Housing
=.WZ=mMJSTSTN=I'V'
Figure 15: Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
90 +
85 - 89 Mae ema e
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65-69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40-44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
■ 2010 2000
Housing 4
Figure 16: Population Growth, Children Under 15 Years of Age
Population 6rawth, Children <IS years of age
11.0%
kon
s
s
a
0
g
IF to i
■
10,0,,
a
•15O%
-20-ft
uEdrnoMi ■5ncWmiM ■WmhWgW5hte
Sour _UScensus. 2woand2D10
Household income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 2000 household income in Edmonds was $53,552, nearly
equivalent to the county's median level of $53,060 for the same period. By the 2010 Census,
Edmonds' median household income had increased to $73,072, nearly 7 percent higher than the
County median income of $68,338 (Edmonds was 36.5 percent higher). This is in contrast to per
capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($43,598
vs. $31,310, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household sizes.
..
Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 2000 Census, 6-5,368.1 percent of the housing units
within the city were owner -occupied and -32431.9 percent were renter -occupied. This represented an
deeline-increase in owner -occupancy from the 6-7-4 65.3 percent reported in the 1990 1990 Census.
By 20002010, this trend had reversed, with 68465.3 percent of the City's housing occupied by
owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole,
although ownership rates countywide were slightly higher in 4102010, at 66-67 percent. Within
Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92 percent
of homes along the waterfront were owner -occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50 percent east
of Highway 99 J[Al ]
Housing
Housing Values: According to the 49W2000 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the
City of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 4102000, the median value of owner -
occupied units in Edmonds was $160,WO $238,200, approximately 2621.2 percent higher than the
countywide median of$-�00 $196,500. Oy 20002010*, the median value of owner -occupied
housing had increased to $239,200$394,400 in Edmonds and $196,500$311,600 in Snohomish
County, with Edmonds approximately 2-1- 26.6 percent higher than the countywide median. [A21Within
Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods;- the highest valued
homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior
neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability:
which is directed toward developing an adequate and aff-or-da le supply of housing for all eeenomie
segments of the population. The Aet establishes an affordable hettsing advisofy beafd tha4, togethef
with the State DepaAfnef4 of Gemfymnity Trade and Eeenemie Development (PGTED), is r-equir-e
pr-epafe a five yeaf housing advisory plan. The plan must doeument the need for- affordable housin
in the > ,
facilitate development of plans to meet affor-dable housing needs; and develop strategies - ___
to local governments to assist in the identification and removal of regulatory baffier-s t
all leeal
> >
aeeesser-y tmits in r-esid&44a! zones. The Aet also requires that eemmunities tfeat speeial fleeds
peptilations in the same mannef as other- hottseholds living in single family tmits. Edmonds has
updated its development r-eguWiens to eemply with both of these For the purposes of
calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this document uses the median income for the
Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) instead of the Snohomish County Area
Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI will be used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of
Seattle, not Everett. The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue is $88,000, higher than the County's
2012 AMI of $68,338. The 2012 median household income for Edmonds is $73,072.
AMI is an important calculation used by manv agencies to measure housing affordabilitv. Standard
income levels are as follows:
oo Extremely low income: <30% AMI
oo Very Low Income: between 30 and 50% AMI
oo Low Income: between 50 and 80% AMI
oo Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
oo Middle Income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) to
provide a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to pay for
rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Figure X lists the
housing size and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the
home. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average
Housing
$1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual
income of $67,160.
Fig.17: Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$
33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$
35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$
43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$
67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$
101,800
$
1,947
$
4,347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
$
54.69
$
113,760
$
2,276
$
3,771
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Figure 18 shows the distribution of rent affordabilitv at different income levels usine the Seattle -
Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for Dersons with a household income at 80% or below of the HFMA
AMI.
Figure 18: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level
Studio
TM
2
3
4+
Extremely Low
No
No
No
No
No
Very Low
Limited
limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Middle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 — 2012, 85% of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. The median sales price for a single family home in Edmonds was
$339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using age rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and
insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly —payment for this
home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would require and annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.
Housing
Figure 19 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Figure 19: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy — Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community's housing, social
service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD
funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to
include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the
strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which
includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is
responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County's Department of Housing and Community
Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published
for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include:
1) Provide decent housing, including
oo assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing;
oo retaining affordable housing stock;
oo increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available
without discrimination; and
oo increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable
persons with special needs to live in dignity.
2) Provide a suitable living environment, including
oo improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods;
Housing 8
oo increasing access to quality facilities and services;
oo reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing
opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods;
oo restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic,
architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and
oo conserving energy resources.
3) Expand economic opportunities, including
oo creating jobs for low income persons;
oo providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term
economic and social viability; and
oo assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency.
The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing
needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to
local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan
include:
oo Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with
incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2)
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and
(4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit
ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market -rate housing.
oo Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of
needed shelters in under -served areas and for under -served populations. Increase the
inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from
homelessness to self-sufficiency.
oo Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent
housing and service programs for people with special needs.
oo Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock
through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services.
oo Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured
housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs.
oo Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county.
oo Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production.
Housing 9
oo Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well -
maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in
the community.
oo Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
oo Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
oo Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such
as case management, life -skills training, health care and recreation.
oo Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost-
effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable
modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive
services.
oo Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate -
income populations and neighborhoods.
oo Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of HUD
grant programs.
Housing Needs:
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, elderly residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than
doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted
care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and _policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies
encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and
coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more
active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial
activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of
significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and
Housing 10
preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and
reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for elderly, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which
include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to
support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing
available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family housing; flexible
development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the
feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing
administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below).
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
oo Upzoning. The City la&-upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+
square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling
units per acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multi family development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit
(e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor
n+alfi fiffnily zening in designated eefr-ider- areas to provide more housing units 4 r-edue
s! !a ,
oo Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
oo Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
oo Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
Housing 11
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also Abe used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
oo Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
oo Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established an historic preservation
program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings,
especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and
regulations for the Downtown Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that
can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or
mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic
character of the site.
Administrative Procedures
oo Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing some increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in - was 0 days,
less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform
act.
oo Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
wallowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing
Examiner hearing process.
oo Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of
financing.
Development Standards
oo Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
Housing 12
oo Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
oo Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' polio. Street
standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent basisperiodicallX, taking advantage of
new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city
codes is underway.
oo Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
oo Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducinghousing ousing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit. The City also simplified and s4e mlia �*^
oo Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Low -Cost Housing Types
oo Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
oo Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in ar i,o:,, . „r�r
„min the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
oo Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
oo Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
oo Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
Housing 13
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housing Affordabili , (t (AHA) in Snohomish County, �
oo For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housingstrategies trategies count wide.
Housing Financing Strategies
oo State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Jurisdictions face challen eg s in There will be 494e+&meeting affordability goals or significantly
reducing the current affordable housing deficit. Thee4yEdmonds is a mature community with
limited opportunities for new development o. rly ftAly deve epe and has limited powers and
resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, it is hoped that Edmonds'
participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable
Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
these impaets.
GOALS AND POLICIESL
A-. Housing Goal A. Housing D zser-if ination cmd Fair- Housing Goal 1. There should
be Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community
regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Housing Goal B. Housing Piserimin4ieri and Fair- Housing Goal 2. hgsure Ensure
that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public
accommodation and fair housing.^ accordance with the following pol
E Housing Goal C. Provide for needs of the Housing 11 _ low Income, Eelderly and
Hdisabled4leusing.-A to have a decent home in a suitable living environment, includingthrough
f r each heuseheld in accordance with the following policies:
C.1 Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the federal government to
assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the low income, elderly
and disabled citizens.
C 2 The City should w ofk Work with the Washington Housing Sen,ic_eAlliance for
Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
Housing 14
C.2.a Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
C.2.c Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special
needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all
forms of individual and group housing within the community.
D-. Housing Goal D. Housing M Housing Rehabilitation. —Maintain a valuable housing
resource by encouraging Pr-eser-vepreservation and-FA444aterehabilitation of *"ear the
older housingstock in the community eraer +E) m „ ai ,alu ' le hE)Usifig - in
accordance wi&Lhrough the following policies:
D.1 Dreg..,m should be developed w + "Develop -pro rg ams that offers (free or low
cost minor home maintenance I[A4]service to low income, elderly or handicapped
persons.
D.2 Enforce building codes, as appropriateBu4din- e����
utilize to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of these
housing that show signs of deterioration.
D.3 Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
DA Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized,4ie g, if need be)
for elderly, disadvantaged, disabled and low income in proportion to the population of Edmonds
in eraa-aeo *"through the following policies:
E.1 The GiVy shoo a Aggressively pursue funds to construct housing for elderly,
disabled and low income, while also recognizingthat—. uUnits should blend into
the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create pride
for inhabitants. [Or- 2527 §3 1985.j
E.2 Aim for City zoning regulations shoul to expand, not limit, housing
opportunities for all special needs populations.
Housing Goal F: Provide for a variety of housing for- h" Sogffleflt I[a,51okhe-e4y-that is
a-adEOfflpa4iWel[Asi respects the established character of the community.
F.1 Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F.1. a Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is
targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in
the land use element.
F.2 Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Housing 15
F.2.a Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
F.2.b Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods Ito
addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing
affordability.
F.3. c Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as
non -conforming lots, when development in these situations will be
consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to
provide affordable single family housing.
Housin& Goal G: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land
use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.1 Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers'
economic activities and transit service.
G. La Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G.Lb Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.1. c Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers
to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available
transit service.
Housin& Goal H: Gove,...m ent shotA r-Review and monitory permitting processes and
regulatorystfue systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the
extent possible, adding to the cost of housing.
H.1 Provide the maximum amount of I^ [A7]efficiency and predictability in
government permitting processes.
H. La Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve Mis
objee�vepredictabli& and efficiency including such ideas as:
..establishing time limits for permitting processes;
..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
_implementing administrative permitting procedures;
..using pre -application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2 Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a Monitoring programs should review the types and
effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess
whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted
to meet new challenges.
Housing 16
Housing Goal I: Increase n....,,,.f3—;1:;eS for- g the affordability 0r affordable housing
opportunities in coordination with
programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. l easing affordability shots
r-eseafehed a -ad programs developed thM address multiple Gempr-eheasive Plan geals a -ad
obj a [A81
1.1 Resarch housiniz affordability and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
1.2 Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated
with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
Houisng Goal J: Recognize tha�fA9l.4in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is
an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible
with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1 Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
J La Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the
character of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J 1. b Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures.
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that can be reported on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress
toward achieving the goals and policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified
here are specifically called out as being important, but are not intended to be the onlv actions or
measures that may be used by the Ci
Action 1: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasingthe of affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure 1: Number of residential units permitted each year.
Housing 17
AI-7224
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 10/22/2014
Introduction of Comprehensive Plan's General Introduction and Land Use Element
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Introduction of Comprehensive Plan's General Introduction and Land Use Element
Staff Recommendation
Introduction only with discussion on Nov. 12.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
M. •
The order of review for the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update is based on the schedule that was previously
discussed with the Planning Board and City Council. After the Housing Element, the next Comprehensive Plan
components to review for the 2015 update are: (1) the General Introduction Section (currently identified as:
Comprehensive Plan —Purpose and Scope; State and Regional Context; and General Background); and (2) the
Land Use Element. (See attachments.)
These existing components will be introduced at the Planning Board's October 22 meeting. However, no changes
to them have yet been drafted. Instead, the components will be discussed more substantively at the Planning
Board's November 12th meeting, with potential changes being part of that discussion. Potential changes will
include new data to replace older data. A key aspect of this will be the population allocation for 2035, which is
extended from 2035.
Attachments
General Intro Section
Land Use Element
Comprehensive Plan - Purpose and Scope
Scope
The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds consists of all of the elements specifically adopted
as part of this plan, including both text and maps, and those specific plans adopted by reference (see
the section entitled Comprehensive Plan — Elements, page 15).
Purpose
The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes:
A. To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future
that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way
which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs."'
B. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the
community.
C. To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide
guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that
support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and
enhance the community's assets and natural resources.
D. To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and
building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and
other natural resources.
E. To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning
and inharmonious subdividing.
F. To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and
fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks.
G. To facilitate the provision of sustainable public services consistent with the community's
values and needs.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, U.N. General Assembly
Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987.
Purpose & Scope
Effect Of Plan
A. Development Regulations. Development regulations adopted by the City of Edmonds
shall be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
B. Development Projects. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as
a guide for all development projects —both public and private — within the city. The
development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall apply to all
public and private development projects. Accordingly, each and every development
application shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Programs and Implementation. The City shall strive to develop programs and actions
that implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that are reflected in
its short-range, strategic, and long-range decision -making.
Growth Management
A. General. Growth management is intended to provide a long-range strategy guiding how
communities develop and how services are provided. State, regional and local
jurisdictions undertaking growth management planning are adopting plans and
implementation strategies that form a coordinated approach to actively plan for the
future. A community such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant
residential atmosphere and proximity to a large urban center, is subject to constant
growth pressures.
Edmonds' 2000 population was 39,515. As part of the cooperative planning process for
the region, Edmonds has established a population planning target of 44,880 for the year
2025. This represents an average annual increase of less than one percent per year
(0.5%), and is similar to the growth rate experienced by the city during the past two
decades. In part, this moderate growth rate reflects Edmonds' status as a mature
community with a small supply of vacant, developable land. Because current and future
development will increasingly occur as redevelopment or infill, the general philosophy
expressed in the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the character of the community
while strategically planning for change in specific areas.
It is envisioned that the Comprehensive Plan will be implemented with a broad -based set
of implementation actions. Implementation measures will range from tying plan goals
and policies to budgeting and infrastructure decisions, to making sure that regulations are
coordinated and targeted to achieve expressed policies, to working with both public and
private entities to jointly achieve community goals. However, implementation
approaches must be designed to address not only the differences between neighborhoods
in the city, but also the variation in different situations over time. While general
Purpose & Scope
decisions on how the region will grow are made collaboratively at a regional level, it is
up to each community to determine how to implement this vision and the desired growth
level at the local level. In addition, it is up to the government, particularly local elected
officials, to implement the desired policies.
B. Goal. Growth management policies should insure that as a residential community,
Edmonds continues to be heralded as "The Gem of Puget Sound," in accordance with the
following policies:
B.1. Decisions affecting the growth pattern of the community should be made with a
maximum of citizen participation.
B.2. The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation measures should be developed
and maintained in such a manner to assure that there are sufficient resources to
insure established levels of community services and that ample provisions are
made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities.
B.3. The role of commercial and industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and
provision for consumer needs, should be considered as a supporting part of
achieving a sustainable community and maintaining the residential nature of the
area rather than as the dominant activity of the community
BA. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors
the following values:
B.4.a. Light (including direct sunlight)
B.4. b. Privacy
B.4.c. Public views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features.
B.4.d. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution.
B.5. Any residential growth should be designed to accommodate and promote a
balanced mixture of income and age groups.
B.6. Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding communities to ensure that the
regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policy and help ensure a
coordinated implementation of the regional growth strategy.
Purpose & Scope
State and Regional Context
State and regional goals have been adopted to provide a framework for developing local
comprehensive plans and implementation strategies. By addressing these goals, local governments
can be assured that they are also addressing some of the important issues facing the state and other
local governments in the Puget Sound region.
State Goals
A. Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
B. Reduce sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low -density development.
C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
E. Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all
citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing Insufficient economic growth, all within the
capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
F. Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
G. Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in
a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
H. Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource -based Industries,
Including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries Industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
4 General Background
I. Open space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
Including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
K. Citizen participation and coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and encourage coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
L. Public facilities and services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
M. Historic preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
N. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Regional Goals
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a Regional Transportation Planning Organization
under chapter 47.80 RCW. In its major planning document, Vision 2040, the PSRC is described as:
"...an association of cities, towns, counties, ports, and state agencies that serves
as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about regional growth
management, environmental, economic, and transportation issues in the four -
county central Puget Sound region of Washington state."2
Vision 2040 establishes the regional vision and sets the Regional Growth Strategy for jurisdictions
planning in the Puget Sound region:
"VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for moving the central Puget Sound region
toward a sustainable future. The combined efforts of individuals, governments,
organizations and the private sector are needed to realize this vision. As the
region has continued to grow and change, its residents have stepped up to ensure
that what is most valued about this place remains timeless. Positive centers -
oriented development trends in recent years are a cause for optimism. Yet
VISION 2040 recognizes that "business as usual" will not be enough. As a result,
VISION 2040 is a call for personal and institutional change.
2 Vision 2040, page ii. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040_02l408.pdf
General Background 5
VISION 2040 recognizes that local, state, and federal governments are all
challenged to keep up with the needs of a growing and changing population.
VISION 2040 is designed to guide decisions that help to make wise use of
existing resources — and ensure that future generations will have the resources
they need. ,3
Vision 2040 sets a framework for the region to provide for a sustainable future that:
"...ensures the well-being of all living things, carefully meshing human activities
with larger patterns and systems of the natural world. This translates into
avoiding the depletion of energy, water, and raw natural resources. A sustainable
approach also prevents degradation of land, air, and climate, while creating built
environments that are livable, comfortable, safe and healthy, as well as promote
productivity."4
To implement this vision, VISION 2040 contains the following Overarching Goals:
Environment. The region will care for the natural environment by protecting and
restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and addressing potential climate
change impacts. The region acknowledges that the health of all residents is
connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels should consider
the impacts of land use, development patterns, and transportation on the
ecosystem.
Development Patterns. The region will focus growth within already urbanized
areas to create walkable, compact, and transit -oriented communities that
maintain unique local character. Centers will continue to be a focus of
development. Rural and natural resource lands will continue to be permanent and
vital parts of the region.
Housing. The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to
provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every
resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing
for all people.
Economy. The region will have a prospering and sustainable regional economy
by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people, sustaining
environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities,
and high quality of life.
Transportation. The region will have a safe, cleaner, integrated, sustainable, and
highly efficient multimodal transportation system that supports the regional
growth strategy, promotes economic and environmental vitality, and contributes
to better public health.
3 Vision 2040, page 3. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040-02l408.pdf
4 Vision 2040, page 7. http://psrc.org/assets/1735/sustainable.pdf
6 General Background
Public Services. The region will support development with adequate public
facilities and services in a coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that
supports local and regional growth planning objectives.
In addition, Vision 2040 includes a Regional Growth Strategy to implement this vision. Components
of the Regional Growth Strategy include:
a. designation of geographic areas for regional growth centers, manufacturing
and industrial centers, as well as other centers such as town centers and activity
hubs in Urban Growth Areas and cities;
b. planning for multi -modal connections and supportive land uses between
centers and activity hubs;
c. promotion of sustainability in all decision -making; and
d. allocation of population and employment growth to regional geographies in
Snohomish County.
In addition to these statements, the city recognizes a desire to create a regional system of central
places framed by open space.
General Background
General Background
Planning Area
The City of Edmonds is located in south Snohomish County on the western shores of Puget Sound
approximately 14 miles north of Seattle (Figure 1). Situated within the urbanized Puget Sound region,
the city encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles (5,700 acres) in area, including 5 lineal miles
(26,240 feet) of marine shoreline. Roughly triangular in shape, the city is bounded by Puget Sound on
the west; Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace on the east; unincorporated Snohomish County on the
north; and the town of Woodway, unincorporated Snohomish County (the Esperance area), and King
County on the south.
Land Use Pattern
Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the
majority of the city's land use base. Approximately 3,100 acres, or 55 percent of the City's area is
developed for single-family residential uses. Higher density residential development (including
apartments and condominiums) is primarily located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity
of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and Stevens Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th
Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and multi -family residential units comprise
approximately 3,400 acres (nearly 60 percent of the total land in the city).
Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the
Highway 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Stevens
Hospital). Smaller commercial nodes that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods are located at the
intersection of Edmonds Way (SR104) and 100th Avenue/9th Avenue (Westgate) and at 212th
Street/84th Avenue (5 Corners).
The Port of Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and
manages 33 upland acres as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats
(approximately 11 acres). The Port's property is occupied by approximately 80 businesses including
office uses located in Harbor Square.
Approximately 258 acres of parks and open space lands are owned or operated by the City, while
there are another 229 acres of County -owned parks and open space land in the Edmonds area.
Regional parks and beaches figure prominently in the City, including Brackett's Landing North and
South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina
Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds
Marsh is a significant City -owned open space (23 acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest
community park owned by the City (48 acres). The largest County resources are Southwest County
Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres).
Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. Table 1 and the accompanying Figure 1
summarize existing land uses in the city.
8 General Background
Figure 1: Existing Land Use
Vacant, Unclassified,
6.6%
ROW, 19.2%
Public. Utilitv.0.6°/
Open Space,
Recreation, 4.4
Community Facil
5.0%
COmmE
Multi Family,4.8%
Single Family,54.8%
Table 1
Existing Land Use
Land Use Type
Acres
% of City
Single Family
3,142
54.8%
Multi Family
274
4.8%
Commercial
261
4.6%
Community Facilities
286
5.0%
Open Space, Recreation
250
4.4%
Public, Utility
36
0.6%
ROW
1,102
19.2%
Vacant, Unclassified
378
6.6%
Source: Edmonds Planning Division.
General Background 9
Historical Development
The earliest inhabitants of the area were likely nomadic bands of Native Americans. As European
exploration and settlement in the Pacific Northwest increased, settlers began homesteading and
logging activities in the general area of the present-day city. The community that became the City of
Edmonds grew out of a homestead and logging operation started by George Brackett in 1876.
Logging and shingle -splitting were the dominant economic activities in the community during the
1880's and 1890's. The town continued to grow as other industries including box making, pulp mill, a
cigar factory, and increased waterfront activities developed.
The Great North Railroad reached the town in 1891 and for many years provided access for goods
and passenger travel to Everett and Seattle as well as to the eastern part of the state. Although fires
destroyed many of the waterfront mills, shingle production continued to be the primary industry in
the city into the 1940s. Ferry service to Kingston began in 1923 when a ferry terminal was built near
the location of the existing ferry dock. The present ferry terminal was built in the early 1950's after
acquisition of the ferry system by the State of Washington.
The city continued to grow during the 1940's and 50's, resulting in a more active role of the
municipality in providing water, sewer and streets for the residential and commercial expansion. The
Port District was formed in 1948 and began waterfront improvements. Commercial and retail
businesses within the downtown provided a wide range of services to the community. Completion of
Interstate 5 and increased growth in the Puget Sound region led to a gradual change in the character
of city with more emphasis on residential development and a decline in the retail importance of the
downtown. The city is now primarily a residential community; it also provides many amenities for
residents and visitors including restaurants, and specialized shopping as well as cultural events such
as the annual art festival.
The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 with the original town site encompassing
approximately 550 acres. The original town site is now occupied primarily by the downtown and
adjacent residential areas. The city has expanded in area through annexations to approximately 8.9
square miles.
Population
The rate of population growth has been relatively stable over the years with major increases occurring
primarily as a result of
annexations in the
1950s and 1960s.
Population growth
since 1980 has occurred
at a relatively slow rate.
Between 1980 and
1990, the population
increased 11.1 percent
(approximately 1
percent per year) to
30,744. Since 1990, this
slow growth trend has
Table 2: City of Edmonds
Historical and Projected Growth 1940 to 2025
Edmonds
Percent
Avg Annual
Snohomish
Percent
Avg Annual
Year
Population
Increase
Increase
County
Increase
Increase
1940
1,288
11 %
88,754
1950
2,057
60%
4.8%
111,580
26%
2.3%
1960
8,016
290%
14.6%
172,199
54%
4.4%
1970
23,684
195%
11.4%
265,236
54%
4.4%
1980
27,679
17%
1.6%
337,720
27%
2.4%
1990
30,744
11 %
1.1 %
465,642
38%
3.3%
2000
39,515
29%
2.5%
606,024
30%
2.7%
2025
44,880
14%
0.5%
10 General Background
continued, with the city reaching a population of 39,515 in 2000 (an annual increase of 2.5% per year
during the 1990s). Even this relatively modest increase during the 1990s was largely due to
annexations in the southern portion of the city's urban growth area (Esperance).
45,000
i�
r_ 35,000
O
30,000
Q 25,000
a 20,000
15,000
O
10,000
4 111
0
1940
Figure 2: Edmonds Population
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Period Ending...
■ City Population ■ Avg Annual Increase
16.0%
14.0% O
N
12.0%
L
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
Q
4.0%
2.0% Q
Figure 3: Edmonds: City vs. Area Growth
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
C
O 30,000
25,000
00 20,000
CL
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1940
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Period Ending...
■ Edmonds Area ■ City Population
General Background 11
Figures 2 and 3 on the previous page summarize the recent population trends in Edmonds and the
surrounding area. Figure 3 makes it clear that while the city's population showed a relatively higher
degree of growth in the 1990s due to annexations, population growth in the overall Edmonds area has
remained at a low level. As of 2004, Edmonds is the 2nd largest city in Snohomish County, and the
22nd largest city in the state. The city ranks 8th in overall population density state-wide, with a 2004
estimated population density of 4,382 people per square mile.
The city has a higher percentage of retired persons and senior citizens than its neighboring cities and
Snohomish County as a whole. The median age of the population in 2000 was 42.0 years, up from
38.3 years in 1990 and 33.5 years in 1980. The population is predominantly Caucasian, with
approximately 4 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3 percent combined African American, Native
American, Eskimo, Aleut, and other.
(Y� o1 Loyal
Population
100%
90%
90%
70%
60%
50%
40%
5
20%
I44o-
49io-
Figure 4
Age Distribution of Edmonds Residents and Nearby pities
52%
Fdmuds gumik
Sounc,e. U.S. Census, 2000
Economic Factors
■ 55 & older
24-54
■ 19 & cinder
534b 55% 55% 54%
Lynnwood Mountlake Everett Bothell
Terrace
Kirkland KIlig Count. Su.)lraurish
Cou uN
Over the last decade, employment within the city has grown somewhat faster than population.
Between 1980 and 1990, employment increased approximately 2.7 percent per year. In 1990, the city
had an estimated 9,263 jobs with the largest portion of those (38 percent) in finance, insurance, real
estate and services. Retail trade and government accounted for 27 percent and 23 percent
respectively. The remaining 12 percent of the jobs were in manufacturing (5 percent); wholesale
trade, transportation, communication and utilities (4 percent); and education (3 percent). By the 2000
census, employment growth had slowed to just under one percent per year, reaching a total
employment of 10,154. As in 1990, the largest sector of employment (39.5 percent) was in finance,
insurance, real estate and services. Retail trade and government accounted for 26 percent and 14
percent respectively. The remaining 20.5 percent of the jobs were in construction (7.6 percent),
manufacturing (1.6 percent); wholesale trade, transportation, communication and utilities (5.5
percent); and education (5.8 percent).
12 General Background
Table 3
Edmonds Employment by Sector — 2000 Census
Const/Res FIRES Manufacturing Retail WTCU Government Education Total
774 4,010 162 2,667 561 1,396 584 10,154
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
According to the 2000 Census, the median household income in Edmonds in 1999 was $53,522,
which is equivalent to the median income for King and Snohomish Counties ($53,157 and $53,060,
respectively). Median income in 1990 was $40,515.
Retail trade is a significant employer in the city. However, on a per capita basis, taxable retail sales in
the City of Edmonds are relatively lower than Edmonds' neighbors and other cities of similar size, as
shown in Figure 5, and roughly the same as Snohomish County as a whole. The City's location
amidst densely populated areas suggests that Edmonds has the potential to attract higher retail sales
comparable to other cities its size.
Figure 5
Taxable Retail Sales per Capita for the Cityof Edmonds and Surrounding Areas
(2002 5)
€ D,000
sss,a0o
s30,a00
€2€,000
€20,000
€1€,060
€10�Op0
€€,ODD
—
i0
6dmorrds Lpnrrw�od
Shading
hburdake
An1he1 Puriei IGrklend
E rect
Snohomish
Kiig
Terrace
Cauny
63uriy
02002 TsaNe Balm Sale Per Cq ita
P.2(A $36.2 3
}7,711
$Z913
$1 Q154 $9y75 $16. 72
412P47
$7.221
P994
2C12 Populalion
3R590 33.990
5Z73)
2Q470
3Q910 31,1110 45.790
93,550
637,500
1,779k00
2002 Tamble Balm Saks [milicre)
$297 P.232
$411
$59
$313 $317 9750
$1.157
14,Kff
$17,245
Source, Washington Statle Department cf Revenue, Office of Financial Management
General Background 13
Housing
The city is primarily residential with single-family residences as the predominant land use. Of the
17,519 dwelling units in 2000, 11,391 were single-family (65.5 percent of the total) and 6,038 were
multi -family (34.5 percent of the total). As shown in Table 4, multi family is continuing to increase
its share of total housing stock. In 1990, 65.3 percent of all housing units were owner -occupied; this
increased to just over 68 percent by 2000. Average household size continues to decrease over time,
from 2.59 persons per household in 1980 to 2.32 persons in 2000.
Table 4
Selected Housing Statistics
1980
4990
2000
SF Housing Units
7,529
8,550
11,391
MF Housing Units
3,072
4,165
6,038
Mobile Homes
101
230
90
Total Housing Units
10,702
12,945
17,519
% Single Family
71.3%
67.8%
65.5%
% Multi Family
28.7%
32.2%
34.5%
Avg Household Size
2.59
2.41
2.32
Avg Persons/Unit
2.59
2.37
2.26
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Transportation
The existing transportation system consists of a network of principal arterials, minor arterials,
collectors and local streets. Three major arterials link together state routes or connect the state route
system to major centers and to the ferry system; - SR-104, SR-524/196th Street SW and SR-99. SR-
104 serves east -west travel on the south end of the city and provides access to the Edmonds -Kingston
ferry and Interstate 5; SR-524/196th Street SW extends bordering through the east side of the city.
SR-99 carries the highest volume of traffic in Edmonds.
The Burlington Northern Railroad runs adjacent to the city's shoreline and links Edmonds with
Everett to the north and Seattle to the south. The rail line is currently used for freight and AMTRAK
and Sound Transit commuter rail passenger rail service; approximately 37 trains a day pass through
the city. Bus service is provided by Community Transit with 3 regular bus routes and 4 peak period
only commute bus routes.
The Edmonds -Kingston Ferry connects south Snohomish County and north King County with the
northern Kitsap Peninsula and points west on the Olympic Peninsula via the Hood Canal Bridge. The
14 General Background
Edmonds -Kingston ferry route is the fastest -growing route in the state's ferry system. Figure 6 shows
historical growth in passenger and vehicle demand from 1980 to 2000. Ridership more than doubled
during the 1980s, increasing from nearly 1,950 vehicles and more than 4,250 persons daily in 1980 to
over 4,500 vehicles and 9,200 persons daily in 1990. Ridership also increased appreciably in the
1990s, growing by more than 40 percent to over 6,750 vehicles and 13,000 persons daily during
2000. The 1992 Cross Sound Transportation Study (Booz-Allen and Hamilton Study Team, 1992)
concluded that there was no reasonable alternative to the ferry service to meet the projected increases
in travel demand. The PSRC based its Transportation Element of Vision 2020 on the Edmonds -
Kingston ferry service growing to support the allocation of population within the region. PSRC
Destination 2030 identifies the Edmonds Crossing project as a ferry project on the Metropolitan
Transportation System and thus a crucial element to the mobility needs and economic vitality of the
region.
Figure 6
Historical Edmonds Daily Ferry Ridership
20DD
a Passengers (400) PaceemaWalka{1 87�3 6.276
Ve1i4e58 ❑Huss
1 9SI0
Vehicle Passengers (3 49) Psssergera (1,-057) I ,706
Vehicles & DiriNr3s 14,509
1980
Vehicle & Walk -On Passengers 12.317
Vehicles & Qmiers 11,945
Source: Edmonds Crossing Final EIS, November, 2004.
8,755
In response to this need, the Edmonds Crossing project is being developed to provide a long-term
solution to current operations and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian
traffic in downtown Edmonds. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit
Administration [FTA]), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including
Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and the City of Edmonds, in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [Corps], the U.S. Coast Guard, the Suquamish Tribe, the Tulalip Tribe, the
Lummi Nation, the Swinomish Tribe, and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe propose to relocate the
existing state ferry terminal from Main Street in downtown Edmonds to another site farther from the
General Background 15
downtown core at Point Edwards. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that
would integrate the ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. Access would be provided
by a realigned State Route (SR) 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. The new complex
would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for
accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet intercity
(Amtrak) passenger service and commuter rail loading requirements; a transit center that would meet
local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements; facilities for accommodating both
vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers of the available transportation modes (parking, drop-off
areas, retail and concessionaire space, and waiting areas); and a system linking these facilities to
allow for the safe movement of users
Attributes of the Community
The City of Edmonds was a well -established community by the turn of the twentieth century and the
present urban form preserves many characteristics of its historic origins. The community's location
on the west facing slopes of Puget Sound provides many amenities including extensive views of the
water and Olympic Mountains, access to beaches and waterfront parks, and a compact downtown
area. The city provides a wide variety of parks and recreational facilities. An active arts and cultural
community contributes to the strong sense of civic pride widely shared in the community. There are
numerous well -kept residential neighborhoods, a viable economic base, and an active, involved
citizenry.
Public Process
The public process for the 2004 comprehensive plan update included numerous public workshops,
open houses, and televised work sessions both at the Planning Board and City Council. Three public
hearings were held at the Planning Board and two public hearings were held at the City Council.
Interested parties were provided the option to be informed of upcoming events and hearings via U.S.
mail or email, and could track the process online at a special section of the City's website.
An initial public open house was held on May 26, 2004 to inform the public about the process and
issues related to updates of the comprehensive plan and critical areas regulations. Initial work
sessions were conducted with the City Planning Board and City Council on June 22 and 23, 2004,
respectively, to familiarize each entity with the update process and the primary issues involved. All
Planning Board and City Council meetings were publicized and open to the public, with City Council
sessions recorded and broadcast on the local public access television channel.
Throughout the process, the City continually updated its website regarding Comprehensive Plan and
critical areas revisions, including posting of background materials and draft and final documents. In
addition, over 600 letters of notification were sent to property owners who had streams on or
adjacent to their property, these being the residents most likely to be impacted by new critical areas
regulations. Over 800 letters were sent to property owners in areas of existing "large lot" zoning
where it had been determined that the plan and zoning designations could be changed to higher
density urban designations. These mailings were in addition to the newspaper ads, news releases, and
other forms of public notice employed during the process.
16 General Background
Land Use Element
Scope
Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use, they shall apply to areas shown
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as follows:
Plan Map Designation
Land Use Type
Compatible Zoning
Density
Classifications
Units/Acre
Activity Center
Mix of uses; refer to specific
See appropriate category below; also
plan designations within activity
refer to specific activity center
center
discussion in plan
Corridor Development
Mixed use development
See appropriate category below; also
corridor; refer to specific plan
refer to specific corridor discussion
designations within corridor
in plan
Designated Park or School Site
Public Facility
P-zone or appropriate R-zone
compatible with neighborhood.
Single Family, Resource
Single family
RSW-12, RS-12, RS-20
< 4
Single Family, Urban 3
RS-10
< 4.4
Single Family, Urban 2
RS-8
< 5.5
Single Family, Urban 1
RS-6, RS-8
5-8
Multi Family - High Density
Multi family
RM-1.5, RM-2.4
18-30
Multi Family — Medium Density
RM-2.4, RM-3.0
< 18
Mixed Use Commercial
Commercial
Mixed Use Commercial or mixture
of zones
Community Commercial
BC, BN, or equivalent
Neighborhood Commercial
BN or equivalent based on
neighborhood plan
Highway 99 Corridor
CG, CG2; transitional zones as
appropriate
Edmonds Way Corridor
BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial
zone; RM zones
Westgate Corridor (Planned
BP, BN
Business)
Hospital / Medical
Special Use District
Hospital or Medical zone
Master Plan Development
Master Plan
Master Plan Overlay or equivalent
classification
Public Use or Park/Open Space
Public or Parks
P, OS, or equivalent classification
34
Land
Use
Comprehensive Plan Map
(The adopted Comprehensive Plan Map is filed with the City Clerk. Copies can be obtained from
the Edmonds Planning Division, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, 425-771-0220.
A reduced version of the official map is contained in an envelope at the back of this book)
Land Use 35
Land Capacity
Background
The City was required to estimate the ability of land within the City of Edmonds to accommodate
targeted population and employment growth under each of the land use alternatives considered at the
time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995.
Table 5 summarizes available data on land supply in Edmonds as it existed in 1994. Data on
residential and commercial development in 1994 are shown in Table 6.
Table 5
City of Edmonds Land Supply — 1994
(Gross Acres)
Total
Developed
Vacant
Land Use
Acres
Acres
Acres
Residential
Single -Family
2,773.7
2,608.8
164.9
Multi -Family
202.0
193.5
8.5
Business
Commercial
296.9
284.7
12.2
Industrial
58.4
11.6
46.8
Public Facilities
Government
35.3
35.3
—
Schools
131.8
131.8
—
Parks & Open Space 349.2
349.2
—
Religious
29.0
29.0
—
Streets
867.0
867.0
—
Total
4,743.3
4,510.9
232.4
Source: City of Edmonds Planning Department, 1994
Overall, approximately 95 percent of the city was developed in 1994. Approximately 75 percent of
the remaining undeveloped land (approximately 173 acres) was designated for residential use: 71
percent for single-family residences and 4 percent for multi -family residences. The remaining 25
percent of undeveloped land was designated for commercial and industrial uses.
Capacity estimates were developed for vacant and under -developed parcels. In general, vacant land
included parcels that currently have no structures; residential parcels were considered under-
36 Land Use
developed if they contained less than 50 percent of the allowable density under existing zoning (for
example, a single-family house on a five -acre parcel that is zoned for four units per acre). The
analysis measured the build -out capacity of vacant and under -developed parcels.
As indicated in Table 6, when the city's first GMA-mandated comprehensive plan was adopted in
1995, development of currently vacant parcels was expected to provide capacity for approximately
762 additional residential units and an additional 1.35 million square feet of commercial space.
Table 6
Development and Capacity of Vacant Land — 1994
Existing Development
Vacant/Development Capacity
Residential Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Units Square Feet
Units
Square Feet
Downtown
1,571 943,206
17
506,996
HS Activity
1,914 1,158,633
232
656,407
Center
Highway 99
337 558,912
48
187,930
South
76th and 196th
545
39
RS-6
1,615
65
RS-8
3,659
73
RS-12
2,719
224
RSW-12
51
—
RS-20
362
64
Total
12,773 2,660,751
762
1,351,333
Source: City of Edmonds
Planning Department, 1994.
Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, capacity estimates were not calculated
strictly on the amount of vacant buildable land, but also on increased densities and intensity of
development within various areas of the city. Two methods of development were targeted to provide
additional residential capacity: accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and mixed use development.
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) were also targeted as a way of assuring maximum
buildout of single -family -zoned areas while
Following adoption of the 1995 comprehensive plan, the city embarked on an implementation
program to achieve the goals identified in the plan. Many of these implementation measures are
described in the Housing Element under the discussion of "reasonable measures." These measures
were taken by the city to address issues related to both capacity and affordable housing.
A key feature of Edmonds' comprehensive plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which
includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a
mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the
Land Use 37
second floor and offices, shops or other commercial uses on the ground floor. Edmonds is unique in
relying to a significant degree on mixed use development as a land use pattern designed to address
potential capacity. Mixed use development is allowed in both of the city's Activity Centers, and in
the Corridor development areas. In the 1995 comprehensive plan, mixed use development was to be
allowed under all the alternatives considered, but would only be encouraged under the adopted
"Designed Infill" alternative. The encouragement of mixed use development continues as a basic
assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan. The importance of mixed use in the city's
land use pattern can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 8
General Use Categories by % of City Land Area
Open Space
Master Plan 5.0% piihlir
eighborhood Commercial
0.4%
lanned-Neighborhood
0.2%
owntown Districts
1.2%
ommunity Commercial
0.4%
Edmonds Way Corridor
0.6%
Mixed Use Commercial
2.4%
Corridor Development
3.6%
Sing.-
40.5% v v4 Single Family Resource
21.1 %
Current Capacity
An updated county -wide capacity analysis was completed as part of the Buildable Lands Report for
Snohomish County, completed in November 2002. This analysis showed a population capacity for
Edmonds of 45,337 and an employment capacity of 12,041. These capacity figures
indicate that with an estimated 2004 population of 39,460, Edmonds can accommodate an additional
5,877 people and 1,887 jobs. However, the jobs capacity does not take into account any new
implementation actions proposed in the Highway 99 area.
Discussions of land capacity methodology generally acknowledge that an oversupply of land is
needed in growth management systems using urban/rural growth boundaries (DCD, 1992). Reasons
are generally related to operation of urban land markets, changes in availability over time, and a need
38 Land Use
to avoid constraining land supply and causing increases in land cost. The amount of the oversupply
needed is not known with certainty. Too little urban land relative to targeted needs could increase
land cost and housing prices and shift growth pressure to adjacent areas or jurisdictions.
In order to ensure adequate availability of urban land at all times, some growth management planning
systems have provided for a "safety factor" of land in addition to projected urban area land
requirements. Factors of 1.25 to 2.5 have been used in some growth management systems (Whatcom
County/Bellingham Planning Departments, 1993; Beaton, 1982; Department of Community
Development (DCD), 1992). For the 2002 capacity analysis, reduction factors were applied to
provide a "safety factor" for estimated future capacity. A 15% market availability reduction factor
was applied to vacant land, and at a 30% market availability reduction factor was used for partially -
used and redevelopable land. In addition, an additional 5% reduction was made for uncertainty
related to future infrastructure needs (roads, drainage facilities, etc.).
One adjustment to the capacity analysis completed in 2002 is necessary. Development plans for the
large master -planned multi family development (developed by Triad) at Point Edwards indicate that
nearly 300 dwelling units will be built there, adding approximately 80 dwelling units to the capacity
estimate at that location (the initial capacity estimate was for 220 units).
The specific studies undertaken by the city to update the plans for the Downtown Waterfront Activity
Center and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and related Highway 99 Corridor have been
targeted at clarifying and improving implementation rather than increasing capacity in those areas.
Relationship to 2025 Population and Employment Targets
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and
employment forecasts for the next 20 years within the Urban Growth Area. Snohomish County and
its cities have worked together with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to arrive at forecasts
that each city will use to accommodate its fair share of regional growth. The City of Edmonds' share
of regional growth by the year 2025 is 5,420 additional residents (approximately 3,079 residential
units). By 2025, total population is expected to reach 44,880 residents. A comparison of additional
population capacity and the 2025 population target is presented in Figure 8 and Table 6. The city is
able to consider a planning target within a range (shown as the "high" vs. "low" growth lines in
Figure 8). Based on historical trends, the "low" target appears to be the most reasonable for Edmonds
— particularly in light of the relatively high land values in the city. The land capacity analysis,
combined with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan, indicates that both the projected
targets for population and employment can be accommodated by the city through 2025.
The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to
maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure.
The land capacity analysis indicates that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate forecasted
residential and employment growth under the Proposed Action and each of the land use alternatives.
Given the extent to which future land use policies, regulations, demographics and market forces
could affect land capacity estimates, however, it is important that development trends and remaining
land supply within the city is regularly monitored in order to ensure the continued supply of adequate
urban land throughout the 20-year GMA planning horizon. Implementation strategies should include
development of a long-term program to monitor the city's progress towards goals contained in the
Land Use 39
Comprehensive Plan. As part of the monitoring process, the city should work with the public,
environmental and business leaders, interest groups, cities and other agencies to develop detailed
monitoring criteria or "benchmarks" that could be used to measure progress and identify the need for
corrective action.
Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development.
For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if
successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures
that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs — at least on a
case -by -case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards;
density bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review
that lower financial development risks.
50,000
Figure 9
Edmonds Growth Targets vs. Historical Growth
Buildable Lands Capacity (45,207)
45,000
40,000
r
35,000
C
p
30,000
�
r
25,000
Q.
d
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2025`
Buildable Lands Capacity o Low Growth Target Historical Growth 4 High Growth Target
40 Land Use
Table 7
City of Edmonds Existing and Projected Growth
1990
2000 2025 (Plan Target)
Population
30,744
39,515
44,880
Nominal Change
3,065
8,771
5,365
% Change
11.1%
28.5%
13.6%
Annual % Change
1.1%
2.5%
0.5%
Housing Units
12,945
17,508
20,587
Nominal Change
2,243
4,563
3,079
% Change
21.0%
35.2%
17.6%
Avg HH Size
2.41
2.32
2.26
Avg Persons/Unit
2.37
2.26
2.18
Gross Density'
2.7
3.1
3.6
Net Density 2
4.9
5.4
6.3
1 Gross Density = number of households per gross acre of land, city-wide. Note that this includes non-residential
land, so the density per gross residential acre is significantly higher.
2 Net Density = number of households per net acre of land, after critical areas and rights -of -way are deducted.
Note that this is includes non-residential land, so the density per net residential acre is significantly higher.
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, and Edmonds Planning Division, 2004.
Land Use 41
Land Use Concepts
The VISION 2020 regional plan establishes a strategy for the Puget Sound region of central places
framed by open space and linked by efficient, high capacity transit. While the history and character
of development in Edmonds does not support its designation as one of these regional centers, the
concepts developed in VISION 2020 are supported in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The
approach proposed in Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers
based on the "Activity Clusters" described in VISION 2020:
"These central places are smaller than the subregional and metropolitan centers
and are not necessarily located on, or directly served by, the regional rapid transit
system. They are not designated to receive a major share of the region's employment
growth, although they will certainly continue to see some new employment and
residential development. Transit service will focus on connecting these places to the
regional rapid transit system and to the adjacent metropolitan or subregional
centers. In contrast with the subregional centers, the growth in employment in an
activity cluster is for services oriented to serving the local residential community. In
contrast with the small towns, activity clusters are part of the urban/suburban
landscape; they are not separated from other areas by open space, agricultural
lands or water. " [Vision 2020, October 1990, page 24]
Activity Centers in Edmonds are intended to address the following goals:
A. Provide a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial
activity.
B. Encourage mixed -use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and
residential opportunities, including both multi -family and small -lot single family
development.
C. Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes
with views, and the waterfront.
D. Encourage transit service and access.
E. Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and
coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals.
F. Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors.
G. Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring
a consistent and coherent character of development.
42 Land Use
H. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of
historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
A. Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and
these will have a profound impact on the future of the city's downtown waterfront area. Some of
these ongoing activities include:
• Transportation planning and the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which will move
the existing ferry terminal at the base of Main Street to a new multimodal transportation
center at Pt. Edwards.
• Continued development of the city's waterfront parks and walkways into an
interconnected necklace of public spaces.
• The South County Senior Center is undertaking strategic planning to look at its facilities,
programs, and services.
• Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in
the Port of Edmonds' plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art.
Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the
vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high
priority.
• Arts plans continue to be implemented throughout the downtown, including such
projects as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Artworks facility, and the continued
expansion of downtown festivals and events.
• Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through new
initiatives with the Edmonds Floral Conference Center and is working with the Edmonds
Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations.
B. Downtown Vision. Taken together, the goals and policies for the Downtown Waterfront Activity
Center present a vision for Edmonds downtown waterfront. By actively pursuing the ferry terminal's
relocation, the City has set upon an ambitious and exciting course. It is a course that holds promise
for the downtown waterfront, but it is one that will require concerted action by the entire community,
including local, state and federal public officials, business groups and citizens. While the challenges
presented in this effort are substantial, the possible rewards are even greater, for with its existing
physical assets, future opportunities and the energy of its citizens, Edmonds has the potential to
create one of the region's most attractive and vital city centers.
Components of the overall vision for the downtown waterfront area include:
• The Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation center provides convenient
transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes
Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal
Land Use 43
reduces negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while still providing a link between the
terminal and downtown Edmonds. The project provides the community with varied
transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community.
• Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed -use
development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding
lanes and SR-104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocates to Point Edwards.
• The shoreline features a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, marina
facilities, and supporting uses.
• There is a more efficient transportation system featuring commuter and passenger trains,
increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking
areas.
• There is a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses supported by both nearby residents and the larger Edmonds
community, and that attracts visitors from throughout the region.
• The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multi family
development with new mixed -use development types. Single family neighborhoods are a
part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of housing and character of
downtown.
• Opportunities for new development and redevelopment reinforce Edmonds' attractive,
small town pedestrian -oriented character. Pedestrian -scale building height limits are an
important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect.
• Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of
historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
• Auto traffic is rerouted to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods.
C. Goals for the Downtown Waterfront Area. To achieve this vision, goals for the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center include:
• Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
Continue to plan for and implement the Edmonds Crossing multimodal transportation
center at Pt. Edwards — pursuing the design, permitting, land acquisition and
development of the project. The completion of Edmonds Crossing will help address the
competing needs of three regional facilities (transportation, parks and open space —
including the Edmonds Marsh, and the Port of Edmonds) while providing opportunities
for redevelopment and linkage between downtown Edmonds and its waterfront.
44 Land Use
• Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's
identity.
• Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at
downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and
residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links
between the retail core and these supporting areas.
• Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses.
• Develop gateway/entrance areas into downtown which serve complementary purposes
(e.g. convenience shopping, community activities).
• Explore alternative development opportunities in the waterfront area, such as specifically
encouraging arts -related and arts -complementing uses.
D. Transportation. Primary goals of the City's Downtown Waterfront Plan include integrating the
downtown core with the waterfront, improving pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and
encouraging mixed -use development. Current conditions limit the city's ability to achieve these plan
goals by making it difficult to move between the two areas, thereby minimizing the value of the
shoreline as a public resource and amenity while adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment.
A number of studies and public involvement projects have been completed to determine how to meet
the variety of transportation needs that converge within Downtown Edmonds. Following an initial
1992 Ferry Relocation Feasibility Study and a visioning focus group convened by Edmonds' Mayor
in April 1992, the importance of the conflicting transportation needs culminated in the City of
Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, and Community Transit signing a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in November 1993. The MOU called for the cooperative development of
solutions to the conflicts between the City's growth plans and ferry traffic in particular. In response
to that agreement, preliminary engineering and environmental analysis of alternatives began in late
1993.
In 1994, the Edmonds City Council held public hearings on the possibility of relocating the existing
ferry terminal and incorporating a new terminal within a larger multimodal project. As a result of the
hearings, the Council expressed support for a regional multimodal facility. The Council also
approved the 1994 Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan which specifically supported the facility's
location at Pt. Edwards.
Further environmental review and facility definition resulted in a recommendation that an alternative
site (other than the existing Main Street location) should be developed as a multimodal facility
serving ferry, rail, bus, pedestrian, and bicycle travel needs.
Several alternative sites for the relocated ferry terminal and the proposed multimodal center were
evaluated as part of the early environmental screening process. During this screening process,
federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies —including affected Tribes— provided input
regarding issues that could impact selecting reasonable alternatives.
Land Use 45
Based on this extensive screening process, two alternatives were recommended for further analysis in
the Environmental Impact Statement process. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
issued on February 25, 1998, and the Final EIS was issued on November 10, 2004. Pt. Edwards is
the preferred alternative for a multimodal terminal site.
In addition to the transportation benefits of moving the existing ferry terminal, a number of
redevelopment opportunities will result within the downtown waterfront area. These range from park
and public access improvements to opportunities for significant redevelopment and connections
between the waterfront and downtown.
P U G e r
rare SQUNJP
PW
Concrete Pier
(Part of Existing
Braekett's Ferry Pier)
p„k Landing
Park (South)
Braciwtt'si s Park
Landing
Park [North]
rnrrorr `
Irian
Con ians� - Q , . r Com�,ed
Park
hod �
Figure 10.
Integration of the
remaining ferry pier
structure into
surrounding parks will
be a key public benefit
and opportunity.
Edmonds Crossing. Edmonds Crossing is a multimodal transportation center proposed to be
constructed at Point Edwards, the former UNOCAL oil storage facility south of the Edmonds
Marina. This multimodal transportation center will provide the capacity to respond to growth while
providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel, including rail, ferry, bus,
bicycle, walking and ridesharing.
The project is supported by local, regional, and state plans, including the Puget Sound Regional
Council's Destination 2030 Metropolitan Transportation and VISION 2020 plan; Washington State
Ferries' (WSF) System Plan for 1999-2018; Snohomish County's countywide Transportation Plan;
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan; and the Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan and Master Plan.
Edmonds Crossing will provide:
• Intersection improvements at Pine Street and SR-104;
• Interconnection of Amtrak service to Chicago and Vancouver, B.C., Sounder commuter
rail service between Everett and Seattle, and other regional transportation modes;
• Connections to the regional transit system with direct bus service to communities
throughout the urban growth area;
46 Land Use
• Enhanced ability for people to rideshare, bicycle and walk to connect with travel
opportunities at the multimodal center;
• Improved safety and travel on Edmonds local streets and along SR-104 between the ferry
terminal and 1-5.
• Linkage between Navy facilities at Everett and on the Kitsap peninsula.
Edmonds
Crossing
preferred
alternative "
from the
2004 FEIS.
Land Use 47
The project includes:
• A ferry terminal;
• A train station;
• A transit center for bus and regional transit, as well as the opportunity for riders to
connect to downtown businesses via a local circulator service;
• The flexibility to operate the facility to respond to changing travel demands;
• Safety features including grade separation of train traffic from other modes of travel,
designated vehicle parking and holding areas, and improved passenger waiting areas.
While the Edmonds Crossing project will directly benefit the transportation system, the project will
also provide significant benefits to downtown Edmonds. Completion of the project provides an
opportunity to redevelop the existing ferry terminal facilities and the related holding lanes in the
downtown area. Providing a connection from the new multimodal terminal to downtown Edmonds
will potentially bring more visibility and visitors to the downtown area.
S Duwnrox�r
Public Pier C,a►eNm: h
Redevvloptnent
Downtown Ped srrian Ho
1 Priva
Design Visitor Moorage Conn. tions to 4 onds
center
doA r1147r ['Ur'e for the _
Arts
Concepts Vie it! Corridors &
� Srackett's '
FerryTerar+irrat ` Landm pedestrian connections
Waterfront F.-splanade EJo to "fTrstorrr.• C. enter ". .
`s s •
•
Downtown • it6:" i o ; • • —
Conimuter Rai( & • ■ - FWmwds
.- 0,0 Public
LE
Bus I ransir Station
NewMullinrodal
Terminal
(ferry, train, hus,
commuter rail)
. y
NN
ids '
C.
• • City '0 Safety
❑lympic BeH . • + • -
� �•••••
■h�,� 'r� CF nces
■ ■ ■I �••••■iStil • �! of • ■ ■ CE
• Edmunds
Wastewater ,
Harbor Treatment r .'Historic C'etner
Square Plant V1eWCczrrrdnrs € pedeserian-scale
design
to Puget Sound
• its Corridor - i -
■■ Waterfront. Connection r
• / �.;� y _ _ View Corridor &
• f pedestrian connection
Part oVilmonds to "Historic C.anrer"
Edmonds Marsh
Master !'lint multihimil ti'
-� redeve(npmettt n/ "upper yard "
City Park
48 Land Use
E. Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy. The vision and goals for Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center are designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. To
implement this vision, a series of policies and an implementation strategy are intended to guide
future public and private actions.
Implementation Strategy. Key issues tied to the viability and health of the downtown waterfront
area include using the Edmonds Crossing project to help resolve transportation issues, linking
downtown with the waterfront, and taking advantage of redevelopment opportunities arising from
emerging trends and public investments.
The largest single factor affecting the downtown waterfront area is the timing and construction of the
Edmonds Crossing project. Because of this, a two -phased downtown waterfront redevelopment
strategy is envisioned. The first phase includes actions taken before the existing ferry terminal is
relocated to the Pt. Edwards site, and is intended to include actions taken to support ongoing
redevelopment and arts -related improvements downtown. This phase will also set the framework for
subsequent redevelopment after the terminal's relocation. The second phase is aimed at
comprehensive redevelopment to link the downtown with the waterfront, better utilize shoreline
resources, increase economic viability and provide the setting for a broad range of community
functions.
Short Term Actions. Short term actions are those actions that can take place prior to construction of
the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 5-7 years.
1. Plan for the Edmonds Crossing project at Pt. Edwards which includes relocation of the existing
ferry terminal. Planning should also include reuse of the current ferry terminal and related holding
area.
2. Improve the existing downtown rail station between Dayton and Main Streets in order to better
accommodate inter -city passenger and commuter rail service, including provisions for bus and
commuter traffic as well as pedestrian connections to the waterfront and downtown. During the short
term planning period, evaluate the feasibility of retaining a commuter rail presence downtown after
the construction of Edmonds Crossing..
3. Plan for future joint public/private development of the area between SR-104 and the railroad
tracks. Planning activities could potentially include infrastructure planning, property acquisition,
parking management, development incentives and guidelines or modifications to land use regulations
(such as zoning or master planning). Although Amtrak and commuter rail service will be included as
a part of the Edmonds Crossing project, the City and transit service providers should examine
whether a commuter rail stop can be retained between Dayton and Main Streets in order to provide
improved service and stimulate potential redevelopment of the surrounding area.
4. Upgrade secondary downtown streets for pedestrians. Implement the city's public urban design
plan and street tree plan while expanding public amenities and streetscape improvements in areas
where these do not already exist. These improvements are particularly needed along Main and
Dayton Streets in the area between downtown and the waterfront in order to improve pedestrian
connections between downtown and the waterfront area. Pedestrian improvements should be
combined with traffic improvement projects where applicable.
Land Use 49
5. Continue to promote shoreline management and public access to the city's beaches, parks, and
walkways.
6. Continue implementing a continuous shoreline walkway (boardwalk/esplanade) from Brackett's
Landing North to Point Edwards. Work with the Port of Edmonds to integrate recreation and marina
functions into the long term plan.
7. Work with the Senior Center to plan for long term needs for the senior center facilities and
programs.
8. Encourage a variety of housing to be developed as part of new development and redevelopment
of downtown properties. Housing should be provided to serve a diverse community, including single
family homes, multi family apartments and condominiums, housing as part of mixed use
developments, and housing connected with live/work developments that could also encourage an
arts -oriented community in the downtown area. A special focus for arts -supporting live/work
arrangements could be in the corridor and nearby residential areas linking downtown with the
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
9. Begin improvements to mitigate ferry terminal traffic (and other traffic) increases, as envisioned
in the Edmonds Crossing project and the transportation element of the comprehensive plan.
10. Develop "gateways" at key entrances to the downtown area which enhance the identity and sense
of place for downtown. Gateways should signal that visitors are entering downtown Edmonds, and
should include elements such as public art, landscaping, signage and directional ("way -finding")
aids.
Long Term Actions. Long term actions are those actions that can take place during or after
construction of the Edmonds Crossing project, generally in the next 7-20 years.
Complete a multi modal transportation center at Point Edwards for:
• Rail (inter -city and commuter)
• Ferry
• Park & Ride/Auto
• Bus
• Pedestrian and shuttle connections to other features and amenities.
2. Complete redevelopment of the Point Edwards site consistent with an overall master plan that
provides for commercial or mixed use development compatible with the Edmonds Crossing project.
3. Coordinate circulation and public parking with Port development.
4. Continue to protect and enhance existing wetlands and continue to develop supporting non -
intrusive interpretive trails and exhibits.
5. Continue development of a "necklace" of shoreline parks with improvements, focusing on
missing links in the park and walkway system. Retain and expand existing parks, providing linkages
whenever property acquisitions or easements become available for public use.
50 Land Use
6. Encourage the development of centralized parking facilities as part of redevelopment projects.
Under the right circumstances, these types of facilities can provide an efficient mechanism for
consolidating expensive parking improvements while freeing up land for more intensive and
desirable uses that support local housing, commercial, and pedestrian activities. Public/private
partnerships should be explored when the opportunity arises, both in private and public projects (e.g.
the commuter rail station downtown). Centralized parking facilities could be built as part of a master -
planned mixed -use development.
7. Redevelop the existing ferry terminal site at the base of Main Street according to a master plan
after the existing ferry terminal has been relocated to Point Edwards. This is a unique location,
situated in the midst of a continuous park and beach setting, and provides opportunities for
public/private partnerships. Ideas to be pursued include public "festival" entertainment or activity
space, visitor moorage, park and public walkways, and other uses that would encourage this as to
become a destination drawing people from south along the waterfront and eastward up into
downtown. Redevelopment of this area should be done in a manner that is sensitive to and enhances
the views down Main Street and from the adjoining parks and public areas.
8. Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to
Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity
for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian
crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity
should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian
activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets
should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers
and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art
integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment
of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding
lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed.
9. Support redevelopment efforts that arise out of planning for the long term needs of the senior
center. These plans should reinforce the center's place in the public waterfront, linking the facility to
the walkways and parks along the shoreline.
10. New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to
meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various "districts" described for the downtown
area.
Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for
the downtown waterfront area:
E.1.Ensure that the downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key
identity element for the Edmonds community.
E.2.Future development along the waterfront should support the continuation and compatible design
of three regional facilities: Edmonds Crossing at Pt. Edwards; the Port of Edmonds and its master
plan; and the regional parks, beaches and walkways making up the public shoreline.
Land Use 51
E.3.Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community and regional potential by developing a
multimodal transit center with compatible development in the surrounding area. In addition to the
regional benefits arising from its multi modal transportation function, an essential community benefit
is in removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core area which serves to visually and physically
separate downtown from the waterfront.
E.4.Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient
transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto, pedestrians and bicycle riders and makes
Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be
planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds — such as grade separation/safety
concerns and conflicts with other regional facilities — while providing the community with unique
transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community.
E.5.Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed -use
development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along
Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found
in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area.
Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to
Point Edwards.
EAEnhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development,
enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th
and Main" core.
E.7.Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core.
EXImprove and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local
businesses and cottage industries and undertaking supporting public improvement projects. Of
particular significance is the enhancement of economic development opportunities resulting from the
Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as an arts and water -oriented
destination.
E.9.Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings,
natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the
shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline.
The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master
Program requirements placed on private development.
E.10. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved bus service, pedestrian
and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and parking areas.
E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and
associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown
commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region.
E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
52 Land Use
E.13. Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the
downtown waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and
visitors to downtown.
E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce
Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage
adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these
resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and
it's economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an
important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and
design guidelines.
E.15. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown,
especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population.
E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas.
E.17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown
waterfront area, including such things as:
0 Weather protection,
• Street trees and flower baskets,
• Street furniture,
• Public art and art integrated into private developments,
• Pocket parks,
• Signage and other way -finding devices,
• Restrooms.
E.18. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles whenever possible.
E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
E.20. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown, encouraging
signage to assist in locating businesses and public and cultural facilities while discouraging obtrusive
and garish signage which detracts from downtown pedestrian and cultural amenities.
E.21. Provide lighting for streets and public areas that is designed to promote comfort,
security, and aesthetic beauty.
E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with
pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards
to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area.
Land Use 53
Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown
waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown
waterfront area. These districts are described below.
Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along
Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights
shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage
a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to
accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are
encouraged to be retail -compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service — e.g. art galleries,
restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items
for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front fagades of buildings
must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection
along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features,
differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings
situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated
pedestrian area.
Arts Center Corridor. The corridor along 4th Ave N between the retail core and the Edmonds
Center for the Performing Arts. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be
designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses,
with commercial entries being located at street level. Building design and height shall be
compatible with the goal of creating a pedestrian oriented arts corridor while providing
incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing historic structures. Building entries for commercial
buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection. Design guidelines should provide for
pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower floor from the upper floors of the
building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so
that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access
directly to the public sidewalk. The streetscape should receive special attention, using trees,
landscaping, and public art to encourage pedestrian activity. Private development projects should
also be encouraged to integrate art into their building designs. Where single family homes still
exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the
house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. Uses supporting the
arts center should be encouraged — such as restaurants, cafes, galleries, live/work use
arrangements, and B&Bs.
Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be
designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses.,
with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building
heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first
floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design
guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower,
commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces
must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided
with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of
a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind
commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. Where single family homes
still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where
the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses.
54 Land Use
Downtown Mixed Residential. In this area, commercial uses would be allowed but not required
(i.e. buildings could be entirely commercial or entirely residential, or anything in between).
Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed
Commercial District. Buildings facing the Dayton Street corridor should provide a pedestrian -
friendly streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities and differentiating the ground floor from
upper building levels.
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor
Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter
Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location
between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the
waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl," could enable a design that
provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area
should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially
along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of
the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad
passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design
should be used throughout any redevelopment project.
Shoreline Commercial. The waterfront, west of the railroad tracks between the public beaches
and the Port (currently zoned CW). Consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, this
area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water -oriented and
water -dependent uses. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian
scale development while providing incentives to encourage public view corridors. Roof and
building forms should be an important consideration in design guidelines for this area, because of
its high sensitivity and proximity to public open spaces. Redevelopment should result in singular,
landmark buildings of high quality design which take advantage of the visibility and physical
environment of their location, and which contribute to the unique character of the waterfront.
Pedestrian amenities and weather protection must be provided for buildings located along public
walkways and street fronts.
Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of
Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master
plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in
an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's
Shoreline Master Program, as it applies.
Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut.
Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto -oriented uses would be permitted
in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces
should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and
commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail
core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings
shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a
property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is located behind the
commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use.
Planned Residential -Office. Several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset
Ave between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for small-
scale development which provides for a mix of limited office and residential uses which provide
Land Use 55
a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential
uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial
development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single-
family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building
design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and
single-family character.
Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design
objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to
encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area
that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds.
1. SITE DESIGN
The development ofparking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral
part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and
site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential
negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a
district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment.
Vehicular Access and Parking
a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto
safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are
the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there
is no reasonable alternative available.
b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians' comfort and ease of access in mind.
c. Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the
pedestrian streetscape.
d. In the Retail Core, adopt a "park and walk" policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and ease of
access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no
requirement to provide on -site parking.
e. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles
and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetscape.
f. Provide safe routes for disabled people.
Pedestrian Access and Connections
a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general
commercial, and residential areas.
b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and
pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be
accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments.
c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to buildings should be
maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at street level to be directly accessed from
the sidewalk.
d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas.
56 Land Use
Building Entry Location
a. Create an active, safe and lively street -edge.
b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment.
c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses.
d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to
the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade.
Building Setbacks
a. Provide for a human, pedestrian -friendly scale for downtown buildings.
b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition
to tie each site to its neighbor.
c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe
pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot.
d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the
development and encourage outdoor interaction.
Building/Site Identity
a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and
massing in large mixed use or commercial projects.
b. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, color,
materials and individuality of buildings.
c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of
similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements.
d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in
downtown.
Weather Protection
a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians
traveling along public sidewalks in
downtown.
b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain
or snow.
c. Provide a covered waiting area and
walkway for pedestrians entering a building,
coming from parking spaces and the public
sidewalk.
Lighting
a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries,
walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of
security.
b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and
support nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians.
c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off -site.
d. Create a sense of welcome and activity.
Land Use 57
Signage
a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered.
b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements.
c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and
to improve orientation and way -finding downtown.
d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters.
e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display
lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the
face of the sign.
f. Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist
citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services.
g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Site Utilities, Storage,
Trash and Mechanical
a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and
composting.
b. Minimize noise and odor.
c. Minimize visual intrusion.
d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas
Art and Public Spaces
a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be
provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be
continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape.
b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with
incentives provided to encourage these elements.
c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater
design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design.
2. BUILDING FORM
Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms,
minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance
with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building
entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of
Edmonds character and urban form.
Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds.
b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions
are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two
stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, incentives or design standards
may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which
allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian -scale
appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on
pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors.
58 Land Use
c. Preserve public view corridors along east -west downtown streets — such as Main Street and
Dayton Street — that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west.
Massing
a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large
building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale
streetscape elements found along downtown's pedestrian streets.
b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the
pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building.
c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of
different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into
smaller elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building
mass, these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian -friendly result.
Roof Modulation
a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural
detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form.
b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building.
c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building.
d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building.
e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features
such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to
improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape.
Wall Modulation
a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds.
b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a
facade.
c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades.
d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment.
e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building.
3. BUILDING FACADE
Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings that
defines the character and visual appearance of a place, is of high quality and demonstrates the
strong sense ofplace and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds.
Facade Requirements
a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating
the pedestrian -oriented street level of buildings from upper floors.
b. Ensure diversity in design.
c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds.
d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a
pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas.
e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds.
f. Create individual identity in buildings.
Land Use 59
Window Variety and Articulation
a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the
retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be
dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and
encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space.
b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall
design to encourage rhythm and accents in the facade.
Building FaVade Materials
A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also
help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in
the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a
variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows
the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. It is particularly important to
differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the
pedestrian's line of sight.
Accents/Colors/Trim
A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and
colors applied to a facade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds
on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and
appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to
the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective
is to encourage new development that provides:
• Compatibility with the surrounding environment,
• Visual interest and variety in building forms,
• Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses,
• Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood.
60 Land Use
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor
The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian
and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and
Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high -intensity development corridor along Highway
99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense
uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the
overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed
use, pedestrian -friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by
centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park -like
atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity
center is intended to achieve the following goals:
A. Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
• To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing
incentives for business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
• Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting
of a mixed use, pedestrian -friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and
landscaped surroundings and inter -connected development;
• Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development
character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access
patterns on local streets;
• Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to
pedestrians;
• To provide a buffer between the high -intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR
99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West;
• To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a
cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood
conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mix of single
family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with
public facilities;
• To provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets
and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into
the City of Edmonds;
• To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects
within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school,
the hospital, and transit services and facilities.
Land Use 61
Within the activity center, policies to achieve these goals include the following:
A.1. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and
support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by
pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert
with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher -intensity mixed
use development to nearby single family residential areas.
A.2. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service,
pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas.
Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of
links to future high -capacity transit that develops along corridors such as
Highway 99.
A.3. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access.
AA Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service
businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the
region.
A.5. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods.
Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between
more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping
and visual buffering, and pedestrian -scale streetscape design.
AA Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of
mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density.
However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center — and
adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor— should still be provided
in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit.
A.7. In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial
uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential
uses.
62 Land Use
B. Goals for the Highway 99 Corridor.
Highway 99 occupies a narrow strip of retail and commercial uses bounded by
residential neighborhoods. Historically, the corridor has developed in a patchwork of
uses, without a clear focus or direction. To improve planning for the future of the
corridor, the City established a task force in 2003-2004, resulting in the Highway 99
Enhancement Report and a related economic analysis. During this process, local
residents were contacted and asked to participate in two focus groups to identify current
problems and future aspirations for the corridor. After this preliminary survey with the
residents, the City invited business owners to participate in two charrette meetings to
brainstorm ideas and evaluate possible ways to induce redevelopment in the area. After
concepts were developed, Berk & Associates, an economics consultant, performed a
market assessment of the enhancement strategy. The following diagram summarizes the
general approach that resulted from this work: a series of focus areas providing identity
and a clustering of activity along the corridor, providing opportunities for improved
economic development while also improving linkages between the corridor and
surrounding residential areas.
Focus Areas along the Corridor
Four themes and four areas cIncr,,cd
as particularly interesting along the
corridor. Each one of these areas
represents a sub system with
specific traffic, access and
pedestrian characteristics as well as
development goals and character.
From the north to the south we
recognize the following areas:
• The Hospital Community and
Family Retail Center;
• The "International District"
area;
• The Residential Area
Retail Center:
• The Commercial
RedevclopmcntlH otcls
huprowment Area.
Hospital Community
and Family Retail
Center
'International District"
234" 5t
236"' St
238'" St
24ah St
Commercial
Re developmen tlHotels
Improvement Area
Land Use 63
With this background in mind, specific goals for the Highway 99 Corridor include:
• Improve access and circulation. Access to businesses for both pedestrians and
automobiles is difficult along major portions of the corridor. The inability of pedestrians
to cross the street and for automobiles to make safe turns is a critical limitation on
enhanced development of the corridor into a stronger economic area. Better pedestrian
crossings are also needed to support transit use, especially as Highway 99 becomes the
focus of future high capacity transit initiatives.
The City should consider the different sections along the corridor and emphasize their
unique opportunities rather than view the corridor as an undifferentiated continuum.
Street improvements and, in some cases regulatory measures can encourage these efforts.
Focus on specific nodes or segments within the corridor. Identity elements such as
signage should indicate that the corridor is within the City of Edmonds, and show how
connections can be made to downtown and other Edmonds locations.
• Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. During the
City's Highway 99 Task Force work, residents noted that they needed a number of
services that are not presently provided along the corridor. This can provide an
opportunity that might be part of a larger business strategy. At the same time, new
development should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods.
Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is
appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. For example, a
tall hotel or large scale retail development may be an excellent addition to the south of
the corridor while some small restaurants and convenience shops might cater to hospital
employees, trail users and local residents near 216th Street SW. Where needed, the City
should consider zoning changes to encourage mixed use or taller development to occur.
Within the Highway 99 corridor, policies to achieve these goals include the following:
B.1. Provide a system of "focus areas" along the corridor which provide opportunities
for clusters of development, or themed development areas. Providing focus
points for development is intended to help encourage segmentation of the long
Highway 99 corridor into distinct activity nodes which will encourage an
Edmonds character and identity for the corridor. Concepts for the different focus
areas identified on the previous page include the following:
64 Land Use
The "Hosoital Coanuinity and Fan ly Retail
Center" would be positioned to take
advantage of its proxInIty to the many
hospital and related medical services in the
area and it would be easily reachable from
the Interurban trail.
The idea of an "International District' is
organized around the international flavor of
development in the area combined with the
concepts of visibility and internal
connection. Access to the "District' is
marked by specific gateways, and the rrany
focal points for acti vity in the area (and the
new development in between) are connected
with a strong pedestrian corridor.
The " Rag dential Area Retail Center"
concept allows for mixed use development
while providing access and services to
adjacent residential neighborhoods
9milar mixed use development, finked to
surrounding neighborhoods, could occur in
the "Commercial Red'evefoprrent/Hotels
Inprove,7'x�,VArea . " In addition, this area
has the potential to provide large sites
suitable for larger commercial or mixed use
development, such as hotels or large retail
conplexes Internal circulation between sites
is a kev to develoom nt.
Land Use
NF1Y W&ED US2
RES NTTALfR TA&
DELFLOVMENr3
�a
RFSf�FN TTAl
COIeF[FX �
NEW rPAFPC
e car war.
REoucE 6PfE0. '
AYPROHF rRAFFrc -
Aeeess �
ro 'UsffAa S.'
ANO PFTY AM
FH Y]RONAIENi �
r-Al
RE6�ErrlL14
C4+�LEk'
ARE" MTH
ANFROYPO r"FF7G
ANO PEDES N
ACCF$$FRVM
FURR WRPWG
Af3JbEH7 LLAREAS
h.F J•�•
23814 St
r
IN,
240th St
XL flv Wyj
w
r
65
B.2. Provide for pedestrian access and circulation within development focus areas,
while coordinating with high -capacity transit along the Highway 99 corridor.
B.3. Use traffic signals, access management, and rechannelization to facilitate
pedestrian, business, and residential access while maintaining traffic capacity
along SR 99. The City should work collaboratively with WSDOT on these
issues, and to develop a circulation management plan. In some cases the impacts
of the traffic signals can be enhanced by access management, rechannelization
and other measures.
BA New development should be high -quality and varied — not generic — and include
amenities for pedestrians and patrons.
B.S. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community.
Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to
connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses.
B.6. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest
extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided
contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense
development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers,
landscaping, and the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to
minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties.
B.7. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian -friendly (e.g., add trees and
landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and — when
available — public investment.
B.B. Route auto traffic to encourage efficient access to new and existing development
while minimizing impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
B.9. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor.
Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area
which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and
distraction to the public.
B.10. The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high
economic benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these
types of uses to locate within the Highway 99 Corridor. When these uses are
proposed to be located within one of the corridor focus areas, these uses should
also comply with the goals and policies outlined for each focus area.
B.11. Within the Corridor, highrise nodes should be located to provide for maximum
economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be:
B.11.a. Supported by adequate services and facilities;
66 Land Use
B.11.b. Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of
distinctive forms and materials, articulated facades, attractive
landscaping, and similar techniques.
B.11. c. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including
automobile, transit and pedestrian access.
B.11.d. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and
residential neighborhoods.
Master Planned Development
Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for
a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a
special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits
with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and
relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses,
access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be
consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center,
development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for
the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference:
A. Edmonds-Woodway High School
B. Stevens Hospital
C. City Park
D. Pine Ridge Park
E. Southwest County Park
F. The Edmonds Crossing project, as identified in the Final EIS for Edmonds Crossing
issued on November 10, 2004.
In addition to the master plans listed above, master plans can also be implemented through zoning
contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the plan. In these
cases, the master plan must still be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies for the
area.
Land Use 67
Residential Development
A. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington state. Located on the shores
of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town,
quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of
Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the
years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked
between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for
annexation and development is limited.
Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development
potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future
development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens.
Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It
becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves
conditions for all citizens.
When the City's first comprehensive plan completed under the State Growth
Management Act was adopted in 1995, the City adopted plan designations for single
family areas that were based in large measure on historical development patterns, which
often recognized development limitations due to environmentally sensitive areas (slopes,
landslide hazards, streams, etc.).
In the years since the first GMA comprehensive plans were approved by local
jurisdictions, there have been a number of cases brought before the State's GMA
Hearings Boards. The direction provided by the GMA and these subsequent
"elaborations" via the Hearings Board challenges can be summarized as:
1. The GMA requires 4 dwelling units per acre as the minimum urban residential
density in urban areas such as Edmonds.
2. All land within the urban area must be designated at appropriate urban densities.
Calculating average density across an entire subarea or city does not meet this test — for
example you cannot use higher -density multi family areas in one part of a city to justify
lower -density single family areas elsewhere in the city.
The GMA Hearings Board decision in Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB
Case #495-3-0039c (Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995, p.35) includes this
statement:
The Board instead adopts as a general rule a "bright line " at four net dwelling
units per acre. Any residential pattern at that density, or higher, is clearly
compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required by
the Act. Any larger urban lots will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board
to determine if the number, locations, configurations and rationale for such lot
68 Land Use
sizes complies with the goals and requirements of the Act, and the jurisdiction's
ability to meet its obligations to accept any allocated share of county -wide
population. Any new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less
dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl,
and is prohibited. There are exceptions to this general rule. For example, I- or
2.5-acre lots may be appropriate in an urban setting in order to avoid excessive
development pressures on or near environmentally sensitive areas. However,
this circumstance can be expected to be infrequent within the UGA and must not
constitute a pattern over large areas.
With this as background, the City's review and update of its comprehensive plan has
attempted to combine an assessment of its large lot zoning (RS-12, RSW-12 and RS-20)
with an update of its critical areas inventories and regulations. The inventories, based on
data available from City and other sources, were not available to the City when the 1995
comprehensive plan was adopted. These inventories provide information necessary to
refine the City's single family plan designations and comprehensive plan map.
In preparing its updated comprehensive plan map, an overlay was done of the 2004
critical areas inventory with currently designated large lot single family areas. City staff
analyzed the pattern of critical areas compared with land use designations, and applied
the following logic to identify areas that could and could not be justified for continuing
to be designated for large lot single family development.
1. Staff used the city's GIS system to overlay the preliminary critical areas
inventory with existing zoning (which is consistent with the current
comprehensive plan).
2. In reviewing the existing large -lot plan and zoning designations (plan
designations of "Single Family — Large Lot" equate to RS-12, RSW-12, or RS-20
zoning), the location of large -lot designations was compared to patterns of
critical areas.
3. Patterns of critical areas — i.e. where combinations of critical areas were present
(e.g. slopes and habitat, or streams and wetlands, etc.) or where extensive areas
were covered by critical areas — were considered sufficient justification to
continue large -lot single family designations. Larger lot sizes provide more
opportunity to avoid disturbance of existing natural features — particularly
vegetative cover — and provide an opportunity to maintain linkages between
critical areas and habitat. Larger lots sizes in areas subject to landslide hazard
also reduce the need to disturb existing vegetation and slopes, and also reduce
the probability that continued slide activity will harm people or residences. This
approach is consistent with the logic and analysis contained in the City's Best
Available Science Report (EDAW, November 2004) accompanying the adoption
of the City's updated critical areas regulations.
4. Small, isolated critical areas were not considered sufficient to justify continued
large -lot single family designations.
Land Use 69
5. Lots where the designation is to be changed are grouped by subdivision or
neighborhood segment, so that streets or changes in lot pattern define the
boundaries.
6. In at least a couple of situations, areas were included for re -designation when the
development pattern indicated that a substantial number of lots already existed
that were smaller than 12,000 sq. ft. in area.
7. Where patterns of critical areas exist, at least a tier of lots (using similar
groupings as those used in #5 above) is maintained bordering the critical areas.
This is based on the following logic:
As the Best Available Science Report and updated critical areas regulations
indicate, the City's intent is to take a conservative approach to protecting critical
areas. Relatively large buffers are proposed (consistent with the science), but
these are balanced by the ability of existing developed areas to continue infill
activity in exchange for enhancing critical areas buffers. The goal is to obtain
enhanced protection of resources within the city, while recognizing infill
development must continue to occur. However, a conservative approach to
resource protection implies that the City be cautious in making wholesale
changes in zoning that could result in more development impacts to critical
areas. This is particularly true since the buffers proposed in the new regulations
are substantial increases over previous regulations; without larger lot sizes in
areas that are substantially impacted by critical areas, there would be little or no
opportunity to mitigate critical areas impacts — especially when surrounding
areas have already been developed.
Caution is also needed considering that the mapped inventory is based on general
sources from other agencies and is likely to underestimate the amount of steep
slopes, for example.
Following this work, a map of proposed changes was prepared which identified single
family large lot zones that could not be justified based on the presence of critical areas.
These areas (comprising over 500 acres) have been re -designated as either Single Family
— Urban 3 or Single Family Master Plan in the updated comprehensive plan.
Current Plan Designation
Proposed Plan
Designation
Corresponding
Zoning
Single Family — Small Lot
Single Family — Urban 1
RS-6, RS-8
Single Family — Urban 2
RS-8
Single Family — Urban 3
RS-10*
Single Family — Large Lot
Single Family — Resource
RS-12, RSW-12, RS-20
Single Family Master Plan
Single Family Master Plan
* RS-10 would be anew zoning classification, providing for a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.
70 Land Use
The densities that correspond to these plan and zoning designations are summarized in
the following table:
Plan Designation
Zoning Classification
Maximum Density
(Net Density)
Single Family — Urban 1
RS-6
7.3 DU/Acre
RS-8
5.5 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban 2
RS-8
5.5 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban 3
RS-10
4.4 DU/Acre
Single Family — Urban
RS-6 or RS-8 with Master
5.5 or 7.3 DU/Acre
Master Plan
Plan overlay
Single Family — Resource
RS-12, RSW-12
3.7 DU/Acre
RS-20
2.2 DU/Acre
The "Single Family — Urban Master Plan" designation would only apply to the area lying
along the south side of SR-104 north of 228`h Street SW; properties seeking to develop
at the higher urban density lot pattern would need to be developed according to a master
plan (such as through a PRD) that clearly indicated access and lot configurations that
would not result in traffic problems for SR-104.
B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle
of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the
City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically
in balancing economic and aesthetic considerations, in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do
not harmonize with existing structures in the area.
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever
it is economically feasible.
Land Use 71
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control
of other types of development and expansion based upon the following
principles:
B.5.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local
government.
B.5. b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be
discouraged.
B.5. c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land
use encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts
of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
BA Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the
following policies:
C.1. Planned Residential Development. Provide options for planned residential
development solutions for residential subdivisions.
C.I.a. Encourage single-family homes in a PRD configuration where
significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees,
view, open space, etc).
CIA Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown
and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning.
C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and
building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees,
topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit
residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided.
C.2.a. Location Policies.
C.2. a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets.
C.2.b. Compatibility Policies.
C.2.b.i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of
surrounding buildings, wherever feasible.
C. 2. b. ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family
residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height
permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing
vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially
screen one use from another.
72 Land Use
C.2.b. iii. The design of RM buildings located next to RS zones
should be similar to the design idiom of the single family
residence.
C.2.c. General Design Policies.
C.2.c.i. The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks,
lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements,
materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to
carry out a unified design concept.
C.2.c.ii. Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the
natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc) of the site
rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed
plan.
C.3. Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily
landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior.
Commercial Land Use
A. General. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been
oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a
unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In
the downtown area, the Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of
development. It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize
and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citizens so strongly
desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business,
citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various
requirements of the City's codes and policies.
The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a commercial district which
adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to
Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
The following sections describe the general goals and policies for all commercial areas,
followed by the additional goals and policies that specific commercial areas must also
meet.
B. Goals for Commercial Development: Commercial development in Edmonds shall be
located to take advantage of its unique locational opportunities while being consistent
and compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood. All commercial
development should be designed and located so that it is economically feasible to operate
a business and provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists in a safe,
convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with the following policies:
Land Use 73
B.1. A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be
identified and reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites
should be selected from parcels of land already identified in the comprehensive
plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such use.
B.2. Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are
now or will be identified as unnecessary, or inappropriate for such use by
additional analysis, should be reclassified for other uses.
B.3. The proliferation of strip commercial areas along Edmonds streets and highways
and the development of commercial uses poorly related to surrounding land uses
should be strongly discouraged.
B.4. The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient
and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers.
B.5. All commercial developments should be carefully located and designed to
eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other
related problems on surrounding land uses.
B.6. Special consideration should be given to major land use decisions made in
relation to downtown Edmonds.
C. Goals for Community Commercial Areas. Community commercial areas are comprised
of commercial development serving a dual purpose: services and shopping for both local
residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial designation is to
recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business and mixed use
development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character.
C.1. Permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both the local
neighborhood and regional through -traffic.
C.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate
automobile traffic.
C.3. Provide for the pedestrian -scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in
height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity.
CA. Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community
commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential neighborhoods.
D. Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Neighborhood commercial areas are
intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and
housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should
provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99
74 Land Use
Corridor/ Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area.
Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as
classically auto -oriented commercial "strip malls" with one- and two-story developments
primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood
commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as
appealing mixed -use clusters, providing attractive new pedestrian -oriented development
that expands the uses and services available to local residents.
The neighborhood commercial areas share several common goals:
D.1. Neighborhood commercial development should be located at major arterial
intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through
traffic.
D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the
local neighborhood. Mixed use development should be encouraged within
neighborhood commercial areas.
D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local
automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential
neighborhoods.
DA. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and
sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide
for appealing gathering places.
D.5. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial
spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street -level
entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows.
D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character
of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as
neighborhood centers. Neighborhood commercial areas may set additional
specific goals for their community in order to further refine the specific identity
they wish to achieve. Goals and policies for specific neighborhood centers are
detailed below.
D.6.a. Five Corners
D.6.a.i. In the Five Corners neighborhood commercial area,
development should be oriented to the street and respond to
the unique character of the intersection, including a planned
intersection improvement. Parking should be provided at the
rear of development, where possible, or underground.
Land Use 75
D.6.a.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and
the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of
buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying
rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix
of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial
space.
D.6.a.iii. At a minimum, commercial uses should be located on the
ground level of development. Commercial or residential uses
may occupy upper levels.
D.6.a.iv. As a major intersection, streetscape and way -finding design
should create an attractive `gateway" to the downtown and
other neighborhoods. (Link to streetscape plan update)
Intersection and street design should accommodate and
encourage pedestrian connections throughout the
neighborhood commercial area.
D.6.b. Firdale Village
D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should
include an attractive mix of uses that create a "neighborhood
village "pedestrian -oriented environment. Commercial spaces
shall be oriented toward the street in order to maximize
visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated
either behind or underneath structures.
D.6.b.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and
the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of
buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying
rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix
of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial
space.
E. Goals for the Westgate Corridor. The Westgate Corridor is generally located between the
100th Avenue W (9th Avenue S)/Edmonds Way intersection and where Edmonds Way
turns north to enter the downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves as
both a key transportation corridor and as an entry into the downtown. Long-established
neighborhoods lie near both sides of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to
recognize its multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale businesses
while promoting compatible development that will not intrude into established
neighborhoods.
E.1. Development within the Westgate Corridor should be designed to recognize its
role as part of an entryway into Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect
should be a corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median. The
landscaped median along SR-104 should remain as uninterrupted as possible in
order to promote traffic flow and provide an entry effect.
76 Land Use
E.2. Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily intended to serve the
local neighborhood while not contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
E.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
EA. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential
streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
E.5. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development.
F. Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions
of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This
corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between
Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor.
An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the
corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major
concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not
interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established
communities.
F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that
are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F.3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from
residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to
provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural
topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible.
Land Use 77
G. Goals for Sexually Oriented Businesses. These types of businesses are regulated by
specific licensing and operating provisions in the City Code. However, land use and
zoning regulations are also required to mitigate and reduce the adverse secondary effects
of these uses. These secondary effects are detailed in the findings adopted by Ordinance
No. 3117 on October 15, 1996. As commercial uses, sexually oriented businesses should
be limited to areas which can support the traffic and site requirements of these
businesses while also assuring that their adverse secondary effects are mitigated. The
following policies apply to sexually oriented businesses:
G.I. Provide for potential commercial locations within the City for sexually oriented
businesses which will provide at least a minimum separation and buffering
necessary to protect public health and safety.
G.2. Separate the location of sexually oriented businesses from uses that are
incompatible with the secondary effects associated with sexually oriented
businesses. These incompatible uses include residential uses and uses such as
public parks, public libraries, museums, public or private schools, community
centers, and religious facilities. They also include bars and taverns.
G.3. Adopt specific development regulations, such as lighting, parking and access
provisions, that are designed to reduce or mitigate the secondary effects of
sexually oriented businesses.
GA. Provide a mechanism to monitor, on an annual basis, the availability of potential
sites for the location of sexually oriented businesses.
Industrial Land Use
A. General. Interestingly, industrial development played a major role in the early
development of Edmonds. Sawmills, wharves, log ponds and other wood products
industries lined the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the twentieth century. However, as
time passed, Edmonds developed into a very attractive residential community and its
once thriving lumber industry faded into oblivion. Today, Edmonds still retains much of
its residential, small town charm despite the large amount of urban development which
has occurred in and around the City during the outward expansion of the Seattle
metropolitan area during the past twenty-five years.
Industrial development in the more traditional sense has not occurred in Edmonds to a
significant degree since its early Milltown days. Most new industry which has located in
the community since the 1950's has been largely of light manufacturing or service
industry nature. Some examples include furniture manufacturing, printing and
publishing, electronic components assembly and health care services.
Future industrial development should be carefully controlled in order to insure that it is
compatible with the residential character of Edmonds. Small scale, business -park
78 Land Use
oriented light industries and service related industries should be given preference over
more intensive large scale industries. Great care should be given to carefully siting and
designing all new industrial development in order to fully minimize or eliminate its
adverse off -site impacts.
B. Goal. A select number of industrial areas should be located and developed which are
reasonably attractive and contribute to the economic growth and stability of Edmonds
without degrading its natural or residential living environment, in accordance with the
following policies:
B.1. Light industrial uses should be given preference over heavy industrial uses.
B.2. The clustering of industrial uses in planned industrial parks should be required
when the site is adequate.
B.3. Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open
space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse
effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting
residential areas, parks and other public -institutional land uses.
BA. All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to
regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad
lines).
Open Space
A. Generally in urban areas a lack of open space has been one of the major causes of
residential blight. This lack has contributed to the movement of people from older
densely developed neighborhoods to peripheral areas still possessing open areas.
Open space must be reserved now for assurance that future settled areas are relieved by
significant open land, providing recreational opportunities as well as visual appeal.
Not all vacant land in the City should be considered desirable or valuable for open space
classification. Therefore, the following set of criteria -standards have been developed for
determining those areas most important for this classification.
B. Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and
quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with the following
policies.
B.1. Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and
appropriate areas designed as open space.
Land Use 79
B.l.a. No city -owned property should be relinquished until all possible
community uses have been explored.
B.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces:
B.2.a. Lands which have unique scientific or educational values.
B.2.b. Areas which have an abundance of wildlife particularly where there are
habitats of rare or endangered species.
B.2.c. Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the
priority to highways classified as scenic.
B.2.d. Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways,
particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents
as water sheds.
B.2.e. Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or
industrial development.
B.2.f. Bogs and wetlands.
B.2.g. Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and
adjacent uses.
B.2.h. Lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses
both passive and active.
B.2.i. Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation.
B.3. Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner
that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that
there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and
open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate
setback space and separation between structures.
C. Goal. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality in its location on Puget
Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and
waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following
policies:
C.1. Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special
consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs.
C.2. Provide wherever possible, vehicular or pedestrian access to public bodies of
water.
80 Land Use
Soils and Topography
A. General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental amenity of
the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on
hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These are
frequently areas where natural drainage ways exist and where the second growth forest is
still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for
urban development.
Based on soil and slope analysis for the city, several areas may be identified as
potentially hazardous for urban development. (See report to Environmental
Subcommittee on Soils and Topography, February 3, 1975.)
Some areas which are limited for development are desirable for public recreation, open
spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological
communities and protection of natural storm drainage system.
In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development,
grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water
pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property.
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD's, should be used in
these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills.
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the
natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1. Grading and Filling.
C. I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
CIA Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent
property.
C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15%slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved.
Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property.
CIA Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
Land Use 81
C.2. Building Construction.
C.2. a. Buildings on slopes of 1 S% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
C.2.b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they
should be small and should not support construction of improvements
which do not conform to the topography.
C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff
at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall betaken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or
other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways.
Water Resources and Drainage Management
A. General. The environmental amenity of the City of Edmonds is greatly enhanced by the
numerous year round streams and the location of the City on Puget Sound. Lake
Ballinger, besides being a well-known landmark, is an important environmental area
because of its ecological benefits and open space quality.
The storm drainage and stream systems in the Edmonds area are part of the Cedar River
Drainage Basin. There are two sub -basins in the area: McAleer Creek, which drains to
Lake Washington and the Upper Puget Sound sub -basin which drains to Puget Sound.
Urban development in the past has interfered with natural storm drainage systems and
greatly increased the area of impermeable surfaces. It has been necessary to install
culverts, underground drainage courses and other major structures to accommodate
runoff water. Because of climate, topography and soil conditions, severe erosion and
drainage to stream banks may occur with future development.
Urban runoff causes significant decreases in water quality because of the quantity of
pollutants in the runoff water.
The Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study conducted for the River Basin
Coordinating Committee of the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle indicates that future
development in the Puget Sound and McAleer sub -basins will overburden existing
systems. The water quality in Lake Ballinger is already an urgent and serious problem
because the lake is shallow, contains a high level of nutrients and has seasonal oxygen
deficiencies.
82 Land Use
The quality of water in Puget Sound is a less immediate problem but must be considered
in the long term. Both Edmonds and Lynnwood dispose of effluent in the Sound which
has received primary treatment only. Increased recreational use of the waterfront will
have water quality impacts also. Some streams in the City have supported fish runs from
the Sound in the past and many people in the community would like to see a restoration
of these fisheries.
The high costs both financially and environmentally of installation of structures and
alteration of natural systems is an important consideration in planning for environmental
management. Because environmental systems cross political boundaries a high degree of
interlocal cooperation will be necessary to fully utilize funds available through the Water
Pollution Control Act; however, the Act may provide substantial funds in the future for
planning and improvement of facilities.
B. Goal. The City should continue to upgrade the public storm drainage system in order to
protect the man-made and natural environment. In the management of storm drainage and
urban runoff, the City should utilize the natural drainage system where it is possible to
do so without significantly altering the natural drainage ways, in accordance with the
following policies:
B.1. The natural drainage system (i.e., streams, ponds, and marshes) shall not be
filled or permanently culverted except where no other alternative exists.
Temporary culverting of streams shall be permitted during construction where
site conditions present no other alternative. The natural condition should be
restored immediately following construction.
B.2. Earthmoving equipment shall not cause siltation or deterioration of water
quality. Rechanneling of streams is permitted only when the stream bed location
renders the site undevelopable.
B.3. Imagination and care should be used in the design of retention ponds and other
drainage facilities so that they will blend into the natural environment rather than
detract from it.
B.4. Riprapping of stream banks and gravelling of stream beds is permitted when the
Engineering Department determines that stability or sediment retention is
necessary.
B.5. Decorative ponding, cascading, and building artificial waterfalls are permitted
except in those streams where it would present a barrier to the migration of fish.
B.6. Building foundation and footings shall be no closer than 15 feet to a stream bank
and shall be sited to create minimum disruption to the drainage system.
B.7. The quality and quantity of water leaving a site shall be the same as that entering
the site.
Land Use 83
B.B. Retention basins and other devices shall be used to encourage on -site runoff
absorption and prevent overloading of existing drainage systems except in those
areas where it is necessary to remove water from the site quickly due to unstable
soil conditions to prevent earth slides and subsequent danger to life and property.
B.9. Regional retention/detention is generally recognized as a more efficient and
practical method of runoff control and will be given first consideration before
individual on -site systems are allowed as part of development projects. [Ord.
2527, 1985.]
Vegetation and Wildlife
A. General. As Edmonds has urbanized, the natural vegetation has become increasingly
scarce. The city's woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation
provide an important resource which should be preserved. Woodlands help stabilize soils
on steep slopes, and act as barriers to wind and sound. Natural vegetation provides
habitat for wildlife. Plants replenish the soil with nutrients. They generate oxygen and
clean pollutants from the air.
The beauty of the natural growth provides pleasing vistas and helps to buffer one
development from another. Areas where natural vegetation exists provide good sites for
nature trails and for other recreational and educational opportunities.
Wildlife is a valuable natural resource that greatly enhances the aesthetic quality of
human life.
City beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms.
"People pressure" continue to destroy many organisms and their habitats each year. The
number and species of organisms is diminishing yearly.
Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and
resident bird life.
Underdeveloped wooded areas and city parks provide habitats for many birds and
mammals.
Many birds and mammals are dependent upon both the upland and beach areas.
B. Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas containing
natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
84 Land Use
B.2. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on
steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should
be designed so that existing trees are preserved.
B.3. Trees that are diseased, damaged, or unstable should be removed.
BA. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside
these areas should be preserved.
C. Goal. The city should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its wildlife
heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving the natural habitats
(woodlands, marshes, streams and beaches) of the city's wildlife in accordance with the
following policies:
C.1. Establish and maintain a variety of educational and recreational programs and
activities for all age levels.
C.2. Erect and maintain an educational display that identifies some of the more
common plants and animals and the ecology of major habitats, (i.e., sand, rock,
piling and deepwater).
C.3. Establish and publicize regulations prohibiting removal of non-food organisms
from beach areas without collecting permit; permit for educational and research
use only.
CA. Encourage landscaping and site improvement on city -owned property which
recognizes the dependency of some species upon certain types of vegetation for
food and cover.
C.5. City park property which serves as a habitat for wildlife should be left natural
with minimum development for nature trail type of use.
Air Pollution
A. General. Air pollution is primarily a regional problem related to urbanization and
meteorological conditions in the Puget Sound Basin. It is the result of activities in which
most citizens participate. Air pollution can cause severe health effects and property
damage under certain conditions. (See Facts on Air Pollution - Regional and Local:
Report to Community Development Task Force.)
B. Goal. Clean air is a right to all citizens of the City of Edmonds and should be protected
and maintained in accordance with the following policies:
Land Use 85
B.1. Discourage expansion of arterials which will substantially increase line sources
of pollution.
B.2. Encourage arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary
automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses.
B.3. Support, through political action, strong enforcement policies and ordinances in
the regional pollution control agency.
BA. Support, by political action and financial participation, the establishment of
public transportation in the community as an alternative to dependence on
individual vehicles.
B.5. Encourage local referral center for car pooling.
Noise Pollution
A. General. Although no area of human activity is free of sound, the modern urban
environment is increasingly suffering from an overload of sound in the form of noise.
The effects of noise may be severe. The most obvious effect is loss of hearing where
levels of noise are very high and sustained. A less documented effect is stress from
physiological and psychological impact of noise. Noise generally contributes to a loss of
amenity and livability.
The Edmonds Community is free, to a large extent, from the worst kinds of noise
pollution and most residents believe that it is a quiet place to live. However, an
environmental noise survey taken by the Building Department in 1974 indicates that
there are some areas of concern.
The main problems come from vehicular noise, particularly motorcycles. Some point
source problems, refrigeration equipment in stores near residential areas, have also
occurred in the city. Impulsive, high -intensity noises which occur only periodically may
also be irritating in quiet suburban neighborhoods. Examples are airplanes, electronically
amplified music, sirens, etc.
Certain noise problems can be alleviated more easily than others. The noise of vehicular
traffic, particularly on arterial streets is difficult to control. Point sources can be more
easily regulated by requiring noise muffling equipment. Enforcement of noise standards
can be a problem because of the training and skill involved in taking noise
measurements. Cost of enforcement may be excessive if standards are too stringent.
The federal government has passed legislation to deal with major sources of noise in
commerce which require national conformity of treatment. The State Department of
Ecology has adopted Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards and Environmental
Noise Levels guidelines.
86 Land Use
B. Goal. Preserve the quiet residential environment of the city by limiting increases in noise
and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists in accordance with the following
policies:
B.1. Studies should be made to determine the existing noise environment in order to
provide baseline data for assessment of the environmental impact of changes or
increases in noise.
B.2. The unique areas of quiet in the city should be identified and appropriate
measures taken to preserve the quiet environment.
B.3. The city should update the existing noise standards to meet State Standards in
modest stages in order to maintain flexibility and benefit from improvements in
technology and experience. Increases in manpower or training to enforce
standards should be cautiously made as experience is gained in enforcement.
B.4. Existing vehicular standards related to noise should be enforced to the greatest
degree possible without excessive increases in manpower.
B.5. The city should cooperate with adjacent cities in sharing the costs of expensive
noise equipment and training persons in the use of the equipment.
B.6. Future street and arterial projects should be assessed for noise impacts, and
structures such as berms, fences and other devices utilized wherever possible to
reduce the noise impacts.
B.7. Any ordinances adopted by the city should recognize the variety and quality of
noise environments. Excessive regulations should not be imposed on areas of the
city where higher noise levels are normal or necessary for essential activities and
do not create environmental problems.
B.8. It is the policy of the city to minimize noise created by the railroad.
Urban Growth Areas
A. General. The accompanying Urban Growth Areas map shows the City's urban growth
area, which encompasses unincorporated areas adjacent to the current city limits. In
general, development within the urban growth area is of interest to the City because the
area will be annexed to the City in the future and development in the area can be
expected to have an impact on the demand for and delivery of City services.
B. Goal. Plan for the logical extension of services and development within the City's urban
growth area.
Land Use 87
B.1. To provide for orderly transitions, adopt comparable zoning and comprehensive
plan designations for areas annexing into the City.
B.2. Adopted plans and policies for the urban growth area shall be consistent and
compatible with the general comprehensive plan goals and policies for the City.
88 Land Use
City of Edmonds
Urban Growth Area
Edmonds City Limits
Esperance UGA
Incorporated Cities
0 Unincorporated
Major Streets
N
W E
S
Map revision date: 2004.12.15
Edmonds
Esperance �
W,00dway
II
Norma Beach -
Picnic Point
Lynnwood
D
a �
Mountlake
Terrace