Loading...
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