2015-08-27 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 27, 2015, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Draft Minutrs of 8.12.15
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Planning Board Presentation
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 27, 2015
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board
Meeting Date: 08/27/2015
Planning Board Draft Minutrs of 8.12.15
Staff Lead/Author: Diane Cunningham
Department: Planning Division
Initiated By:
Information
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board review and approve the draft minutes
Previous Board Action
Narrative
Draft Minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB150722f
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 22, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Carreen Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Nathan Monroe (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Sean Conrad, Planner
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2015 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was amended to place the presentation on the draft Complete Streets SR-104 Corridor Analysis (Item 8a) before
the continued discussion and potential recommendation regarding the Critical Areas Ordinance (Item 7a). The remainder of
the agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to provide comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIERCTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Vice Chair Lovell requested further information about the public hearing the City Council conducted on July 215t. Mr. Lien
said the hearing was relative to an interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District for the fields at the old Woodway
High School site.
Board Member Lovell reminded the Board Members of the City -sponsored volunteer picnic on August 9th at 2 p.m.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION BY MERLONE GEIER PARTNERS: The applicant is proposing to rezone
a portion of a 9.1-acre site at the northwest corner of 220th Street SW and Highway 99. The property is currently
zoned General Commercial (CG2) with the western half being encumbered by a contract rezone (R-02-90). The
rezone request would remove the contract rezone and its restrictions on the western half of the property and leave the
property under the CG2 zone. (File Number PLN20150024)
Mr. Conrad presented the Staff Report, noting that the property is located at 21900 — Highway 99 (Corner of 2201h Street
S.W. and Highway 99), which is the former location of the Top Foods Grocery Store. He provided a zoning map to illustrate
the location and zoning of the subject property and adjacent properties. He noted that properties to the east and south are
zoned for commercial uses and include a fast-food drive in, coffee shop, casino, gas station and car dealership. The Edmonds
Swedish Hospital Campus is located to the north on property that is zoned CG and located within the Medical Use (MU)
zoning district. Property to the west is zoned CG2 and Multi -Family Residential (RM 2.4). An office building is located on
the CG2 zoning, with an apartment building located on the RM 2.4 zoning.
Mr. Conrad reviewed that a retail building was developed on the 9.1 acre site in 1992, following the City Council's 1991
approval of a contract rezone for approximately 5.5 acres of the western half of the property from Multi -Family (RM 2.4) to
CG2 to accommodate development of the approximately 88,300 square foot grocery store. The contract rezone stipulated
conditions related to traffic mitigation that included upgrades on 220"' Street SW and 7th Avenue West, as well as traffic
impact fees. The contract also placed restrictions on the hours of construction, hours of operation, and hours for delivery
trucks. Lastly, the contract included restrictions relative to the site plan and built conditions. While conditions relative to the
hours of operation and traffic mitigation have been met, the land use conditions significantly limit further development of the
property. The current property owner is seeking to remove the contract zoning but maintain the underlying CG2 zoning.
Mr. Conrad provided a Google Earth map to illustrate the condition of the property in 1990 and noted there were older
residential homes nearby and stands of significant trees. The hospital campus to the north was much smaller, and the
property to the west was developed as multi -family. Based on the character of the area in 1990 and public feedback, the
Planning Board and City Council put contract zoning in place on the western portion of the property to limit development and
meet the Comprehensive Plan goals that were in place at the time.
Mr. Conrad provided a Google Earth map to illustrate the current conditions on the property, noting that the hospital campus
has expanded to the northern boundary of the subject property and there are significantly more office -type uses to the west.
A car dealership and gas station have also been developed since the subject property was developed in 1992. Based on the
current character of the area, as well as the goals and policies called out in the City's current Comprehensive Plan, staff is
recommending that the Planning Board forward a recommendation to the City Council in support of the applicant's request to
remove the contract zoning on the western portion of the property, which would remain as CG2 zoning. The proposed
change would allow the property owner to further develop the site consistent with the zoning regulations and development
standards currently in place.
Board Member Stewart noted that 10 significant trees are discussed in the Environmental Checklist, but they are not
identified on the site map. She requested more information relative to the trees. Mr. Conrad advised that six trees are located
in the parking area and four trees are located along 220th Street SW. Board Member Stewart asked if the trees along 220"'
Street SW are located on the subject property or within the City's right-of-way. Mr. Conrad said he believes the trees are
located on the subject property. He noted that, as per the contract rezone, improvements on 220th Street SW maximized the
right-of-way to accommodate the sidewalks and the required street trees had to be planted on the private property.
Board Member Stewart emphasized that the City encourages developers to retain trees to the maximum extent feasible, and
she hopes consideration will be given when the plans are drawn up. She noted that the trees appear healthy.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the Staff Report refers to the existing trees as mature trees that were retained when the
site was developed in 1992. However, it is important to keep in mind that there were more trees on the site before it was
developed. In the contract rezone, the City Council specifically called out the remaining trees as trees that should remain on
the site after development. She summarized that the conditions of the contract rezone relative to traffic mitigation and hours
of operation have been met over the past 24 years. The only thing that would change if the contract is removed is that the
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
trees would be removed in order to build as planned. She suggested the Board consider how the site has maintained its
integrity for the past 24 years and the presence the trees add to the parcel.
Brian Dickerson, PacLand, said he was present to represent the applicant, Merlone Geier Partners. He thanked Mr. Conrad
for his thorough Staff Report and indicated support for the staff s recommendation of approval. He referred to the criteria the
Planning Board and City Council must consider when reviewing rezone applications, and said he believes the application
meets the criteria due to changes that have taken place along the Highway 99 Corridor over the last 24 years. The proposed
application would retain the underlying CG2 zone, but eliminating the contract would allow for further development of the
property that is consistent with the City's goals for development along the corridor. He noted that changes in the area include
additional development, roadway improvements, and better transit service. He believes the proposed rezone would be
compatible with the surrounding uses, and he foresees additional development along Highway 99 consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan goal of encouraging a variety of mixed commercial uses. He provided a map of the subject property,
identifying the location of the existing building, as well as the property that is currently governed by a contract rezone. He
summarized that eliminating the contract would provide for better utilization of the parking lot and would be compatible with
the surrounding area, as well as the goals and policies called out in the Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 99 Corridor.
Chair Tibbott asked if Mr. Dickerson has any thoughts on how the property might be developed if the contract is lifted, other
than as a "new shops building." Mr. Dickerson suggested that would be a better question for the applicant or property owner
to answer.
Chair Tibbott opened the public hearing. No one in the audience indicated a desire to provide comment, and the public
portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Lien explained that the current application is a site -specific rezone request, which is a Type IV-B (quasi-judicial)
decision. The application was submitted by the property owner and was not initiated by the City. He explained that quasi-
judicial decisions involve discretionary judgment by the decision bodies. The Planning Board is being asked to conduct a
public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will consider the application in a closed -
record review and make the final decision. The record on the application is established by the Planning Board. When the
City Council considers the Planning Board recommendation, they can only consider what was discussed at the Planning
Board hearing and no new information can be considered. He reminded the Board of the decision criteria for rezone
applications found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.40.010, and noted that the Staff Report addresses
how the application is consistent with each criterion. When the Planning Board formulates its recommendation to the City
Council, it should make mention of whether or not the application is consistent with the criterion. He emphasized that
appearance of fairness is also important. Board Members should disclose any contact they might have had with the applicant
or any other appearance of fairness issues.
Vice Chair Lovell asked the purpose of the proposed new shops building. Ross Vontver, Merlone Geier Partners, said the
proposed building is intended to house small shops, and small shop owners have expressed an interest in locating in the new
building. If the proposed rezone is approved and the building is constructed, it is likely that three tenants could be
accommodated in the approximately 6,000 square foot building.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that the site is currently classified as part of the Medical Use (MU) District. Mr. Lien agreed that the
parcel is located within the Highway 99 Corridor and MU District. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that CG2 zoning within the
MU District allows for greater building height and massing. It also has fewer restrictions relative to retail uses on the ground
floor, and allows for a mixture of uses that includes residential. He asked if the property owner has given any thought to
incorporating residential uses to a greater degree in future development. Mr. Vontver answered no. He explained that the
new tenant for the existing building is Winco, and their parking requirement is such that they would only agree to allow the
proposed 6,000 square foot building.
Vice Chair Lovell voiced concern that there would still be too much parking area even if the contract is lifted and a new
building is constructed on the site in conjunction with the existing building. He asked if a study has been done by Winco to
clearly establish the amount of parking needed. Mr. Vontver answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Lovell recalled that, over
the years, there have been a number of comments that there is a sea of parking available at this site that is not fully utilized.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Vice Chair Lovell provided pictures he took of the subject property to illustrate the location of the existing building, as well
as the existing trees and landscaping. The pictures also illustrated the development that has occurred on surrounding
properties since the subject property was developed in 1991, including a gas station, casino and car dealership. He also noted
that a major mixed -use development has been proposed southeast of the subject property. He pointed out the trees that are
located in the interior landscape area, as well as the trees that are located along 220th Street SW, and requested clarification
about which trees would be retained as per the proposal. Mr. Dickerson answered that the trees within the planting strip on
the west side of 220th Street SW would be retained and potentially added to. However, the interior trees, as well as most of
the trees within the planting strip along the east side of 220th Street SW would likely have to be replaced to accommodate
construction of the new building. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the design standards for the CG2 zone require a four -
foot, fully -landscaped planting area along the street.
Board Member Stewart recognized that the proposal is a rezone application and not a project application, and tree location
and size will be required as part of the development permit application. However, she suggested that it would be helpful for
the applicant to identify the existing trees and their diameter on the site plan when the proposed rezone application is
presented to the City Council for review.
Board Member Stewart asked staff to clarify the difference between Mixed -Use (MU) and General Commercial (CG2)
zoning. She said her understanding is the MU provides more flexibility for residential uses. Mr. Lien clarified that the MU
designation to the north actually identifies the Medical Use District and not mixed -use zoning. He emphasized that
residential uses are also allowed in the CG2 zone.
Mr. Lien clarified that the current contract on the site not only addresses the existing trees, it was written to be a binding site
plan that only allows the grocery store use. As per the contract conditions, no other commercial structure can be built on the
site regardless of whether the trees will be retained or not.
Board Member Stewart asked about the height limit for buildings in the CG2 zone, and Mr. Lien answered that the height
limit is 75 feet; but the subject property is located within the Highway 99 Corridor, which has been designated as "high-rise
node."
Board Member Robles asked if something other than Winco could have located on the site if the request to lift the contract
had been submitted and approved two years ago. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Board Member Robles observed that
lifting the contract would enable the site to be redeveloped in a number of different ways should Winco decide to vacate the
property at some point in the future. Mr. Lien agreed that lifting the contract would enable the property to be redeveloped
consistent with CG2 zoning, with no restrictions.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Planning Board Agenda lists the application as a "citizen request." This was
confusing to her because, although the applicant is the property owner, he/she is not a citizen of Edmonds. Mr. Lien noted
that there are very few choices to check on the Staff Report memorandum, and "citizen request" was the most appropriate.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that there are several issues identified in the Staff Report that should be discussed as part
of the record:
• Page 4 of the Staff Report makes it clear that housing is a permitted use in the CG2 zone.
• Page 5 of the Staff Report states that removing the mature trees would be an impact of removing the contract zoning as
proposed by the applicant.
• Page 7 of the Staff Report states that the contract needs to be terminated in order for the southern section of the site to be
developed. However, if other parts of the site were developed, the contract would not have to be dropped. The rezone
request is really a site -specific situation because the building could be located elsewhere on the parcel without requiring
termination of the contract rezone.
• Page 2 of Attachment 2 points out that the conditions for the contract rezone have been met, but the termination of the
contract would eliminate the protection of the mature trees along 220th Street SW. She understands that the Design
Standards will require that the site be landscaped in a certain way, but she questioned if there is any way the City could
require that the trees be protected as part of the development proposal. Mr. Lien answered no. He reminded the Board
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
that they are reviewing a contact rezone application and not a building proposal. Board Member Rubenkonig said her
intent was to point out the connection between terminating the contract and protecting the mature trees.
Page 9 of Attachment 5 notes that 10 existing trees, as well as various shrubs and groundcover, would be removed in the
parking lot landscape area to accommodate the proposed development.
Page 7 of Attachment 9 goes back to 1991 and shows the high regard for the existing trees on the landscape plan as the
contract rezone was considered in order to allow the existing grocery store building.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to share their thoughts as to how protection of the mature trees could be considered in
light of a possible motion on the part of the Board to terminate the contract. Could they put a condition on the termination of
the contract? Mr. Lien pointed out that putting a condition on the termination would be essentially establishing another
contract rezone, and that is not the request that is currently before the Board for consideration. Board Member Rubenkonig
asked if the Board could recommend denial of the application based on the need to protect the mature trees that were called
out for protection in 1991. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board that they are being asked to consider the request to
remove the contract and rezone the property to CG2. He asked if the Planning Board would have an opportunity to review a
future development proposal for the site. Mr. Lien answered that development proposals are not reviewed by the Planning
Board.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the criteria that must be considered when reviewing rezone applications (ECDC 20.40.010).
He stated the criteria as follows:
A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district.
C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of the
surrounding or nearby property.
D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City
policy to justify the rezone.
E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing
zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning.
F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value
to the property owners.
Chair Tibbott expressed his belief that the proposal to remove the contract is completely consistent with the current level of
development along Highway 99 and the surrounding area. There has been a great deal of change over the last 25 years, and
he expects even more change in the next 25 years. It makes sense to remove the contract and bring the entire parcel under
one zoning designation. He said he believes the proposed new shop building will make the area even more walkable and
interesting for those who might be on the sidewalk. It is close to the southern walkway and he would like to think by
removing the contract, the owner might also consider opportunities for more intense development on the property that would
make it not only more walkable, but also add the possibility of additional residents. He said he finds the proposal completely
consistent with the rezone criteria.
Chair Tibbott said that while it is somewhat disturbing to think that some mature trees will be lost, he is confident that
whatever is developed on the site will have adequate design review and preserve as much of the landscaping as possible. He
said he envisions that a project would result in even more landscaping than what currently exists on the site.
Vice Chair Lovell expressed support for removing the contract, as well. However, it is important to keep in mind that what is
there currently may not be there 10 years from now. Whatever is developed on the site in the future must be consistent with
the CG2 zoning, which allows flexibility for redevelopment for the good of the Highway 99 Corridor and the City as a whole.
The proposed change is warranted in light of the changes that have occurred within the hospital district, as well as the
extensive development that is planned for the southeast corner of 220`h Street SW and Highway 99. He said he believes
further development of the site would result in a positive impact for the area.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, although not required, the applicant chose to submit a site plan as part of the
rezone application. She asked the applicant's representative to explain why other locations on the subject property were not
pursued. Mr. Vontver explained that during the lease negotiations, Winco flat out denied the property owner the ability to
construct a building in any other location other than the one identified on the site plan. As per the agreement, the building
must be constructed in the proposed location or not at all. He noted that Winco voiced concern that a building closer to
highway would block the view corridor and make the grocery store less visible from the street. Board Member Rubenkonig
asked if any internal locations were considered. Mr. Vontver explained that buildings located within the interior of the site
can be very disruptive to the grocery shoppers' experience. It also makes parking more difficult. Board Member
Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to place the new building in the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Vontver
answered that the property owner is bound by the current lease with Winco, which will only allow one new 6,000 square foot
building in the location identified. He explained that, originally, the property owner was unaware of the contract and
believed the entire site was zoned CG2. It wasn't until later in the process that they discovered that the overlay needed to be
addressed through a rezone application.
Board Member Robles asked if Winco might look more favorably on a different location for the building if the tenants of the
new building were complementary to Winco's product. In other words, would Winco be willing to make concessions if the
tenants of the new building drew additional customers to the site. Mr. Vontver explained that there were no prospective
tenants when the lease was being negotiated with Winco. The only thing they knew was that the zoning allowed for retail
uses, which is consistent with the type of shopping center development and the zoning. The leasing activity for the new
shops building has taken place after the lease with Winco was signed. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that the
contract should have been removed two years ago before the property owner entered into lease negotiations with Winco. Mr.
Vontver agreed. Board Member Robles commented that the proposed change is good. However, when the proposal is
presented to the City Council, it would be wise for the applicant to address common citizen concerns about tree location, lack
of intensity in the development and the order of events that determined the location of the building.
Again, Mr. Lien reminded the Board that, with the current contract rezone, the proposed new shops building could not be
located anywhere on the site. The contract rezone only allows for the existing grocery store building. Vice Chair Lovell
asked about the length of the lease between Winco and the property owner. Mr. Vontver answered that the lease is for 40
years.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT FILE NUMBER PLN20150024
(REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CONTRACT ZONING AND ITS RESTRICTIONS ON THE WESTERN HALF OF
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21900 HIGHWAY 99) MEETS THE CRITERIA FOUND IN ECDC 20.40.010 AS
OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 22, 2015, AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING.
Board Member Rubenkonig explained that she chose to abstain from the vote because she felt the process was incomplete.
Vice Chair Lovell commented that it probably would have done well for the applicant not to show a plan, but just ask for the
rezone to accommodate Winco. He said he believes the application will study options for constructing the building without
removing all of the trees. However, that is not a subject of the application before the Board. Mr. Vontver said the applicant
appreciates the sensitivity about trees. They are stuck in a hard place because they signed a lease with the grocery store
tenant before they knew about the contract restrictions.
PRESENTATION OF DRAFT COMPLETE STREETS SR-104 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
Mr. Hauss presented the draft Complete Streets SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was prepared by consultants from Fehr &
Peers. He advised that the analysis was presented to the City Council on July 14th and another meeting will be scheduled at a
later date. He advised that the study focuses on a five -mile stretch of principal arterial from 76th Avenue West to the
Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along this regional corridor (higher than
average daily traffic, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many
deficiencies exist. The purpose of the analysis was to develop a corridor master plan that identifies safety, access
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
management and streetscape improvements based on Complete Streets Principles. Guiding principles for the analysis
included:
• Support both local and regional mobility.
• Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking and transit access.
• Reinforce the City's land -use vision, including at Westgate.
• Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront.
• Coordinate with the state and other entities,
• Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time.
• Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality.
Mr. Hauss displayed a map that was included in the analysis to identify the different road configurations that are present
along the corridor. He noted that the roadway consists of a variety of four and five -lane segments. He advised that there are
sidewalks on both sides of a major portion of the corridor, but there are some locations where there is only a sidewalk on one
side. He also pointed out that there are no sidewalks where the corridor intersects with Highway 99. There are eight traffic
signals along the corroder, as well as an emergency signal at 232nd Street SW.
Mr. Hauss shared a map that illustrates the average daily trips (ADT) on the corridor, noting that the street has significantly
more ADTs than most other streets in Edmonds. From downtown to the intersection at 5th Avenue, ADTs are between 5,000
and 6,000 in each direction. However, ADTs on the remainder of the roadway are over 10,000 in each direction. He also
provided a map to illustrate the current Level of Service (LOS), as well as the projected LOS in 2035 at each of the major
intersections. He explained that the City's current LOS standard for intersections is LOS D, and the study indicates that, with
the exception of the intersection at 2381h Street SW, where improvements have been proposed, and the intersection of 761"
Avenue West, none of the existing signalized intersections will fall below the City's LOS. He explained that because SR-
104 is classified as a Highway of Statewide Significance, it is not required to meet the City's LOS D. The State's LOS is
LOS E and LOS F.
Mr. Hauss provided a map that illustrates the collision history along the corridor over the last five years to determine where
design or operational concerns translate into safety deficiencies. Due to the high volume of traffic on the roadway, there have
been a very high number of collisions, particularly near the intersection of 100th Avenue West and SR-104. There were no
non -motorized vehicle accidents reported along the roadway, and almost 100% of the accidents involved vehicles.
Mr. Hauss referred to a map that illustrates the average speeds along the highway. He explained that posted speed limits
along the corridor are between 35 and 40 miles per hour (mph). The study found the average speed along the corridor is
between 6 and 7 mph over the speed limit, and speed is not generally considered a problem unless the average speed exceeds
the posted speed limit by 10 mph. However, there are some site distance issues due to the curvature of the roadway,
particularly between 5th Avenue South and 100th Avenue West. There is also a site distance problem heading westbound near
95th Avenue South for cars waiting to make a left turn into the apartment complex, and a project has been proposed to address
the problem.
Mr. Hauss provided a map to illustrate existing paved walkways and proposed walkway projects. He noted that there are
numerous sidewalks and bicycle facilities that cross the corridor. The study identifies new walkway projects at 228th Street
SW and 238th Street SW. He also provided a map to illustrate the existing and proposed bicycle facilities. He recalled that
the initial goal of the study was to consider opportunities to provide bicycle facilities to create a new east/west corridor route
for bicycles. However, after looking at the details in terms of safety, limited right-of-way and high cost, it was determined
that a better option would be to provide alternative bicycle connections and not encourage bicycles on SR-104. He reviewed
the projects that are currently funded, as well as projects that are planned in the future that include bike lanes, bike routes,
trails, and bike sharrows. He specifically noted that bike lanes will be added on 220th Street SW, 228th Street SW and 100th
Avenue West, which are all designated as major bicycle corridors.
Mr. Hauss referred to a transit map that highlights the existing bus routes along the corridor, as well as 100th Avenue, 5th
Avenue and 234th Street SW. He also provided a map to highlight future transit routes, noting the potential for an additional
route on 228"' Street SW to connect SR-104 to the Mountlake Terrace Park and Ride. New transit service is also being
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
considered on 9 h Avenue South/100t'' Avenue West and 220th Street SW. He noted the proposed link light rail stations at the
intersections along Highway 99 at 2001h Street SW and 245th Street SW.
Mr. Hauss provided a map to illustrate proposed modifications for access and internal circulation at Westgate to improve
operations and the pedestrian experience. The modifications include consolidation of driveways and internal circulation
drives in the southwest, northwest, and northeast quadrants.
Mr. Hauss reviewed that the analysis started in 2014 with input from the SR-104 Committee, which included a City Council
Member, Planning Board Member, City staff, and representatives from the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) and Community Transit (CT). The Bicycle Committee was also invited to provide input, and a public workshop
was held to solicit citizen feedback.
Mr. Hauss advised that the SR-104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study's guiding principles and
can be phased over the next several years. He reviewed that the plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical
regions from north to south. He specifically noted the following projects:
• Evaluate additional ferry storage. Queues at the ferry terminal can be long on the weekend. Perhaps striping changes
would be appropriate so the storage area does not go as far down SR-104. The State is also looking at a reservation
system that would reduce queuing significantly.
• Pedestrian improvements at the Pine Street intersection. The west approach to the intersection would be improved to
meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
• Add a crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons near the 5th Avenue South intersection to connect the
pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Post speed limit feedback signs on the exit to 5th Avenue for westbound
traveling vehicles. Add ADA ramps to cross SR-104 and implement a flashing beacon to cross SR-104 where it
connects to 5`h Avenue.
• Extend the SR-104 westbound turn lane to 226th Street SW, provide access management from 100th Avenue West to
102°d Place West (in front of McDonalds and QFC), implement the Westgate Circulation Plan, and provide a mid block
pedestrian connection on 100th Avenue West between the QFC and PCC.
• Install gateway signs in both eastbound and westbound directions.
• Add bicycle lanes or sharrows along 100th Avenue West.
• Install a left turn signal at the intersection of 95th Avenue West for the westbound movement.
• Install a HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation at the intersection of 232" d Street SW.
• Complete pedestrian improvements on 236th Street SW.
• Coordinate the existing signal at 236th Street SW with the proposed new signal at 2381h Street SW.
• Upgrade the intersection at 2401h Street SW to include ADA standards for side streets, and add a sign restricting
pedestrian crossings of SR-104.
• Add a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Meridian Avenue North.
Mr. Hauss summarized that the total cost of implementing the plan is estimated to be approximately $10 million. All of the
projects are included in the Transportation Plan, and a certain number have been included in the City's 6-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). The remaining projects are identified in the out years through 2035.
Vice Chair Lovell requested more information about why the study was initially started in 2014. Mr. Hauss answered that
the study was initiated at the suggestion of a City Council Member, and the original intent was to identify bicycle
improvements and address safety concerns along the corridor. Vice Chair Lovell asked at what point the City engaged the
consultant Fehrs & Peers. Mr. Hauss answered that Fehrs & Peers was hired to assist with the Transportation Plan Update,
and they began working on the SR-104 Corridor Analysis in October of 2014.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if it is the City Council's intent to adopt the study and use it as a master plan to fix problems on SR-
104. Mr. Lien answered that the recommended projects contained in the plan are intended to address the concerns and
provide direction to the Transportation Plan and CIP.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the "collisions" map and noted that 49% of the collisions over the past five years occurred near
where Paradise Lane splits off of SR-104. Mr. Hauss clarified that the map is intended to illustrate that 49% of the collisions
occurred along the stretch of roadway from 5`h Avenue South to 95th Place West. He noted there were numerous accidents in
front McDonalds and QFC, and the study proposes management access, as well as some C curbs and raised medians to make
the area safer. The left turn lane for 226th Street SW would also be lengthened. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps
even more should be done along this 1-mile stretch of roadway to make it safer.
Board Member Stewart asked if the plan would be incorporated into or referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hauss
said answered that the projects identified in the recommendation section of the plan are all included in the Transportation
Plan, and some are included in the 6-year CIP. The remaining projects are identified in the CIP as projects through 2035. He
said the study will likely be referenced in the Westgate Plan and utilized when grant opportunities come available for projects
along SR-104. He noted that the consultant ranked the projects based on grant eligibility and other criteria, and staff will
consider the rankings as they move forward with future projects.
Board Member Stewart asked if everything in the plan is consistent with the Westgate Plan, and Mr. Hauss answered
affirmatively.
Board Member Cheung asked if the bicycle route shown on 228th Street SW would be sharrows or an actual bicycle lane.
Mr. Hauss answered that bicycle lanes would be provided from the Interurban trail to 78th Avenue West, and the remainder of
the route would have sharrows. Board Member Cheung questioned the safety of using 228th Street SW as a bike route since
it is a steep hill, as well as a public transportation route. He suggested that buses may end up getting stuck behind bicyclists
who are traveling much slower unless there is a dedicated bicycle lane all the way through. Mr. Hauss pointed out that they
are also adding bicycle lanes on 220th Avenue West as part of the overlay project from 841h Avenue West to 76th Avenue
West. He agreed that the bike route could be changed from 84th Avenue West to 801h Avenue West, and signage could be
placed on 228"' Street SW at 801h Avenue West to direct bicyclists to the 220'h Street SW bicycle lanes. This would enable
bicyclists to avoid the steep hills on 228th Avenue SW.
Board Member Robles commented that with all of the new signage and accessibility for bicycles in the area, it is likely that
the number of bicycles on SR-104 will increase even though it is not a designated bicycle route. He asked if the City would
actually restrict bicycles from using SR-104. Mr. Hauss answered that the City would neither accommodate nor restrict
bicycles on SR-104. Board Member Robles observed that discussions about bicycle facilities often exclude motorized
vehicles, which are increasing in use throughout the community. Electric bicycles have access to streets that regular bicycles
do not, and he suspects they will be used on SR-104 by people living nearby, as well as those traveling to the various bus
stops. He noted that the use was incorporated into the Transportation Plan, and he questioned if it was transferred over into
any of the projects identified in the analysis. Vice Chair Lovell replied that, as currently proposed, nothing is going to be
done to accommodate bicycles on SR-104 because it is a Highway of Statewide Significance and the City has no jurisdiction.
Board Member Robles asked if there would be signage to educate bicyclists of the alternative routes. Mr. Hauss advised that
are both north/south and east/west routes that will be safer than using SR-104, and these alternative routes will be identified
on the bicycle map that is used by bicyclists to figure out where the existing facilities are located.
Mr. Hauss announced that the bicycle lanes on 76th Avenue West will be striped in 2016 as part of a grant funded project that
will also add some signage to identify the routes and distance to downtown Edmonds. The same type of signage will be
provided from the Interurban Trail to downtown Edmonds, and all of the major activity centers will be identified on the signs.
Board Member Robles suggested that an alternate route to SR-104 is something the City should consider, at least in words, if
not on the plan. Mr. Hauss said alternate routes to SR-104 have been identified in both the study and in the Transportation
Plan.
Chair Tibbott noted that there is an east/west route from the ferry terminal that takes bicyclists up Main Street to 9th Avenue
South, 220th Street SW, 84th Avenue West, 228th Street SW and then the Interurban Trail. He asked if there would be
signage to designate a north/south route through neighborhoods without having to go all the way to 220`h Street SW. Mr.
Hauss answered that, with the exception of the intersection at 100th Avenue West and SR-104 where sharrows will be used,
the rest of the corridor will have designated bicycle lanes to provide north/south access for bicyclists. However, he
acknowledged that this project is several years down the road. Chair Tibbott said Board Member Robles is concerned that
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
northbound bicyclists may not want to go all the way to 220" Street SW before making a jog to the east. An earlier
eastbound route may be more desirable.
Board Member Robles commented that there are numerous residential units along the corridor, and many people use the
transit system. These are the people who are most likely to use bicycles. He suggested that education and disincentives
would probably be all that is needed to get bicyclists to use the alternate routes rather than SR-104. Mr. Hauss said the grant
the City received to improve bicycle facilities includes an education element, and the intent is to highlight the major
north/south and east/west routes.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she finds the analysis to be great information for future policy direction. It is astonishing in
its depth and attention to detail. She particularly appreciates the explanation for LOS levels found on Page 19 of the analysis.
She also referred to the last paragraph on Page 21 of the analysis and said she appreciates the phrase, "expected to degrade,"
which is a starkly descriptive phrase that she finds more understandable than the earlier phrase, "LOS C, increasing to LOS D
in 2035."
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the plan calls for access management near the QFC and McDonalds. She observed
that the City lost its opportunity to request frontage improvements as part of the recent McDonald's remodel. She asked if it
is possible that future site redevelopment in this area could be conditioned so that mitigation dollars can be received. Mr.
Hauss agreed that is possible.
Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed project list includes additional walkways on SR-104. Mr. Hauss said that, with the
exception of Pine Street and where SR-104 intersects with Highway 99, there are sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
There is only sidewalk on the west side near Pine Street, and providing sidewalks at the intersection of SR-104 and Highway
99 would be costly and difficult because of the current roadway configuration.
Chair Tibbott asked for more information about C curbs, and Mr. Hauss said C curbs are typically used to restrict people
from making left hand turns from parking areas.
Chair Tibbott recalled that there was a pedestrian fatality on SR-104 near Sherwood Elementary in recent years, but it may
have occurred prior to the study's time period. Mr. Hauss said this accident occurred about seven years ago. However, it
involved a motorcyclist and not a pedestrian. The motorcyclist swerved off the roadway and could have hit pedestrians, if
present, but there were no sidewalks on 226t' Street SW west of the SR-104 intersection at the time of the accident. He
advised that this accident was used to support the grant application for a new sidewalk.
Chair Tibbott asked if bike lockers could be incorporated into development along the corridor, particularly near bus stop
locations. This would allow bicyclists to store bikes and board buses rather than having to take their bikes all the way to
downtown Seattle. Mr. Hauss said bike lockers were not noted in the analysis, but the Bicycle Plan identifies locations for
bike lockers and bike racks close to SR-104. Chair Tibbott asked if the City or Community Transit/Sound Transit would
provide the bike racks and lockers. Mr. Hauss agreed to contact Sound Transit and Community to discuss this concept
further.
Board Member Cheung asked if there are potential sites for small park and ride lots along the corridor. Mr. Hauss said this
option was not studied in detail. However, if SR-104 is going to become a major transit corridor, it would be helpful to
provide a place for people to park rather than using neighborhood streets. He noted that there may be opportunities for
Community Transit and Sound Transit to work with property owners to provide park and ride options, and he provided
examples of where this has occurred. Board Member Cheung recalled that when the Sound Transit service started in
Edmonds, many people complained that there was not enough parking. As a result, the trains were underutilized. If people
do not have access to the major bus routes the service could be underutilized, as well.
Vice Chair Lovell said it appears the photograph from in front of the McDonalds was taken just after a ferry landed because
cars are backed up going east on SR-104. He said it appears that McDonalds has received a lot of attention to allow their
patrons to exit their lot going either right or left, and the result is longer waits in the left turn lane at the 100`h Avenue West
and 5th Avenue South intersections. He suggested the City should consider more intensive planning relative to the traffic
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
condition in this location. Mr. Hauss said the designs included in the study are preliminary and a lot more discussion is
needed before the projects move forward.
Vice Chair Lovell complimented the staff and consultant's work. The study is very thorough and complete and should be the
basis for a lot of planning and implementation in the future.
Chair Tibbott said he also appreciates the fact that the analysis sets up Westgate as a gateway with signage. It will become a
place of interest for people coming through. The study does an excellent job of not only highlighting the intersection, but the
neighborhood, itself.
Mr. Hauss invited Board Members to email him their follow up questions. He reminded them that the City Council would
continue their discussion relative to the analysis in August. Still under debate is whether the City Council will formally adopt
the analysis. Because the projects identified in the plan will be transferred to the Transportation Plan, it is likely the plan will
need to be adopted. Chair Tibbott noted that some of the projects have already been identified in the Transportation Plan,
and the analysis can be used to inform future updates. The study provides a greater understanding of SR-104, and he
appreciates the work done by the staff and consultant.
THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK FROM 9:10 P.M. TO 9:17 P.M.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CRITICAL AREA
ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that this is their sixth opportunity to review the CAO Update, and the Board held a public
hearing on July 81h. After the hearing, the Board had some discussion about whether or not an 8-foot paved area was
sufficient width for a critical area buffer to be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. The Board
discussed that perhaps the separation width should be established at 12 feet, which is the standard width the City currently
requires for driveways. He said he discussed this option with the consultant, who agreed that a 12-foot separation would be
appropriate. He noted that other jurisdictions that have similar provisions do not specify width criteria. Some require studies
and others do not. Since the public hearing, the language that talked about an 8-foot paved area being automatically
classified as physically separated and functionally isolated was removed from the definition of buffer. Changes were also
made to the language in 23.40.220.C.4, to read: `Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally
Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland
due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established
structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more I width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland
may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the
director to be a physically and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in
these areas. The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is
functionally isolated. "
Mr. Lien pointed out that the previous language automatically classified buffers that were separated by 8 feet or more as
physically separated and functionally isolated. The new language states that buffers that are separated by 12 feet may be
considered physically separated and functionally isolated. Once determined by the Director to be physically separated and
functionally isolated, development proposals can be allowed. The Director can require a site assessment to make the
determination.
Mr. Lien recalled that he provided some examples at the last meeting to illustrate the proposed new requirements for
development in frequently flooded areas. He reminded the Board that development in the flood zones is guided by building
code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the
International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. While the IRC does not require single-family residences to
be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the first floor must be constructed to at least the BFE. The IBC requires
structures to be constructed at or up to two -feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He reminded the
Board of staff s recommendation that the City require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet
above the BFE for all new construction within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to
Attachment 4, which outlines the proposed changes. As discussed by the Planning Board previously, the Building Code
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
would be amended to read, `For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal
A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined
from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map." The Board also recommended that, rather than adding a footnote to each
zone impacted by the new provision for frequently flooded areas, the best approach would be to amend the definition for
height in ECDC 21.40.030 to read, "For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood
Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable
FEMA Flood Hazard Map. "
Chair Tibbott asked if the BFE would be identified by the then applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map. Mr. Lien said that
rather than identifying a specific map, staff is recommending that the language be changed to say, "The City will use the most
currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property is located in a frequently flooded area. " This change will
allow the City to use the most current map.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that the IRC does not require that residential development be elevated two feet above the BFE. Mr.
Lien said that, with the proposed amendment, even single-family residential structures would be required to build at least two
feet above the BFE within the Coastal Flood Hazard Area. To clarify a question from the Board, Mr. Lien advised that, when
applicable, structures would still have to meet the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Mr. Lien recalled that, at the Board's last meeting, Board Member Monroe asked for more information about non -conforming
buildings and if they could be reconstructed within a critical area or not. He explained that there is existing language in the
code with regard to permanent alterations to structure within the critical areas. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 reads, "This provision
shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the ECDC relating to non -conforming structures in order to permit the
full reconstruction of legal, non -conforming buildings within its footprint. " He further pointed out that ECDC 17.40.020
establishes a 75% replacement cost threshold. If a structure is destroyed more than 75%, then redevelopment would be
required to conform to the current code. To illustrate how these two provisions would be applied, Mr. Lien explained that if a
house located within a stream buffer were to burn down, ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 would allow the house to be reconstructed
within its previous footprint. However, if someone wants to remodel or rebuild a home but retain the non -conforming aspect,
ECDC 17.40.020 would limit the remodel or redevelopment to the 75% replacement cost threshold. A property owner within
a stream buffer could tear down and replace up to 75% of an existing home and still redevelop within the existing footprint.
Mr. Lien recommended that the Board discuss any remaining concerns and then forward a recommendation to the City
Council to adopt the CAO Update as contained in Attachments 3 and 4.
Chair Tibbott said it appears that the definition for "Footprint of Development" has been changed from the "border of a
foundation" to include some of the landscaping around the facility. Mr. Lien reviewed that "Footprint of Existing
Development" is defined as "the area of a site that contains legally established buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved
roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios. " He
explained that developed lawns are not considered part of the footprint of existing development. However, crushed gravel
around a structure would be considered part of the footprint of development. Although gravel is considered impervious
material, theoretically, a property owner could pave over that section of crushed gravel and not expand the footprint of
existing development. The Board Members had questions about whether or not all gravel areas, even those that are
established in place of lawns, would be considered part of the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien emphasized that
the definition would require that the footprint of development only includes areas that have been legally established.
Board Member Stewart commented that the CAO Update has evolved into a good document, and she thanked Mr. Lien for
his hard work. However, she voiced concern about ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which allows stormwater dispersion outfalls,
bioswales and bioretention facilities anywhere within stream buffers. She recalled that when the Board first started
discussing the CAO update almost two years ago (September 24, 2013), a civil engineer representing the SnoKing Watershed
Council attended the Board's meeting to talk about this particular point. He said, `No drainage structures or other
improvements should be allowed in any critical area or the buffer of any critical area. Critical areas should not be used for
stormwater treatment. Rather stormwater should be treated for proper flow control before it enters any critical area. " A
follow up comment, this same engineer said, "The City has the option to adopt more requirements more stringent than the
stormwater manual, if it so chooses, to protect local streams and wetlands. " Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that
buffers are supposed to be vegetated. They perform habitat functions for streams and wetlands, and they should not be used
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 12
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
for stormwater dispersion, outfalls, etc. Mr. Lien clarified that this section deals only with streams, which are allowed based
on the hierarchy of conditions outlined in ECDC 23.90.040.D.8. He reviewed the conditions and emphasized that stormwater
facilities are only allowed in streams if no other location is feasible. He reminded the Board that the City's current
stormwater system is tied to streams.
Mr. Lien advised that the City's Stormwater Engineer reviewed the CAO Update and proposed changes to make the language
consistent with the stormwater requirements. For example, ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which applies to streams, and ECDC
23.50.040.F.8, which applies to wetlands, were added to address the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Permit the City
is currently working on. Board Member Stewart recalled the Stormwater Engineer's earlier comment that the City is working
to make the requirements stronger and even better than what is required.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE AND
ASSOCIATED FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREA AMENDMENTS (ECDC CHAPTERS 23.40 THOUGH 23.90) AS
OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENTS 3 AND 4 OF THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET DATED JULY 22, 2015.
BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vice Chair Lovell commended the staff and consultant for their invaluable work. The documents presented to the Board
were first rate.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott reviewed that the August 12"' meeting agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Planning
Process and an update on the Development Code Update Process. It will also include a public hearing on the Marina Beach
Park Master Plan.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members of the City -sponsored volunteer picnic on August 9th. He also announced that he
and Vice Chair Lovell would provide an update to the City Council on Planning Board activities. He encouraged the Board
Members to review their contact information that that was provided in a recent email to make sure it is accurate.
Chair Tibbott reported on his attendance at the July 21st City Council meeting, where the City Council conducted a public
hearing relative to the turf fields at the Old Woodway High School site. He recalled that the project has been in the planning
phase for approximately four years and is now being disrupted just as it is being put into motion. He encouraged the
Planning Board Members to carefully review park projects that come before them in the future and attempt to avoid these
types of conflicts by providing the public early notification of issues that need to be addressed.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell reported on his attendance at the July 15th Economic Development Commission Meeting, at which the
discussion focused on tourism, downtown business enhancement, and implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). It
was reported that the Tourism Committee is proposing to take a hiatus for a time. They have made a number of studies and
believe they have gone as far as they can for the time being. They made some recommendations, some of which are moving
forward and others that are more long term. There was significant discussion about the SAP, particularly how to keep the
public informed as to the status of the action items contained in the plan. Commissioner Haug has been working with the
City's Economic Development Director to develop software to track the status of each of the action items for the public's
information. The SAP Committee is working on ideas for increasing media attention and communication with the public.
Board Member Stewart said she listened to the video recording of the City Council's July 2I't meeting, particularly the public
hearing relative to the interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District. Without offering her opinion on the matter,
she expressed her belief that synthetic fields are needed and have been part of the plan for a long time. Unfortunately, none
of the City Council Members or Planning Board Members were involved in the decision making process. The decision was
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 13
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
made by the school district, without any input from the City representatives. She noted that there is significant community
pressure for the school district to look again at the alternatives.
Board Member Rubenkonig announced that the Waste Warriors will be present at the Taste of Edmonds on August 15th and
16th to raise awareness for recycling. She invited Board Members to participate, and members of the group would instruct
them how to recycle food and paper products. She summarized that this is a great opportunity to learn about what can be put
in the yard waste and recycling containers and what must go to the landfill.
Vice Chair Lovell advised that he was a judge at the City -sponsored sand castle contest.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 22, 2015 Page 14
Packet Pg. 16
5.A
Planning Board
Meeting Date: 08/27/2015
Planning Board Presentation
Staff Lead/Author: Diane Cunningham
Department: Planning Board
Initiated By:
Information
Discussion on City Council presentation on Sept. 15, 2015
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board review and make any recommendations
Previous Board Action
Narrative
Planning Board meets quarterly with City Council to discuss status of their projects.
Attachments:
P13150812d #2
Packet Pg. 17
DRAFT
5.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 12, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:Ow p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5`h Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Carreen Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Nathan Monroe
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER ROBLES 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 provide general public comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Tibbott acknowledged the written report prepared by the Development Services Director and invited Board Members
to comment. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that the "Community Calendar" could be updated to include the Planning Board's
report to the City Council on September 23rd. He noted that he and Chair Tibbott would present the report. Vice Chair
Lovell also asked if any Board Members attended the open house relative to the sign code, and none indicated they attended.
PUBLIC HEARING ON MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN
Chair Tibbott briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and invited Ms. Hite to present the Staff
Report.
Packet Pg. 18
DRAFT
5.A.a
Ms. Hite referred to the draft Marina Beach Master Plan, which is the culmination of approximately nine months of work that
included extensive public involvement. She noted that the proposed master plan is intended to accommodate daylighting of
Willow Creek. She advised that a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to work on the master plan, and she
introduced those members of the PAC who were present (Valerie Stewart, Rick Schaefer, Keeley O'Connell, and Susan
Smiley). As per a request from Board Member Stewart, she forwarded notes from each of the PAC meetings to the Board
Members just prior to the meeting. She thanked the PAC for their efforts and said she is very pleased with the draft Marina
Beach Master Plan. She is anxious to hear thoughts from the Planning Board and public as the document is prepared for
presentation to the City Council on August 18t'.
Chris Jones, Macy/Walker, Seattle, said he was the lead consultant on developing the Marina Beach Master Plan, which
was a nine month process that included significant public outreach. His experience working with the City staff and the PAC
has been pleasant and fulfilling. He noted that the public open houses were well attended and the feedback provided by those
in attendance was useful to the design team. He briefly reviewed that the public outreach included 14 stakeholder meetings,
3 public meetings, and several PAC meetings. The City also offered an on-line open house. All of the notes generated from
the public meetings were documented by sub consultant, Enviro Issues, and the comments will be included in the master
plan.
Mr. Jones said the design process started with a site context and site analysis to identify vehicular and pedestrian circulation
and on -going planning efforts that impact the park. This was followed by an analysis of the parking counts and how the park
is currently being used. He reviewed that two schemes (Options A and B) were presented for the public's consideration at
the first open house, and these schemes were based on information provided by Shannon Wilson relative to engineering for
Willow Creek. At the open house, the discussion focused on what elements of the current park the community wanted to
retain, move, and/or eliminate. This conversation ultimately resulted in the creation of Option C and the elimination of
Option A. Specific comments provided at the first open house emphasized the importance of place and environmental views,
retention of the dog park, restroom facilities, maintaining or increasing the number of parking spaces, providing more habitat
and education opportunities, and integrating the new alignment for Willow Creek into the existing park.
Mr. Jones reported that Options B and C were further refined and presented at the second open house as Options 1 and 2.
Based on the feedback provided, it was clear that the majority of the community preferred Option 1, with some elements of
Option 2 integrated into it. Those in attendance particularly liked the parking turnaround, the restroom location, the larger
lawn area, the two overlooks, and the separation of dogs and people.
Mr. Jones further reported that Option 1 was refined and presented at the third open house in July as the preferred Master
Plan. At that meeting, people expressed support for the circular walking paths, as well as the two proposed overlooks. They
also voiced support for maintaining some elevation change in the grassy area to support the westerly view, but the elevation
change should be minimal so the area can be a useful recreational space. He explained that he and Ms. Hite met with the Fire
Department to ensure that the proposed parking turnaround would accommodate emergency vehicles. A primary restroom
facility is proposed adjacent to the parking area and near the turnaround area, and an additional smaller restroom would be
provided at the other end of the parking area. This smaller restroom would be located near the pedestrian bridge that serves
the off -leash area and would likely be designed for low -maintenance. Two motorcycle parking stalls were added without
reducing the number of vehicle spaces. A plaza area was provided to accommodate food carts, etc.
Mr. Jones reviewed that many citizens stressed the importance of maintaining the beach space, including the driftwood area,
which is consistent with the overall goal of maintaining the natural environment. Maintaining views and existing uses was
also important to the community. The built elements are intended to blend into the natural environment. There was
community support for providing public access for non -motorized watercraft (kayaking, wind surfing, kite boarding,
canoeing, etc.), and providing signage to direct people to the staging area that is available for these uses would be helpful.
The preferred alternative also provides space for a play area, and there has been some discussion about moving the existing
play equipment to another park location and developing a new play area that fits better with the Marina Beach Park
landscape. Perhaps environmental education could be included, as well. He noted that a number of picnic tables and seating
areas would be scattered throughout the park, too.
Mr. Jones reviewed that there was significant discussion at the last open house relative to the buffer that is required for
Willow Creek, and he provided a picture to clearly illustrate the proposed buffer where native and adaptive vegetation would
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 2
Packet Pg. 19
DRAFT
5.A.a
be required. He pointed out that the uses in the southern portion of the park (off -leash area) would remain primarily the
same, but there has been some discussion about moving the agility course further south and away from the entrance.
Mr. Jones recognized the importance of the potential Edmonds Crossing Project, which is currently in its early schematic
phase. He explained that the scheme that is currently being considered by Washington State Ferries (WSF) was
superimposed over the proposed plan to analyze and get a better understanding of how the Edmonds Crossing Project might
impact elements of the proposed Master Plan. He emphasized that none of the proposed new structures would have to be
removed to accommodate the currently proposed ferry alignment. However, some trees may be impacted. Most of the
proposed elements will work well with what they currently know about the Edmonds Crossing Project, and Ms. Hite and her
team will continue to work with representatives from Washington State Ferries to make sure the two plans are consistent.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, observed that discussions about relocating the ferry terminal have been going on for more than
25 years, and the project is still considered viable by Washington State Ferries (WSF). He referred to a letter addressed to
Ms. Hite, which discusses the purchase and sale agreement between WSF and Unocal. The current plan is to put up to three
docks at the end of a long overpass over the railroad tracks and the northern portion of Marina Beach Park. He voiced
concern that if the ferry project will require a substantial portion of Marina Beach Park, a large percentage of the beach will
be lost. This would particularly impact the "people" portion of the park, but not so much the "dog" portion. He suggested
that rather than dividing the park into just two users (dogs and people), a third user (WSF) should also be part of the equation.
If the ferry project does not move forward, the citizens would win by getting extra beach; and if it does go forward, the
citizens' beach area would be protected.
Mr. Hertrich recalled that he brought up WSF's plan for the new ferry terminal at the last open house and was told not to
worry about it because it won't happen. However, the letter indicates that it is a very real possibility. That means all the
studies and plans for Marina Beach Park will be for naught and the City will have to go back to the drawing board. Once
again, he emphasized the need for a proper division of property. He noted that if the City wants to save more beach area
today, a greater effort should be made to run Willow Creek further south. Rather than marching blindly forward now, he
urged the City to go back to the drawing board and take into consideration the three parties (WSF, dogs and people) in order
to make the plan fair for everyone.
Kojo Fordjour, Washington State Ferries (WSF), Seattle, thanked Ms. Hite and Mr. Jones for the opportunity to work
with them on the early stages of the Marine Beach Master Plan process. He explained that WSF has an interest in the Marina
Beach Park property and wants to make sure that both the park and the ferry projects can coexist. When doing transportation
projects that go through parks, WSF is mandated by the federal government to make sure the right agreement is in place to
avoid any legal challenges. According to United States Department of Transportation regulations (Section 4f), transportation
facilities should not impact parks and recreation facilities. However, in this situation, when the property was purchased by
the City from Unocal, it included an easement provision through the park for the transportation facility to be built. The
original easement was where the old pier was located (right through the park), but subsequent design as moved the alignment
to the northern portion of the park. It is believed that this new alignment would be good for WSF, the tribes and the City. At
this point, WSF is working with the parks department to make sure whatever is built will not have to be torn down or
relocated later to accommodate the ferry, since this would be costly and citizens would lose their park. Again, he said it is
important that they work together in the future to come with the right agreement that will govern how they move forward
with both projects.
Brian Adams, Bothell, said he has been visiting Marina Beach Park on a regular basis since he graduated from high school
20 years ago, and he hopes to move to Edmonds at some point in the future. He said he was present to represent the Puget
Sound Kite Boarding Association, and he commended the design team for keeping kite boarders' needs in mind as they
designed the park. He said he supports the proposed master plan, but pointed out that a larger, open area would be better for
launching and landing their kites safely. The current grass field provides an excellent staging location, and it is difficult to
see from the drawings exactly how large the new grass area would be. He noted that they need approximately 100 feet in
both directions, and soft area is better. He also noted that the slight grade increase in the grassy area could impact kite
boarders slightly, and he questioned if the grade change is absolutely necessary. He observed that the grass space could be
used for a variety of recreational opportunities.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 3
Packet Pg. 20
DRAFT
Susan Smiley, Edmonds, said she participated on the PAC, and she and her husband visit Marina Beach Park frequently.
She said she has a personal interest in salmon and reintroducing them into the natural areas. She said she has been amazed
with how the project has developed. From the first time the PAC met and throughout the open houses, there have been many
comments and all were taken into consideration. The ones that couldn't be taken care of were explained well. For example,
Keeley O'Connell explained that fire pits are bad because burning driftwood creates dioxins in the air, which is bad for the
salmon. Based on this information, the PAC determined that fire pits would not be appropriate. She recalled that the PAC
had several discussions about potential impacts from the new ferry terminal, and it was emphasized in the plan that the most
costly elements of the plan would not be impacted. She said she supports the plan and she is excited to see salmon come
back.
NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE INDICATED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC
PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Vice Chair Lovell observed that because the City's plans for Marina Beach Park are way ahead of WSF's plans for the new
ferry terminal, what the City puts in should count. However, it is a wonderful idea to coordinate the design and
implementation of a master plan that minimizes potential destructive work in the future in order to accommodate the new
ferry docking system. This is good planning that reflects what the public would be supportive of. He referred to the overlay
of the potential ferry facility and noted that a portion of it would sit on property that is owned by the Port of Edmonds.
Neither the City nor WSF has any jurisdiction over the land that is owned by the Port of Edmonds, but it is apparent that
WSF does have some jurisdictions over the park lands that the City is leasing from Unocal. Ms. Hite said it is up to the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to enter into conversations with the Port, and this likely occurred
during the design phase when the current concept was drawn. Mr. Fordjour said it has been a long time since the design
document was released, and he cannot remember what discussions occurred. However, he recognized that WSF and
WSDOT will have to work with the Port to resolve the issue. He acknowledged that, as currently proposed, the ferry project
would impact Port property; but he emphasized that the designs are not final.
Vice Chair Lovell asked is if WSDOT has a potential schedule in place for moving the Edmonds Crossing Project forward.
Mr. Fordjour said that although it is identified in WSF's long-range plan, it is quite far away. He explained that the long-
range plan will be updated soon and the project's timing may be adjusted as part of this exercise. He reminded the Board that
the City is currently working with WSDOT and Burlington Northern Santa Fe to resolve the issue of providing better access
over the railroad tracks, as well. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that all that is known for sure is that the project is included
in WSF's long-range plan. Mr. Fordjour explained that WSF studies all of the ferry facilities within the transportation system
to determine those that need to be replaced, relocated, etc. The Edmonds Crossing Project is currently identified for 2026 or
2027, but the timing may change when the long-range plan is updated in 2016.
Board Member Stewart commented that, if and when WSF decides to move forward with the ferry project, the utmost
attention should be paid to the creek channel. The ferry project should not disturb this creek channel, and it should not
require that it be relocated in the future. Mr. Fordjour said his understanding is that the City is working on a plan to daylight
Willow Creek in conjunction with implementation of the Marina Beach Master Plan, and WSF is very interested in the new
Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program, which redesignate the Edmond Marsh and Willow Creek and
adjusts the buffer. These documents will change the dynamic of what WSF can do.
Board Member Stewart thanked Ms. Hite, Mr. Jones and the PAC for putting together a very viable plan, as well as a process
that was very robust and all inclusive. She also thanked Ms. Hite for providing notes from some of the PAC meetings, which
are helpful for the public, Board and City Council to see how the plan evolved. However, she noted that the Board only
received notes from two of the PAC meetings. Mr. Jones agreed there were more PAC meetings, but he received the request
late and was not able to collect all of the notes prior to the meeting. He agreed to provide a list of all of the PAC meetings, as
well as the notes from each one.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the notes from the PAC meetings represent discussions where there was common
ground amongst the members, but they do not represent a full range of how matters were discussed. She felt it was important
to bring to the public's notice that other concerns were raised and discussed, as well. For example, they discussed the dog
park use as being somewhat incompatible with the beach, as well as the creek channel where they are trying to bring salmon
back. She said she specifically expressed concern about the creek buffers, which were originally supposed to be 100 feet,
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 4
Packet Pg. 21
DRAFT
5.A.a
but were allowed to be reduced in some locations due to buffer averaging. She asked that the buffers between the dog park
and the creek be increased perhaps even beyond 100 feet. While this would result in a smaller dog park, it would protect
habitat from degradation caused by the dogs. At the very least, the master plan should provide enough room for the larger
buffers to occur if deemed necessary in the future.
Board Member Stewart asked if the design team consulted with the tribes relative to the master plan, particularly the buffers.
She suggested that asking for their input shows that they care about their role in the community. The government needs to
ensure that salmon habitat is restored and protected for future generations, in particular the native population, and including
the tribes in the discussion would be appropriate. Mr. Jones acknowledged that the tribes were not specifically invited to
participate in the master plan discussions. However, as a requirement to receiving grant funding from the Recreation and
Conservation Office for the Willow Creek feasibility study, the tribes were consulted. He noted that it will take between
three and five years to implement the master plan, and it will be necessary to obtain grant funding. A cultural resource
assessment must be included as part of any grant application.
Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Jones to identify the elements of the plan that would have to be eliminated or relocated if
WSF is unable to obtain the needed land from the Port of Edmonds. Mr. Jones explained that if the ferry terminal is required
to move 30 feet to the south, it would begin to impact structures, including the restroom facility. Board Member Monroe
asked if it is possible to design around these potential impacts. Mr. Jones explained that, unfortunately, WSF's current level
of design does not allow the City to assume the spacing of the piers. At this time, it is a guessing game to take the
information provided by WSF and accommodate it as best they can. They will continue to work with the best information
available and try to accommodate WSF's plans as much as possible.
Board Member Robles observed that, although the City cannot predict what the ferry structure will look like, they do know
that it will be elevated to go over the tracks and meet the ferry terminal. He asked if WSF or the City have considered
parking cars below the structure. Mr. Jones agreed that would be the best solution. Board Member Robles pointed out that if
the ferry structure is moved further south, the parking could go beneath the structure. Mr. Fordjour emphasized that WSF's
plans are very conceptual at this time. However, because of WSF's experience in Puget Sound, they are coming up with
better ways of putting piers into the ground to support structures. He said there will likely be 30 feet of clearance under the
pier for cars to park. Board Member Robles asked if a shadow would be cast over the parking area, and Mr. Fordjour
answered that there could be some morning shadow, but it will not likely be significant.
Board Member Robles said he believes the proposed master plan is put together well and ties up all lose ends. All he sees is
opportunity. As far as non -motorized water sports, he asked if the staging area could be branded as nicely as the scuba park to
the north. He expressed his belief that this is a great opportunity to draw more people to the park.
Mr. Jones explained that anything that anything that is carried to the park is considered "personal watercraft." Paddle boards,
kayaks, and canoes are the most common types of personal watercraft that are accommodate at waterfront parks. Expanding
opportunities beyond that would require substantially more space. The smaller watercraft would not significantly impact the
park, and an open lawn area would be great to accommodate the needs of these users.
Board Member Robles observed that it is crucial to have emergency services available in case someone is injured. He noted
that this is an issue the City is currently working to address, and increasing recreational density on the waterfront could
heighten the concern. Ms. Hite pointed out that the beach rangers are the City's best resource for providing assistance. They
are first aid certified and are ready to help. She emphasized that the City is currently analyzing alternatives for
accommodating emergency access over the tracks to the waterfront. Mr. Fordjour pointed out that the ferry would have a bus
drop off location on the other side of the track where people can take an escalator up to the deck and walk. Therefore, in
emergency situations, people will be able to access without crossing the railroad tracks. Mr. Adams commented that he is a
Bellevue Fireman and part of a water rescue team, and he has knowledge of water rescues. He also volunteered for the
Edmonds Fire Department prior to being hired by Bellevue. He pointed out that the City has a fire boat located in the marina,
which is equipped to handle water rescues. The fire department can use this boat to respond to emergency situations in the
water. Ms. Hite recalled that one of the City's main concerns is that a train may end up blocking the tracks, blocking the fire
department's access to the waterfront.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 5
Packet Pg. 22
DRAFT
5.A.a
Board Member Cheung asked if there was any community interest in putting in a rock climbing or boulder wall at Marina
Beach Park when the play equipment is replaced. Ms. Hite explained that although Mr. Jones previously indicated that the
existing play structure could be relocated, it is actually beyond its useful life now. Because redevelopment of the park will
not happen for three to five years, the City will need to replace the play structure more immediately. They are looking at
more natural play elements that could be moved during the master plan implementation process. There may be some rock
climbing walls and/or boulder components that are geared towards small children, but there has not been a huge interest in
having a taller climbing wall. She noted that providing a taller climbing wall would likely require an attendant to be present.
However, she agreed to consider the option further.
Because two restroom facilities are proposed in the master plan, Board Member Cheung suggested they consider placing the
smaller one in the off -leash area so it is easier for the dog owners to access it. Ms. Hite explained that locating the restroom
on the other side of the pedestrian path would make it more difficult for staff to access for maintenance purposes. She
recalled that the second restroom was provided so that dog owners did not have to walk to the main restroom in the park with
their dogs. The intent was to avoid conflicts when possible. Mr. Jones pointed out that it is also important that restroom
facilities are located in highly visible locations to avoid situations of vandalism.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she benefited greatly from the PAC notes that were provided prior to the meeting; it helped
her better understand how the design was driven and how the public comments were addressed. Although the turnaround
area has been reviewed by the fire department for adequate emergency access, she asked if there would be sufficient space for
Community Transit and school buses to access the park, as well. Mr. Jones acknowledged that this was not considered as
part of the fire department's evaluation. He agreed to gather information to make sure the turnaround can accommodate
buses.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the PAC notes indicated there was some discussion about the beach not being a safe place
for paddle boarding. Ms. Hite said the discussion came up when a paddle board vendor approached the City with a proposal
to locate at Marina Beach Park. The vendor visited the park on a windy day and voiced concerns about safety. The PAC
discussed that the safety of small watercraft at Marina Beach Park would be weather dependent.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the City consider limiting parking at Marina Beach Park to two hours. Ms. Hite
responded that at least some of the parking spaces provided for the park are currently limited to three hours. However, she
noted that the Port shares a parking lot with park visitors, and she is not sure if there is a time limit on these spaces. She
recalled that during the open houses, they heard that there is already enough parking at the park, even it is sometimes difficult
to find a space. Concern was expressed that adding more parking would impact the capacity of the park. The proposed
master plan proposes the same amount of parking in order to address this concern. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if
consideration would be given to Community Transit potentially expanding its service to help people get to the park.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her sense is that the purpose of daylighting Willow Creek is to increase salmon habitat. She
questioned if there would be a method established to measure the success of the project over time. Based on the findings of
whether or not the City is meeting its goal of increasing salmon habitat, the activities allowed in the park could be adjusted
accordingly. Ms. Hite said the purpose of this planning phase is to use Best Available Science (BAS) to anticipate and plan
ahead so they do not have to make changes after the plan is implemented. However, if they find that salmon habitat has not
been increased, they could adjust the buffers and change the types of recreation that is allowed within the buffers. Board
Member Rubenkonig commented that salmon habitat will always be a driving force in planning for Marina Beach Park, and
Ms. Hite agreed that will remain a priority as stated in both the Marina Beach Master Plan and in the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space (PROS) Plan.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible for the City to reevaluate how the park space is distributed if and
when the ferry terminal is constructed. She observed that, at this time, there is nothing set in stone as to how the park space
would be distributed amongst those with dogs and those without dogs. Ms. Hite agreed that there is nothing that requires the
park to be divided equally between the two user groups. However, the City's goal was to listen to all constituents and come
up with a plan that serves the most citizens possible based on a robust public process. She believes the current plan is a win -
win for all citizens. Although some expressed concern about the off -leash area, many voiced support.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 6
Packet Pg. 23
DRAFT
5.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the City must consider three players when determining how Marina Beach Park
will be used: dogs, people and ferries. Ms. Hite emphasized that the proposed plan does not define percentages or ratios for
uses within the park. The proposed uses are reflective of the community's input of what they would like to see at the park.
She pointed out that salmon habitat must also be considered.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she does not support the removal of the existing, well -loved fire pits. Her family brings
their own firewood to burn rather than using drift wood. She noted that there are very few remaining fire pits in the
community (Richmond Beach and Golden Gardens). Fire pits are part of the culture of Edmonds. While she understands the
concern that burning driftwood creates dioxins in the air that harm salmon, she requested that the few remaining fire pits at
Marina Beach Park remain open for public use. Board Member Robles agreed that the fire pits are wonderful amenities that
serve a variety of citizens. Chair Tibbott concurred and noted that there is a fire pit at Carkeek Park, too, but it is separated
from the beach.
Board Member Stewart asked if the proposed master plan provides any other alternatives for cooking, and Ms. Hite noted
that there will be barbeques in the park area, but not closer to the beach. Board Member Rubenkonig said she has not heard
of any safety problems associated with the fire pits, and if burning driftwood is a concern, they could post signs that ask
people not to burn driftwood. Mr. Jones expressed his belief that if driftwood is available, it is inevitable that people will
burn it in the fire pits. Ms. Hite observed that Carkeek Park and Golden Garden Park are examples of parks where very little
driftwood remains because it has all been burned over time. Board Member Stewart noted that driftwood is part of habitat,
and she would defer to the consultant's recommendation that fire pits not be allowed at the beach. Board Member
Rubenkonig noted that there is no lack of driftwood at Marina Beach Park. If it ends up being a problem in the future, the
fire pits could be removed. She commented that eliminating the fire pits is more of a proactive measure than reacting to a
situation that exists. Driftwood collects regularly at Marina Beach Park.
Board Member Cheung pointed out that Golden Gardens Park has a lot more trash near the area of the fire pit where people
hang out in the evenings. He suggested that fire pits encourage this type of behavior. Chair Tibbott suggested that staff share
the Board's concerns relative to the fire pit with the City Council and invite them to discuss the issue as part of their final
approval of the plan.
Vice Chair Lovell said that as he read through the materials from the beginning of the process, he noticed that there has been
a lot of discussion about dogs. Comments include dogs running around fences, dogs biting people, dogs out of control, park
staff having to pick up after dogs, the number of bags the City provides for disposal of waste, the need for better signage, etc.
He suggested that the City needs stronger regulations and a method of enforcement. Ms. Hite said parks already have strict
rules pertaining to dogs, but the City does not have sufficient staff to enforce the rules. Beach Rangers try to inform people
of the regulations, but they have no authority to enforce them. She noted that dogs are not allowed in most City parks; and
with the exception of Marina Beach Park, parks that do allow dogs require that they be on a leash. Again, she said the
problem is more about enforcement than adequate regulations. She said she receives numerous comments about dogs in
parks. Many request that the regulations be tightened to restrict dogs from all parks, but others want to have more relaxed
rules. This is a difficult discussion for the community to have because those in favor of dogs and those opposed to dogs are
split evenly and people are very passionate.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to Mr. Hertrich's concerns and noted that, at this time, there is nothing in writing that would
prevent the City from eliminating the dog park at some point in the future, particularly if the ferry terminal is relocated as
proposed. Ms. Hite said it would not be appropriate for the plan to state that if the ferry terminal is constructed, the dog park
would be eliminated. However, the plan could make it clear that while the City believes that the conflict between the flyover
for the ferry terminal and the proposed plan has been mitigated, there may be some minimal impact to the dog park from the
flyover if WSDOT is not successful with the Port and needs to use more of Marina Beach Park. Vice Chair Lovell noted that
elimination of the dog park would definitely be on the table if the Port does not allow WSDOT access over their property.
Ms. Hite said adjustments that are needed to the park as a result of the future Edmonds Crossing Project would need to
address all parts of the park, and not just the off -leash area.
Vice Chair Lovell asked Ms. Hite to explain the process and schedule for moving the Master Plan forward for approval and
implementation. He said he has heard the suggestion that Marina Beach Park should be redeveloped before Willow Creek is
daylighted. Ms. Hite advised that the draft plan will be presented to the City Council on August 18th, followed by a public
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 7
Packet Pg. 24
DRAFT
hearing and additional discussion by the City Council in September. Once the master plan has been adopted, the alignment
of Willow Creek will be clearly identified and design of the actual marsh side of daylighting willow creek can proceed to
60%. In the next three years the City will start to work on construction drawings for the park improvements. The goal is to
submit permit applications for both projects at the same time so that construction can happen simultaneously. The two
projects present some funding challenges because daylighting of Willow Creek on the marsh side is estimated to be between
$5 and $8 million (including additional habitat in the upper waters) and implementing the park improvements is estimated to
be $3 million. Funding of both projects will require a number of grants, and it will be challenging to queue them up at the
same time to go out to bid in the next three to five years. She said she is currently working on the Capital Improvement Plan,
which includes some placeholders for Marina Beach Park in the out years.
Chair Tibbott pointed out that the alignment of the creek that runs through Meadowdale Beach Park and Lund's Gulch
changes quite a bit as it meanders through the sand. He asked if the City anticipates that Willow Creek's alignment will also
shift over time. Ms. O'Connell explained that Willow Creek is quite different than the creek at Meadowdale Beach Park,
which is constricted in a way that is not supportive of the creek channel, itself. Willow Creek is being designed in a better
way that will allow the creek to function properly. She noted there is also a lot more beach in front of the railroad tracks at
Marina Beach Park as compared to Meadowdale Beach Park, and the beach is the area where the creek tends to migrate. The
alignment of Willow Creek will not likely shift until it reaches the sandy area, then prevailing winds and the current will
cause it to migrate to the north. She explained that, unlike the creek at Meadowdale Beach Park, Willow Creek is actually a
tidal channel and its purpose is to get waters back into the Edmonds Marsh. There will not be huge fresh water pulses down
the channel because the water will go through the marsh first and the marsh will regulate how the water goes in and out of the
system. There is no marsh at Meadowdale Beach Park, so its creek functions quite differently.
Chair Tibbott asked if the City would employ any different construction techniques east of the bridge to keep the creek in the
channel or if the same thing could be accomplished via natural means. Ms. O'Connell answered that this can be done via
natural means. The slope will be designed at the proper angle and the appropriate size of gravel will be used to create a
channel that won't migrate.
Chair Tibbott asked to what extent the off -leash area will impact salmon migration. Ms. O'Connell replied that the main
interest of the state in funding the daylighting project is to get juvenile salmon back to spawn. All species of juvenile salmon
would use Edmonds Marsh if they could just access it, but right now they cannot navigate the current pipe system. By
daylighting the creek, they are inferring they will be able to, and they want to do monitoring to insure that they are actually
using the system. This is an important project because all of the marshes of this size in the most urbanized area of Puget
Sound (North of Everett to South of Tacoma) have all been lost. Edmonds Marsh is one hold out that never got filled or
developed because the Edmonds community chose to protect it. The juvenile salmon that still migrate in this portion of the
shoreline have few opportunities to access the habitats that were historically very important. In terms of salmon recovery, we
need these habitats accessible so that juveniles can get robust enough to return as adults and spawn in the creeks.
Historically, Willow Creek and Shellebarger Creek likely supported Coho adult spawning; and that could happen again, more
likely in Willow Creek and less likely in Shellebarger because of the urbanization of the area.
Chair Tibbott asked to what extent organisms or odors from the dog park affect salmon migration. Ms. O'Connell explained
that salmon are completely driven by their sense of smell. Juvenile salmon that hang out on Marina Beach can smell the
biological impulse of the marsh coming out of the pipe, but they cannot figure out how to get in. Once they get into the creek
channel, they would get flushed into the marsh with the tide, and then they would feed in the marsh and get flushed back out.
Things in the water that affect their olfactory glands can have an impact. Another issue is trampling, there was discussion at
the PAC meetings about dogs going around the fence and up into the northern part of Marina Beach. In this case, if they go
around the fence, they can get into the creek. There are creeks where dogs and kids play and salmon still migrate through just
fine, so it has more to do with the volume of dogs. In general, they also know that the impact of waste (solid and urine),
impacts water quality, and a park like the off -leash area would not likely be permitted on Puget Sound today. She
summarized that, at this time, the City does not have enough studies to know, by the numbers, what the direct impact is.
However, it is known that an off -leash park is not the best use of a beach property, especially one that is protected for marine
habitat.
Chair Tibbott recognized that salmon habitat is one of the priorities associated with daylighting Willow Creek. He invited
staff to identify other important priorities associated with the project. Ms. O'Connell said the top priority is salmon, but
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 8
Packet Pg. 25
DRAFT
another important priority for the community is stormwater and floodwater management. Daylighting of Willow Creek will
allow the water to drain faster, which is part of the solution to the Dayton/SR-104 problem where the intersection floods
during certain high tides and high run-off events because Shellebarger Creek cannot properly flow into and out of the marsh.
This problem is exacerbated at high tide when the stormwater system backs up from the hydraulic pressure on the actual
outfalls near the beach. Part of the solution to the flood issue is daylighting the marsh and then realigning and improving the
hydrology of Shellebarger Creek. Another priority is climate adaptation. The marsh can hold a high volume of water, and
that can play into the community's ability to adapt to and manage additional sea level rise in the future. An additional benefit
of having a functional marsh is that tidal marshes sequester three to five times more carbon from the atmosphere than healthy
and mature northwest forests.
Chair Tibbott noted that a number of trees are identified on the plan, but it is difficult to determine which ones are existing
mature trees. He asked to what extent the existing trees will have to be removed to accommodate the new plan and where
new trees will be planted. Mr. Jones responded that specific landscape requirements will be addressed during the
construction design phase, but the intent is to maintain as many healthy, significant trees as possible. Mature trees are
important to parks in the urban area to make them feel well established and provide a sense of permanence.
To address earlier concerns, Mr. Jones pointed out that the buffer on the south side of the creek adjacent to the dog park
would be wider than 50 feet and closer to 60 to 75 feet. The buffer could be expanded at some point in the future if it is
determined necessary to protect the marsh. Ms. Hite added that the fence along the creek is about 70 to 75 feet from the
creek, and people must go past the fence to access the dog park. Board Member Stewart asked how much of the existing dog
park would be remediated to provide the buffer area identified in the plan. Mr. Jones answered that the dog park would be
reduced by nearly 1/3. He expressed his belief that the proposed plan represents a good balance for salmon, people and dogs,
and the dog owners seemed to understand that, as well. Board Member Stewart pointed out that tribes prefer a 100-foot
buffer.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her desire that the trees on the mound near the parking area be maintained. She
referred to the additional trees that are proposed along the creek and asked how tall they must be to provide adequate shade.
Mr. Jones said these trees would likely be alders (not coniferous) and the mature height would be about 40 feet. Board
Member Stewart agreed that alder is one tree species for riparian areas, but there are other species that might be appropriate,
as well. Mr. Jones pointed out that there are only about five tree varieties that can withstand the saltwater environment.
Chair Tibbott said he is very impressed with the completeness of the plan that addresses the community's stated desires for
the park.
Ms. Hite summarized that the Board's discussion as follows:
• The majority of the Board Members are in favor of including fire pits in the plan.
• There was concern that the creek buffer adjacent to the off -lease area should be larger.
• The summary notes do not adequately capture all of the PAC's discussions, particularly on issues where there was
conflict.
• Safety and emergency access is important.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT MARINA BEACH MASTER
PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PLANNED
PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND DISCUSS
THE FOLLOWING RELATED ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PLANNING BOARD:
• COORDINATE THE MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN DESIGN WORK THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND WASHINGTON STATE FERRY'S PLANS FOR
EDMONDS CROSSING.
• LOCATION AND QUANTITY OF FIRE PITS ON THE BEACH.
• DEPTH OF THE BUFFER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CREEK ADJACENT TO THE DOG PARK.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 9
Packet Pg. 26
DRAFT
5.A.a
• TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PHASE THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PROJECT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN SO THAT CONSTRUCTION
CAN OCCUR CONCURRENTLY.
• EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
• INCLUDE THE TRIBES AS STAKEHOLDERS IN FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott pointed out that there are open meetings in August and September. The Board agreed to cancel their August 26
meeting and move their discussion relative to the Development Code Update Process to September 9th
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott thanked Board Member Stewart for providing a link to the video describing how Edmonds came to acquire
park land along the waterfront. He encouraged the Board Members to watch the video and share it with others.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Monroe commented that the Marina Beach Park Plan was put together well.
Board Member Rubenkonig announced that the Waste Warriors are still looking for volunteers to help at the Taste of
Edmonds. She encouraged Board Members to contact Steve Fischer if they would like to help. She commented that serving
is a great way to learn how to handle the household waste stream (food recycling, waste recycling, and landfill).
Board Member Stewart announced that a new water quality monitoring program is being launched in the City by the group,
Students Saving Salmon (students and science teachers at Woodway High School). With the help of Keeley O'Connell, the
group has received over $40,000 in grant funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Google, Hubbard
Foundation, and Hazel Miller Foundation. The funding will be used to train and supervisor students who will monitor the
surface water quality of streams that feed into the marsh, as well as Shell Creek, which has a viable salmon population, as
well. The goal is to establish a baseline of data and then measure the quality over time and into perpetuity. The program is
intended to be sustainable so there will always be data available relative to the status of water quality in the City's creeks.
Because the students will be lead by rigorously -trained supervisors, the data will be robust and accepted by the State to
inform citizens and decision makers on what, if anything, is happening in the waters and what they can do about it. Eight
sites have been identified for testing (2 at Shellebarger Creek, 2 and Willow Creek, 2 and Shell Creek, and 2 and the
Edmonds Marsh).
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 12, 2015 Page 10
Packet Pg. 27