Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-02-28 Planning Board Packet
o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 28, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of February 14, 2018 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for property located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240th St. SW. from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor." A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Discussion on Critical Areas Allowed Activities / Select Vegetation Removal 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda February 28, 2018 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/28/2018 Approval of Draft Minutes of February 14, 2018 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB180214d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 14, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN 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 comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Development Services Director Report. RECOMMENDATION ON REVISITING FIVE CORNERS PLAN AND ZONING INITIATIVE Mr. Chave reviewed that in 2007 the City worked with the University of Washington and the Green Future's Lab to come up with some plans and ideas for how focused development could be accomplished in Westgate and Five Corners. Although the two plans were completed at the same time, quite a bit of work still needed to be done to translate them into implementable codes. The City Council decided to move ahead with formalizing the Westgate Plan first, and postponed work on the Five Corners plan until after the anticipated roundabout project had been completed. Since the Westgate Plan has been completed, Packet Pg. 3 and the Five Corners Roundabout has been built, the City Council has expressed interest in taking up the Five Corners Initiative again. Because some key properties in the area have been sold since the initiative was tabled, there was concern that the area's opportunities for redevelopment may have changed. Director Hope suggested that a feasibility analysis be done to determine whether the changes previously proposed for Five Corners would likely result in redevelopment of any key properties. He noted that, although significant work has already been done on the Five Corners Initiative, significant staff time, as well as Planning Board and City Council time, would still be needed to complete the project. The intent of the feasibility analysis is to determine whether this substantial extra work is appropriate in the near future. Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant team, Heartland, to provide the analysis. The team is now ready to present its findings to the Planning Board. Following the presentation, the Board will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council about whether to take up the Five Corners Initiative again and do more work to prepare it for further consideration under a full public process. Board Member Lovell observed that the analysis appears to focus on future redevelopment opportunities and does not really address the viability of the existing development. He noted that this is the first time the Board has received a presentation from a fully economic standpoint. Chris Fiori, Principal and Project Director, Heartland, advised that Heartland is a real estate advisory, investment and brokerage firm. Since he joined the firm 15 years ago, his work has focused on advising public agencies and municipalities on public assets and public policy. Much of this work involves bringing real estate lands through the planning process to help inform the creation of policies and plans. The consulting team was hired by the City to evaluate the feasibility of redevelopment in the Five Corners area under the form -based code concept outlined in the Five Corners Initiative that was done by the University of Washington in 2007. Amy Hartman, Project Manager, Heartland, advised that the feasibility analysis studied four sites within the Five Corners subarea using different scenarios: existing site value, site value under the proposed form -based code, and site value under the proposed form -based code with greater flexibility. The concept was that the Five Corners area has the potential to add increased density and housing stock to the Edmonds area. For the analysis, they looked at the feasibility of redevelopment from a developer's perspective. Developers make decisions based on the amount of return they will get from a project. She explained that residual land value is a method used to determine the value and potential profitability of a piece of property minus any expenses related to the land. Residual land value is the value of the land that remains after all deductions associated with its development have been made. It basically represents what a developer can afford to pay for the land. Any additional cost added to a project will push down the residual land value and additional entitlements can increase it. Redevelopment occurs when residual land value is higher than the value of the site's current use. The analysis assumes the developer would maximize the allowable square footage on a property. Board Member Lovell summarized that, according to the analysis, unless changes are made to the code to introduce more flexibility in terms of density, height, parking ratios, land uses, etc., the properties do not appear to be desirable for redevelopment. Ms. Hartman reviewed that the existing buildings in the four test sites are currently 100% occupied with relatively high market rents, and the current zoning prohibits multi -family or buildings with heights over 25 feet. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the sites will be redeveloped under the current zoning. The draft form -based code would increase development capacity enough to make redevelopment financially feasible, but additional enhancements to the code would increase redevelopment value even further. For example, for medium-sized and large sites, decreasing the required parking minimums would provide the highest lift to land value. For small sites, allowing an extra floor of building height would provide the most additional value. Mr. Fiori explained that because the subarea is fairly small, they could analyze the individual properties in four of the five corners. The analysis looks at the economics of the existing uses and identifies land values for the existing development as income properties. He summarized that there is more uniformity in the propensity for redevelopment of the four properties than they thought there would be going into the analysis. This may aid policy making because there will not be the disparate impact that is often present in subareas. Board Member Robles questioned why only four of the five properties at Five Corners were analyzed. Mr. Shipley explained that the 5t' property was not included in the scope of work because it is small. The intent was to study the four larger properties Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a that had the most potential for redevelopment. Board Member Cloutier added that the analysis focused on commercial areas and did not include properties in the residential zones. Ms. Hartman pointed out that the analysis focused on the properties that front the roundabout. While the four larger properties could accommodate up to five stories, the smaller property would be limited to a maximum of four. Mr. Fiori advised that the same methodology was applied to all four of the parcels that were studied as part of the analysis. Vice Chair Cheung asked why the value of the flexible parking option is so much lower for the Edmonds Veterinary site (Site 2). Ms. Hartman explained that it has to do with the size of the site. The smaller sites require more underground parking to meet the parking requirement so meeting the minimum parking requirement is costlier. Having a flexible parking requirement is less important on larger sites where there is more space for surface parking. Ms. Hartman explained that, in the analysis of each of the four properties, the current land value is based on existing rentable space and market rates as well as the market cap rate (what someone would be willing to pay the owner for the income stream coming from the building). In order for redevelopment to be feasible, the land value based on the various scenarios would have to be greater than the existing land value. She reviewed the specific findings for the four areas as follows: Site 1 — BARC. This property's land value based on its current use under the existing code is $65/square foot (SF). Under the draft form -based code, the land value would be $95/SF, which is $30/SF greater than the hurdle value (existing land value). The form -based code would allow about 265 units and 30,000 square feet of retail space, with about 325 parking spaces. Based on the cost of construction for the ground floor podium and the upper floors of wood and based on the rent you could get for multi -family and new retail, the analysis found that the property value was about $25,000 per unit or $95 per square foot. The land value would increase to $120/SF with flexible height, as the total number of residential units would increase to 361. With the flexible parking scenario, the land value would be $172/SF. The number of required stalls would decrease from 324 to 192. Using a combination of flexible parking and increased height, the land value would jump to $219/SF or more than double the hurdle value. Development under this scenario would accommodate 341 residential units, 230 parking stalls and 30,000 square feet of retail space. Board Member Lovell reiterated that the numbers provided in the analysis are based on the assumption that 75% of the site is buildable. The numbers reflect demolition and removal of the existing development. Ms Hartman agreed that the analysis assumes that the sites would be cleared and that 75% of the land would be developable. The average unit size would be 600 square feet. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the BARC property was recently redeveloped into a veterinarian hospital, and it is not likely that the use will be demolished to accommodate redevelopment any time soon. Mr. Fiori explained that in some situations his firm is hired to work on assets and policies together. In these cases, they work through all of the encumbrances and existing issues that might affect redevelopment beyond the basic economics. If the intent was to encourage near -term redevelopment, it is likely the consultant team would recommend a different set of next steps. However, this type of implementation piece goes beyond the scope of the current analysis. Board Member Lovell asked if an owner could hire Heartland to study options for further development or redevelopment of his/her property. Mr. Fiori answered affirmatively. There are logistics involved with retail development and the sensitivities around parking. As the BARC building is currently laid out, it is not likely that vertical development will be an option. Additional development would likely have to occur in the area currently used for parking. It would be up to whoever controls the property to pursue redevelopment options. Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Westgate Plan was in progress, some property owners were concerned that it would mandate redevelopment of their properties. It was emphasized that the site could be redeveloped at some point in the future, but property owners would not be forced to redevelop. The plan simply identifies what the future envelope could be, but it does not require that any changes occur. Ms. Hartman agreed that the property owner would have control over what happens to the site in the future. When subarea plans are created and properties are rezoned, it generally takes years for redevelopment to happen. Site 2: Edmonds Veterinary. The value of this site's current use is $52/SF. Based on the draft form -based code, the land value would be $110/SF. This scenario would allow up to 124 residential units and about 30,000 square feet Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a of retail space. With the flexible height scenario, the land value would increase to $137/SF, and the number of residential units would increase to 166. The land value for the flexible parking scenario would be $125/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $226/SF. Because this site is smaller, development would be limited to a smaller number of units, which means fewer parking spaces would have to be provided. • Site 3: Calvary Chapel. This site was sold in 2012, so the sale value was used to calculate a land value in today's dollars of $63/SF. Under the draft form -based code, the land value would be $109/SF. With the flexible height scenario, the land value would increase to $134/SF, and the number of units would increase from 140 to 186 units. The land value of the flexible parking scenario would be $177/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $225/SF. • Site 4: Five Corners Plaza. The current land value of this site is $74/SF. Under the draft form -based code, the land value would increase to $110/SF. This scenario would increase the number of residential units from 113 to 151. The land value for the flexible parking scenario would be $135/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $223/SF. Board Member Lovell asked if the numbers presented for cost metrics for each of the scenarios represent project costs. Ms. Hartman answered that the numbers identify construction costs with sales tax. They obtained the figures from another similar project being done in the area. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that the analysis is an economic approach, but the consultants now understand Five Corners quite well. She asked them to share their thoughts on the redevelopment potential of the four properties that were studied. Mr. Fiori answered that the level of attractiveness is expressed in the numbers displayed in the analysis. He explained that redevelopment potential is the highest where the spread is greatest between the existing circumstance and either of the scenarios. All four properties have a relatively similar land use value now, and there is a significant spread between the existing hurdle rate and what they think is possible in the market based upon changes in zoning. Changing to a form -based code will have significant impacts over time. Another thing to consider is how likely the current uses are to redevelop. For example, although the Calvary Church has only been in its current location for five years, as the land value increases, they may consider moving somewhere else. The length of current leases could also be a component. Properties with shorter timelines are more desirable. Most developers will seek to find property owners who are inclined to allow them to get into their process of entitlement as soon as possible. Aside from economic returns, Board Member Rubenkonig asked what other returns the City would receive from changes in zoning. Mr. Fiori said one major return could be an increased tax base. However, if the properties are developed primarily as residential and the existing ground floor retail is simply replaced, tax revenue would not increase significantly. But zoning changes would likely alter who lives in the City and how the City thinks about affordable housing. He said his company has been involved in a number of affordable housing discussions, including subsidized housing. There is a strong argument that bringing on more low-cost units (smaller in size and typically wood framed) is the best a jurisdiction can do without capital subsidies. Many jurisdictions do not have places for the next generation to live, and the idea is to allow people to age in place and stay in their communities. While a lot of areas place multi -family zoning in unattractive areas along high -traffic arterials, the Five Corners intersection has a great sense of place and low traffic. It is quite attractive and has good infrastructure to accommodate residential uses. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that it is important to the Mayor and others that the City has a good image. Increasing the visibility and sense of place at Five Corners will also increase the desirability of Edmonds for people to live and visit. Board Member Rubenkonig said she looked at what the rents would be based on each of the scenarios, recognizing that 15% of the residential units would have to be provided at 80% AMI. The market value of a 600 SF unit would be $1,400, and the affordability requirement would reduce the rate to $1,152. A larger 900 SF unit would have a market value of $2,160, and the affordability requirement would reduce the rate to $1,728. This is not taking into account working with non -profits and other groups to subsidize the units. This is another option the Housing Task Force is currently working to address. She voiced concern that that units that are "affordable" would still be quite costly. Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 Board Member Robles pointed out that a 600 SF unit is quite small and clearly not large enough for a family. He expressed his belief that family -sized units would be the most desirable application at Five Corners, yet the rate for each unit would be significant. He asked if the analysis considered the view amenity. The properties are located on a ridge, and their may be a view of either the mountains or the Sound from the upper units. Mr. Fiori said view was not connected to the estimated rents identified in the analysis. Board Member Robles felt this should be a component of the discussion, since view is one of the motivators for this exceptionally beautifully area. Board Member Robles asked how the surrounding residential properties would be impacted by the proposed changes in zoning that would allow taller buildings, etc. Mr. Fiori said the analysis did not study this issue. However, impacts to surrounding properties would be considered as part of any State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Board Member Robles recommended that some extended studies be done relative to impacts to surrounding properties. Board Member Robles said he appreciates seeing the report in terms of economics through the developer's eyes. Although it is not the Board's job to optimize a developer's return, the information can be used to help identify the current demand for property. Mr. Fiori explained that the concept of identifying excess profit from which public benefits can be leveraged can be contentious. The issue becomes how finely the City wants to fine tune the delta between redevelopment value and hurdle value. The more public benefit you try to squeeze out of developers, the more you risk not getting enough delta to trigger redevelopment. Conversely, the more you give extra stories of height to trigger redevelopment, the more you risk other impacts like light, view and air. Public entities should be careful when thinking about how much to squeeze the capital. The market for larger mixed -use projects is robust and attracts national capital. The returns will likely meet or exceed the numbers provided in the analysis, but it is also competitive. Board Member Robles commented that the City needs to have tools in place to attract amazing and great projects. Given the City's proximity to Amazon, Paine Field, etc., they have some leverage. They are far enough away that they are not influenced by them, but they are close enough to them to be accessible via various modes of transportation. The City has a lot going for it. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the consultants to comment on how the 4 and 5-story height limits might constrain prospective developers from obtaining the needed capital to move forward with a project at Five Corners. Mr. Fiori clarified that obtaining capital is less about the number of stories and more about the scale of a project. The national players who build large projects have been flooding into the Seattle area for a number of years. They are looking for 200 to 300-unit projects. Projects of this scale and type would tend to be attractive to a range of capital sources that are stable and relatively low cost. Board Member Cloutier said he flinched every time the consultant mentioned flexible parking because he keeps thinking about what has happened in Ballard. He asked the consultant what the parking ratio is in Ballard. Mr. Fiori said the parking ratio for multi -family development is around .6 or .7 spaces/unit. He acknowledged that a .5 parking ratio would be quite aggressive for Five Corners. Typically, the .4 and .5 parking ratios are found in very strong transit locations. While Five Corners has good transit service, it would not qualify as a strong transit location. Board Member Cloutier summarized that a .5 parking ratio is not really an option for Five Corners. Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that the intent is to create a plan for Five Corners that looks to the future. He suggested that ten years from now the situation could be much different than it is today as far as how people get around. Mr. Fiori said his company is currently doing work with King County Metro's Transit Demand Group. This group has done a robust study of parking for multi -family projects, and they have a great repository of information the City could draw from. Their study tracked not only what has been built, but what is being utilized. Generally speaking, despite some people's perception, there is a lot of underutilized parking, even in newer buildings. There is some rationale to address current realities and the future by coming up with a way to do a combination of surface and garage parking. Surface parking can be eliminated if it isn't needed; but once a garage has been built, it becomes permanent. Chair Monroe asked how much retail space is currently located on the parcels. Ms. Hartman noted that this information is contained in the tables that were provided as part of the presentation. The tables also identify the maximum square footage at build out for each of the scenarios. Chair Monroe noted if the proposed zoning changes are adopted, the City could expect some increase in the amount of retail space, as well as an increase in residential units of between 670 and 864 at total build out. This equates to roughly 1,500 to 2,000 more people. Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Board Member Lovell observed that the Board's responsibility is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to how to proceed with the Five Corners Initiative. However, cautioned that there are many more aspects of the Five Corners Initiative that still need to be studied before the Board can make a recommendation. For example, it has been suggested that the study area should be increased, and the public has provided significant input relative to multi -family housing adjacent to single- family housing. There will also be issues relative to building heights and property uses. He recalled that the Westgate Plan required a significant amount of work, and a lot of different aspects, provisions and attributes of the sites in that area were looked at in conjunction with the Board's study and ultimate recommendation for a modified form -based zoning approach. A lot more work is needed to get the Five Corners Plan to that point. Mr. Chave said the Five Corners area is currently zoned as Neighborhood Business with a 25-foot height limit, and one dwelling unit per lot is allowed. Retail space is required on the ground floor. He clarified that the Board is not being asked to make a specific recommendation now. The study is intended to be a check off point to determine whether the plan outlined by the University of Washington is still feasible. He recognized that a lot of issues need to be hammered out, but the Board could report back to the City Council that the plan appears to be feasible. They could also ask the City Council to identify priorities for when the project should move forward. Board Member Lovell commented that the planning effort must move forward with the parameter that zoning must change in some way in order for redevelopment to be feasible. Mr. Chave agreed and pointed out that there are Comprehensive Plan policies already in place for Five Corners that call for up to four stories of development. It's not like the Board would be starting with a blank slate. Some Comprehensive Plan work has already been done, and the University of Washington Plan took it a step further by looking conceptually at how different arrangements of uses could happen. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that the Board is being asked to make a recommendation based on the information presented by the consultant. However, she recalled that the Board also received a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to meet jointly with them to discuss the Five Corners Plan. The Board had postponed the joint meeting until after the consultants had completed their work on the feasibility analysis. She said she is hesitant to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council without first obtaining input from the EDC. Board Member Lovell asked if the EDC has access to the study results, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. However, he noted that the scope of work did not include a presentation by the consultant to the EDC. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board postpone its recommendation to the City Council until the next meeting so that Board Member Lovell, liaison to the EDC, can solicit their input. Chair Monroe pointed out that the EDC only meets once a month, and they will not have time to review the report thoroughly and provide feedback before the Board's next meeting. He commented that there will be plenty of opportunities for the EDC to weigh in on the project as it moves forward. Mr. Chave concurred. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board's recommendation to the City Council should also include a suggestion that they study whether the boundaries of the plan should be expanded to include the multi -family zones. Chair Monroe suggested that the Board take action now and forward their recommendation on to the City Council. Mr. Chave commented that once the City Council authorizes the Board and staff to proceed with the plan, they can determine the appropriate steps, and issues such as study area boundaries and input from the EDC can be addressed. The Board's recommendation at this time would simply ask the City Council for permission to move the plan forward and invite them to provide input as to priorities and an appropriate timeline. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO MOVE THE FIVE CORNERS PLAN FORWARD. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Board Member Lovell asked if the review and discussion on the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) would include a presentation by the consultant. Mr. Chave said he is not sure if the consultant will be present at the meeting or not. Board Member Lovell said that some members of the Tree Board have requested a joint meeting with the Planning Board to talk about the UFMP plan. Rather than a special joint meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board extend a special invitation to the Tree Board, asking them to attend the February 28' meeting. The Board could then discuss the option of Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a having a special joint meeting at some point in the future. The Board concurred and asked staff to extend the invitation to the Tree Board. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell announced that he would attend the February 2111 Economic Development Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/28/2018 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and discuss Narrative Report is attached Attachments: Director. Report.02.23.18 Packet Pg. 10 5.A.a � a MEMORANDUM Date: February 23, 2018 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report "All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt." Charles M. Schulz Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board's next meeting is February 28. It will include a public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan map change. STATE & REGIONAL NEWS State Ferries WSDOT is considering a switch from diesel to electric -powered ferries. The capital cost for converting the ferries would be costly but could be offset by the savings in operational cost within a few years —and meanwhile, cut air pollution considerably. A state budget allocation would be necessary to get the project started. Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) The Board of AHA (which includes Edmonds and most Snohomish -area cities, as well as the county) has a Feb. 28 meeting scheduled to discuss optional local contributions for a regional fund to assist with gap financing for selected affordable housing projects. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) The SCT Steering Committee, comprised mostly of local elected officials, will meet next on February 28. Its agenda includes: ❑ Reports on: o PSRC Board activities o Economic Alliance activities ❑ Appointment of citizen representative ❑ Election of officers 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 11 5.A.a ❑ Briefings on: o Vision 2050 (update to our region's long-range plan) o Sound Transit projects and plans LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) No ADB meetings were scheduled for February. Climate Protection Committee The Mayor's Climate Protection Committee will met in February for a review of the Climate Action Plan (2010) and to discuss 2018 priorities. The Committee expects to meet monthly in response to the Climate Goals Resolution (Resolution No. 1389) adopted by the City Council several months ago. The resolution calls for work by both the Committee and the Development Services Department (Planning Division). Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission will hold a retreat at the Edmonds Senior Center on March 7, beginning at 4 pm. Economic Development Commission (EDC) The Economic Development Commission's February 21 meeting included: ❑ Discussion of development feasibility ❑ Update on Economic Impact of Arts & Culture Study ❑ Civic facilities discussion ❑ Affordable housing —update on Task Force ❑ 2018 priorities Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission meeting on February 8 was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. Their next meeting is scheduled for March 8. Housing Strategy Task Force The Housing Strategy Task Force met on Thursday, January 25, in the Brackett Room, and discussed: o Presentation and discussion of potential housing tools/resources o Update on developer interview o Next steps o Brainstorming ideas for Edmonds' homeless funds For more information about the strategy and the task force, see: www.edmondshousingstrategV.org. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a The next Task Force meeting is being scheduled for April. In the interim, the project consultants are working to flesh out the housing tools that were discussed at the last meeting. NOTE: Presentations on housing data and housing strategy ideas will be provided to the Planning Board, starting in March. Tree Board The Tree Board meets next on Thursday, March 1, with an agenda that includes: o Update on tree pamphlet final version o Update on Urban Forest Management Plan o Update on other events o Content for Tree Board presentation to City Council o Possible student representative City Council The City Council's February 20 meeting included: ❑ Hearing Examiner annual report ❑ Update on Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization project ❑ Extension of crumb rubber moratorium (approved) ❑ Approval of professional services agreement for Edmonds Marsh Study ❑ Code amendment to allow boards/commissions to participate remotely ❑ Discussion of Council committees On February 27, the City Council meeting will be primarily devoted to Council committees. The Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee will review several infrastructure project items. In addition, the Council is expected to confirm appointments to the Historic Preservation Committee and the Architectural Design Board. COMMUNITY CALENDAR • February 24: Edmonds Clam Chowder Cook -Off, Edmonds Yacht Club, 11 am — 3 pm • February 26: Starlight Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor Beach Station, 7pm • February 28: Community Meeting for Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector, Edmonds Library Plaza Room, 6 pm — 8 pm. For more information http://www.edmondswa.gov/community-services/alternatives-analVsis.html • March 15: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown, 5pm — 8pm 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 13 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/28/2018 The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for property located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240th St. SW. from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor." A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Brad Shipley Summary The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation of ten properties located between Highway 99 and Edmonds Way (SR-104), north of the interchange, and south of 2401h Street SW (Attachment 1). Currently, the subject property is designated "Edmonds Way Corridor." If this application is approved, the designation would change to "Highway 99 Corridor." The ten properties total 2.84 acres and are currently developed with a single-family residence (built in 1947); two commercial office buildings (built in 1952 and 1960); a 38-unit condominium (Edmonds Greenery, built in 1979); and a 5-unit townhome project (Jenna Lane, built in 2015). Outside of Jenna Lane townhomes, no major redevelopment has occurred in the area since the City annexed the property in 1983. The properties are accessed from 240th Street SW or 84th Avenue W and connected to Edmonds Way and Highway 99 via 240th Street SW. Public transit options are near the subject area; Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops are less than quarter -mile away and the Aurora Transit Center is approximately one half - mile away. Prior to being annexed in 1983, the properties were zoned General Commercial (CG). The City rezoned the properties to Residential Multi -family (RM-2.4) at the time of annexation. All of the existing development, except for Jenna Lane townhomes, was built under CG zoning. The reasoning behind rezoning the properties is not well -documented; however, the proponent of the annexation was Edmonds Greenery Condo Association, the majority landholder by area and value, who stated that the primary purpose of applying for annexation was "to benefit from the City of Edmonds public services." Rezoning the properties to RM-2.4, which requires a minimum lot area of 2,400 sf per unit, created legal non -conforming buildings at the 38-unit Edmonds Greenery condominium project. The lot area consists of approximately 76,225 sf, which would yield a total of 31 units. If a fire were to destroy 75-percent or more of one building, seven units could not be rebuilt. Packet Pg. 14 6.A The intent of this proposal is to enable the properties to have a plan designation that would be more appropriate for the properties and their location. Due to the proximity of Highway 99, a more intensive designation appears to be appropriate, particularly in light of the previous zoning and current development on the property. For example, with the plan designation change, the owners could pursue a rezone back to the original CG zoning which would remove the current non -conforming status of the property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to APPROVE the a change in the Comp Plan designation from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor". Narrative See Staff Report Attachments: Staff Report +Attachments Packet Pg. 15 6.A.a • ■J b,I CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The City of Edmonds Planning Board From: Brad Shipley, Associate r Date: February 23, 2018 File: AMD20180001 Public Hearing: Wednesday February 28, 2018 at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers / Public Safety Complex 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA I. INTRODUCTION A. SUMMARY The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation of ten properties located between Highway 99 and Edmonds Way (SR-104), north of the interchange, and south of240t" Street SW (Attachment 1). Currently, the subject property is designated "Edmonds Way Corridor." If approved, this application would change the designation to "Highway 99 Corridor." The ten properties total 2.84 acres and are currently developed with a single-family residence (built in 1947); two commercial office buildings (built in 1952 and 1960); a 38-unit condominium (Edmonds Greenery, built in 1979); and a 5-unit townhome project (Jenna Lane, built in 2015). Outside of Jenna Lane townhomes, no major redevelopment has occurred in the area since the City annexed the property in 1983. The properties are accessed from 240th Street SW or 84th Avenue W and connected to Edmonds Way and Highway 99 via 240th Street SW. Public transit options are near the subject area; Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops are less than quarter -mile away and the Aurora Transit Center is approximately one half -mile away. Prior to being annexed in 1983, the properties were zoned General Commercial (CG). The City rezoned the properties to Residential Multi -family (RM-2.4) at the time of annexation. All of the existing development, except for Jenna Lane townhomes, was built under CG zoning. The reasoning behind rezoning the properties is not well -documented; however, the proponent of the annexation was Packet Pg. 16 6.A.a Edmonds Greenery Condo Association, the majority landholder by area and value who stated that the primary purpose of applying for annexation was "to benefit from the City of Edmonds public services." Rezoning the properties to RM-2.4, which requires a minimum lot area of 2,400 sf per unit, created legal non -conforming buildings at the 38-unit Edmonds Greenery condominium project. The lot area consists of approximately 76,225 sf, which would yield a total of 31 units. If a fire were to destroy 75-percent or more of one building, seven units could not be rebuilt. The intent of this proposal is to enable the properties to have a plan designation that would be more appropriate for the properties and their location. Due to the proximity of Highway 99, a more intensive designation appears to be appropriate, particularly in light of the previous zoning and current development on the property. For example, with the plan designation change, the owners could pursue a rezone back to the original CG zoning which would remove the current non- conforming status of the property. B. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Shaun Leiser 2. Site: Ten parcels comprising 2.84 acres located between east of Edmonds Way Corridor, west of BTAve. W., and south of 240"' St. SW. 3. Request: To change the Comprehensive Plan designation from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor." 4. Review Process: Legislative "Type V" actions — decisions are made by the City Council after reviewing a recommendation made by the Planning Board. 5. Ma'o�r las_ue: Compliance with ECDC 20.00 (changes to the Comprehensive Plan). II. FINDINGS A. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), found in Chapter 43.21C RCW, is a state law that requires the City to conduct an environmental impact review of any action that might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The review includes the completion of an environmental checklist by the City. A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on February 23, 2018 (Attachment 8). The appeals period expires February 28, 2018. If no appeals are filed by this date, the SEPA determination is final. B. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division, Fire District, Public Works Department, and the Building Division. No comments were received from the Fire District, Public Works Department, or the Building Division. Engineering requested a traffic study be provided with any future rezoning of the properties (Attachment 6). C. PUBLIC COMMENTS To date, no public comments have been received. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a D. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Section 20.03 of the ECDC, a notice of the public hearing was posted at the Library, City Hall, and Public Safety Complex — as well as published in the Everett Herald and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. All legal requirements for public notice have been satisfied (Attachment 7). E. SETTING 1. Proposed designation and development of the site. The proposed designation is "Highway 99 Corridor". If the application at hand were to be approved, property owners may seek a subsequent rezone from "Residential Multi -Family" (RM-2.4) to "General Commercial" (CG). The "Highway 99 Corridor" designation is compatible with both commercial and transitional zones, such as RM zones, as appropriate. This is a non -project based proposal; no development is proposed with this application. 2. Current designation and development of the site. The subject property is currently designated "Edmonds Way Corridor" (Attachment 4). Current development is a mixture of multi -family housing and commercial. 3. Designation and development in the vicinity. Property to the west and northwest is designated "Edmonds Way Corridor" and developed with multi -family housing and small-scale commercial (Attachment 4). Property to the north, across 240th St. SW., is designated "Single Family Urban 1" and developed with the Korean Presbyterian Church and single-family homes. Property to the east, across 84th Ave. W., is designated "Highway 99 Corridor" and developed with commercial development including car sales, retail, and service -oriented businesses. 4. Previous proposals in the vicinity. None known. F. ZONING COMPLIANCE A zoning change is not required as a condition of the proposal. Residential Multi -family (RM) zones are compatible with both "Edmonds Way Corridor" and "Highway 99 Corridor" designations. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may only be adopted if the following findings are made: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? Packet Pg. 18 6.A.a The Comprehensive Plan outlines a vison, goals, and policies for the Highway 99 Corridor. The area is adjacent to the Gateway District, which was identified in the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as an area to provide an identifying entry point to the City. The subject area has seen very little development since being annexed by Edmonds in 1983. If approved, the new designation would allow for parcels to be rezoned in a manner that makes redevelopment economically feasible, potentially adding much needed housing. Additionally, the CG zone has built in mitigation measures such as increased setbacks that are buffered by trees and building stepback requirements —when redevelopment occurs adjacent to RM or RS zoned properties. Streetscape improvements would also be required with future redevelopment in an area where sidewalks do not exist. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city? The proposed amendment will not be detrimental. At this time, nothing is proposed other than a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. If the request is approved, then we expect the owners to apply for a rezone from Residential Multi -family (RM-2.4) to General Commercial (CG), which would be consistent with adjacent zoning to the east. A rezone application would analyze the relationship between the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of nearby property; whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing and proposed zoning; and, the relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare when compared to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? The Edmonds Way Corridor makes up approximately 77 acres, while Highway 99 Corridor makes up approximately 265 acres. A shift of a cumulative 2.84 acres from Edmonds Way Corridor to Highway 99 Corridor will not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the city. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? The proposal does not require a zoning change at this time. A traffic analysis will be required with any future rezone. Utilities are in the area, but may need to be upgraded depending on the scale of future development. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest, in that it could potentially (through a future rezone) create additional dwelling units that could accommodate the influx of population into the city and provide much needed streetscape improvements. B. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city. C. The proposal would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a D. The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development (a future rezone to CG zone) and compatible with adjoining land uses. Access is provided by two arterial streets; however, any future rezone will require a traffic study that analyzes existing transportation conditions with potential transportation conditions for all properties involved in the rezone. Utilities are provided, but may require upgrades depending on the scale of future development. E. The Planning Board should consider a Comprehensive Plan designation change to a more flexible use of land. IV. RECOMMENDATION A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor." V. PARTIES OF RECORD A. Shaun Leiser, SCL Enterprises I PO Box 60216, Shoreline, WA, 98160 B. City of Edmonds VI. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Narrative 3. Zoning Map 4. Comprehensive Plan Map 5. Notice of Complete Application 6. Engineering Memorandum, dated February 22, 2018 7. Public Notice requirements 8. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) 9. SEPA Checklist 5 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW X COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PILE # _7�+_� ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE ZD REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION PEE �D� RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I•IEARIN(3 DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF Y.PB El ADB i<CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT L VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION C OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPL`ICCATION 1S A PUBLIC RECORD � PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION- 2yllo S 4t'�) ` ""' `w PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER_ JA.ra Ze SeA / PHONE# ZEra-Lz9-GJ�S6 ADDRESS A0 -dE• Ilk S��PS// ✓r G✓.4, 96160 E-AIAIi r r. FAX Lam( -J- 60391 TAX ACCOUNT # SEC. TWP, RNG DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTOR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LE CE•R 5 NECESSARY) 60y10�0.1I L�GrL � DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 2rs BEa is S Fe- APPLICANT .7yl�rir LG/s!_il PHONE# 2,.50- ZL5!- 609f ADDRESS � e6 / O E-MAIL. 1jGl%JG.sI /.9 s/_!-/ '- VA FAX#_tors -.r7-7- 6638° CONTACT PERSON/AGENT say*, _PHONE# ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE I'ZA?Z/? Property Owner's Authorization 1, 'sW4" %SCE , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection} and sting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE. Questions? Call (425) 771-0220, Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of] Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a December 28th, 2017 Applicant: Shaun Leiser PO Box 60216 Shoreline, WA. 98160 206-229-6038 Application for Comp Plan Amendment 4. A description of the proposal, including any relevant background material and the specific reasons for making the proposal. Our proposal is looking to accomplish a comp plan amendment approval to change from current "Edmonds Way Corridor" to "Highway 99 Corridor". The area of land is shaped "like a triangle" that consists of basically 10 properties or 10 plots of land. The current zoning of the property is RM2.4 (multi -family) and we seek to amend the comp plan to eventually change zoning to CG (Commercial General) to fall in line with the surrounding and or abutting zoning and land designation. We believe the current land classification is under zoned for multiple reasons, and firmly believe that this area of land is much better suited to be included with the Highway 99 Corridor land designation rather than the Edmonds Way Corridor for many reasons that we will describe below. The proposed area of land is located at the most southern tip of the Edmonds boarder right at the intersection of the "Gateway" part of Highway 99 Corridor and Edmonds way corridor/ SR 104. The surrounding streets that encompass the property are 84`' Ave. W., 240"' St. SW, and Edmonds Way/ SR 104. The "10" (attached map) plots of land include : (1) A single family residence located at 24110 84`h Ave. W., This residence is at the end of its life cycle and is ready for redevelopment to a greater and best use. Not only with the age of the home and the current state of repair slate it ripe for redevelopment the residence used to front and access SR 104/ Edmonds Way. When SR 104 was expanded many years ago the access to SR104 was cut off and left what was the front door of the home facing what is now the back yard, you currently enter the home through what was the back door making for a very undesirable layout to say the least. Please see attached signed letter of support from owner of this property. Plot (2) is a small vacant lot that is undeveloped neighboring 24110 and 24024. Please see attached letter of support from owner. Plot (3) 24024 84"' Ave. W. Is currently a Chiropractic Clinic building (Edmonds Family Chiropractic). The property has operated as a chiropractic clinic for well over 35 plus years (1982). The property was originally built as a savings and loan bank, it still has the concrete vault minus the vault door inside the building. The property was later turned into a building contractors office and equipment storage yard, and then later into a real estate office building and lastly to todays current use. This building is also at the end of its life span. The building has had an odd addition and is lacking efficiency of all kinds, it to is entering a state of dis-repair and not built to it highest and best use. Please see attached letter of support from property owner. Plots 1-3 directly font on 841h Ave. W., 841h Ave. ends in a poorly lit and very sparse cul-de-sac. The properties in this cul-de-sac have experienced a semi continuous array of multiple random garbage dumping's, breaking and entering, vandalism, theft, and homeless campers that have made the property much less desirable in its current conditions and use. Properties 1-3 also Prettv well and or much front hwy 99 and SR 104 as the properties have no buildings and or structures Packet Pg. 22 6.A.a the private and state land. The land area between both hwy 99 SR 104 consist of semi to no maintained grass, sticker bush, scotch broom, and trees. This area has started to become an area of encampment for homeless in tents and tarps leaving garbage, refuse and feces strewn throughout the area. Direct neighboring highway 99 corridor / commercial (CG) property use is Campbell Nelson Nissan Commercial Vehicle Sales. Please see attached photos and maps. Plot (4) 8410, 8414, 8418 240"' St. SW Is a condominium complex called The Edmonds Greenery Condominiums. The condo complex consists of 38 units that is currently under zoned. Please see submitted email correspondence from the city of Edmonds staff stating the current status of the zoning. In short the current zoning today does not allow the current number of units (38) located on the property. Under the current zoning only 31 units are allowed to exist creating a possible dilemma for the owners. If the property was to experience a catastrophic event in which 75% or more of one or more of the units was destroyed it or they would not be able to be rebuilt per the city code and zoning. This creates a very tough position and possible long delays and red tape for the condo owners along with expenses. The likely hood of this plot of land to be redeveloped is very unlikely with a condominium ownership, but this comp plan amendment and rezone is in the best interests of the association and condo owners so they would have the proper land designation and zoning needed to rebuild without issue if or when needed. Direct neighboring commercial property use consist of Campbell Nelson Nissan Commercial Siecle Sales, Sewer Friendly Sewer repair, Action Jackson Sewer cleaning (the old Gregerson Mobile Home sales lot). Plots (5-9) consist of a recently developed 5-unit townhome complex. This property is owned by and developed as single owner LLC with units leased to what we understand to be family members. This property too is very unlikely to be redeveloped in near future as the property was just recently completed to its current highest and best use at time of development. Plot (10) 24007 Edmonds Way is currently a physical therapy clinic (Lilly Physical Therapy), this property is an older single family residence that was converted for commercial use many years ago before the area of land was annexed into the city of Edmonds. This property is situated on the corner of SR 104/ Edmonds Way and 240"' St. SW, the current commercial use of the property is under developed as it has been converted to its current state to make do with what was there. We believe this property is best suited to be redeveloped to a higher and best use with its street corner presence on a very busy SR 104 and direct access to Highway 99 and access to multiple transit routes and walkability. Direct neighboring commercial property uses include United Presbyterian Church of Seattle, Vision Joyland Preschool and Childcare Please see letter of support for comp plan amendment and rezone form the property owner. The proposed comp plan amendment runs parallel with the city of Edmonds Hwy 99 Sub Area Plan and Highway 99 corridor. We have pulled specific points and facts from the plan that relate to this proposal. In summary along with all the descriptions, points, and facts stated above, historically these properties = m were designated as commercial land use in Snohomish county prior to being annexed into city of E z Edmonds (please see submitted tax records). All 10 plots of land located with -in this triangular shaped area are located in a very robustly transit oriented pipeline of heavily used roads, and walk able points of Q convenience which supports the comp plan request for change in land designation as proposed to Highway 99 corridor. For the greater metropolitan region in which Edmonds is located, housing supply has not been not keeping up with demand, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs, such as adjusting land use regulations, designations, and zoning. The Highway 99 arterial in which thesepldsoflandexisthas been recognized historically as a commercial district which adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. With an approved comp plan amendment the properties will co -inside with the Highway 99 Sub Area plans, Comp plans and other commercial uses like its surrounding neighboring properties. Our neighboring Qydirectly south on Highway 99,the City ofShoreline has embarked and completed significant improvements to Aurora Avenue within its boundaries, emphasizing improvement Packet Pg. 23 6.A.a transit and pedestrian use. Continuing this momentum in Edmonds will benefit the Edmonds community as well as the broader region creating a livable, vibrant community around high -capacity transit that visitors, businesses, and residents can take full advantage of. 5. A description of: a) How the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Below are bullet points of excerpts and relative points pulled from the comp plan that proves the consistency with the comp plan. The current Comprehensive Plan includes a sub district map that designates four focus areas, but does not reflect the community's desire for a southern "gateway" district that defines the entry into Edmonds, we want to encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. We are proposing a cluster comp plan amendment and rezone of multiple properties that encompasses and exact zoning boundary that already exists. • Urban growth - Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Reduce sprawl - Reducethe inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low -density development. • Transportation - Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. • Housing - Encourage the availability ofaffordable housing to all economic segments ofthe population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. • focus growth within already urbanized areas to create walkable, compact, and transit - oriented communities that maintain unique local character. • Appropriately sited and sized development/redevelopment projects increase: r • Property tax receipts through the "new construction" provision that captures new construction value -based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and adds that value to the city's future property tax baseline. ■ • Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity. • • Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents, workers and businesses within newly developed buildings. • • Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers. • In Edmonds, SR 104 between the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Dock and 1-5, and SR 99 between the south city limits and SR 104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Signi Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a The Edmonds -Kingston ferry route is considered to be part of SR 104, and is also identified as a Highway of Statewide Significance (excluding the ferry terminal). (Washington State Transportation Commission 2009) • Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing. In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include: Upzoning, Density Bonus, Infill Development, Streamlined approval processing. • housing - The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing for all people • variety of affordable housing with walking and transit access is part of the city's long-term vision. We believe that changing the comp plan and rezoning this area of land will accomplish all the goals of the Growth management Act and Comp plan as stated in the many bullet points above. b) How the proposal bears a substantial relation to public health, safety and welfare; and Below are points and excerpts from the comp plan and the HWY 99 Sub area plan that support the comp plan amendment, and how the proposal hears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, and welfare. Making the change in the comp plan will help achieve and encourage these below goals and points. COMMUNITY VALUES Better connections and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders to destinations and amenities in the area. CONNECTIVITY Create walkable neighborhoods and commercial centers where visitors can walk safely and comfortably at all hours of the day. WALKABILITY Packet Pg. 25 6.A.a Better connections and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders to destinations and amenities in the area. SAFETY Enhance distinct districts in the area such as the Health District and the International District to create more vibrant destinations and an even better sense of place. DESTINATIONS Encourage affordable housing options for a m ix of income levels - low income, workforce, and moderate -income. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Bring in new businesses and jobs to the area, encourage existing businesses to thrive, and provide good quality retail and shopping amenities. HEALTHY BUSINESSES THE VISION GOALS The Vision goals here represent the themes that surfaced throughout community discussions with Edmonds residents and stakeholders. They describe the qualities residents want to see in the Highway 99 corridorarea. Economic Development Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new businesses, investment, and redevelopment. Safety and Walkability Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists to move along and get across Highway 99. Housing and Development Encourage and incentivize mixed use development, affordable housing, office/commercial and other types of development. Identity Establish a distinct identity along the corridorthat supports existing cultural destinations and amenities and creates a welcoming and attractive environment for visitors and residents alike. Transportation Create more efficient and accessible connections between districts and destinations, and other transit centers/stations. c) How the proposal is in the best interest of the City. Below are points and excerts from the comp plan and the HWY 99 sub area plan that supports the comp plan amendment, and proves how Making the change in the comp plan will help achieve and encourage these below goals and points. Appropriately sited and sized development/redevelopment projects increase: • Property tax receipts through the "new construction" provision that captures new construction value - based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and adds that value to the city's future Property tax baseline. 9 Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity. Packet Pg. 26 6.A.a • Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents, workers and businesses within newly developed buildings. • Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers. In Edmonds, SR 104 between the Edmonds -Kingston Ferry Dock and 1-5, and SR 99 between the south city limits and SR 104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Significance. The Edmonds - Kingston ferry route is considered to be part of SR 104, and is also identified as a Highway of Statewide Significance (excluding the ferry terminal). (Washington State Transportation Commission 2009) WE ASKED EDMONDS What types of improvements would you like to see happen and where? Widespread desire for housing, particularly in the south end Widespread desire for mixed use, particularly in the south and central end New business and job opportunities are largely brought to the corridor through new development and redevelopment. Property tax receipts through the new construction provision that captures new construction value - based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and adds that value to the city's future property tax baseline. » Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity. » Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents, workers and businesses within newly developed buildings. » Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers. Public feedback expressed a desire for a dual emphasis of both housing and employment, resulting in an area characterized by mixed -use development with an increase in residential development, greater intensity of development, and street -frontage and pedestrian amenities. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, assumes future mixed use growth with a mix of residential, commercial, and office development, an area -wide rezone, amendments to development regulations, and transportation improvements. Transit- and pedestrian -friendly development, with less reliance on individual automobile -driving, should be promoted through new design standards to increase sustainability. Recently adopted citywide requirements for new development to have greater energy -efficiency and more effective storm water facilities will also contribute to sustainability. During a City Council retreat in 2002, the Highway 99 corridor was identified as one ofthe areas of greatest potential for generating tax revenue Packet Pg. 27 ' City of Edmonds Existing Zoning 1: 4,514 /1 18&08 376.2 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site anc reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be acc 1984 Web Mercator —Auxiliary —Sphere current, or otherwise re y of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUC Im i rf i A i d � i J � V Legend o ❑ to C i PRID N RoW p Zoning ■ RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 a d 1� RS-12 .N RSW-12 RS-20 r--1 RS-MP L rL ' RM-3 O RM-2,4 V ■ RIM-1.5 Y RM-EW d BD1 L BD2 ram'+ BD3 a bs� BD4 r BD5 O Q OR BI WMU R ++ z BP Cl) RiF B N FVMU BC i V Notes Q Packet Pg. 28 I ~ *'City of Edmonds Comp Plan Map Designations H V c Legend c ❑r_ Rezones r r_ PRD N RoW p Comprehensive Plan C . Retail Core ■ Arts Center Corridor IC Downtown Mixed Commercial d d Downtown Convenience .y ® Downtown Mixed Res 'i Downtown Master Plan Shoreline Commercial L Q BPlanned Residence -Office C Single Family Urbanl V © Single Family Urbanl U) 7 Single Family Urban3 y ® Single Family - Resource L Jh � Single Family - MP �% � ® Multi Family -Medium Den a ■ Multi Family -High Densi Neighborhood Commercial Q. . Community Commercial Planned -Neighborhood T Mixed Use Commercial ++ { Corridor Development Edmonds Way Corridor i- Medical i V Notes Q Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION ''Ic. 180`° January 30, 2018 Shaun Leiser PO Box 60216 Shoreline, WA 98160 (206) 229-6038 shaun@sclenterprises.net Subject: COMPLETE APPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AMENDMENT (AMD20180001) Dear Mr. Leiser, Thank you for submitting the required documentation and application fees for the above -referenced permit; the application is complete in accordance with ECDC 20.02.002. As a result, the City will proceed with issuing public notice of the project per ECDC 20.03. As project review moves forward, additional information or clarification could be requested per ECDC 20.02.003. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220, Sincerely, Brad Shipley Associate Planner Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM February 22, 2018 Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer AMD20180001— Comp Plan Amendment Leiser — 24110 84th Ave W Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. It is requested that the following be included in the staff report and recommendation to the Planning Board. The existing zoning for the subject properties is allowed under both the existing and proposed comp plan designations. For this reason, an immediate rezone of the properties would not be mandatory with any approvals to amend the comp plan. It is unknown at this time how many of the subject properties would actually apply for a rezone and therefore, it seems more appropriate to address transportation related concerns during any future rezoning of the properties. With any future rezone application, a traffic study that analyzes existing transportation conditions compared with potential transportation conditions will be required. The potential impacts should be assessed for all properties involved in the rezone, at both partial and full build out of the identified properties. The study should include analysis of nearby, effected intersections as well as road network. Please coordinate with Bertrand Hauss, City Transportation Engineer, on specific scope of the analysis. Thank you. City of Edmonds Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a FILE NO.: AMD20180001 APPLICANT: Shaun Leiser DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 12"' day of February, 2018, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The names were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12`h day of February, 2018, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: 2 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH796169 AMD20180001 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 02/13/2018 and ending on 02/13/2018 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $91.16 Subscribed and sworn bef a me on this day of Y ' c .Sf 3iG ❑€ * !'4lnnfen t ,1 MbAPAclnlq+antExpaeS6W � ZSr<2827 Y 1-11� Not Public in and for the State of Washington. City d Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 BRAD SHIPLEY Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING PROOHRECEIPT CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA 11 11 tgrmina0on - File Number AMD20180001 NOTICE OF pUSUC HEARIN[i pg{�f}pSfpygJ_E[p}1gggJ;The appllcant is proposing Id emend the CPmp�ohensive Dian Map dusignalion for all property locetotl oast al Edmonds Way. well of Hlgnway gg, and saulh of 240ltt St. SW: from Edmonds Weyy Cdr%dor ld Highway 99 Corridor. A Cotnprahensiva Plan Amendment gppl. ion Is a Type V decision made by Ina Cify Counell following a public hearing and recrnnmendnttdn frgm s"11 ng BUard. Marna al Aaniis;ml;Shaun Leiser LLoeallQA; All property located east of Edmonds Way, West of HI Way 90, and south el 240Ih .9 SW File iNo._ AMD20190001 data al NotlGg: Fabrua 13, 2018 W.February 28. 2016 (Soo public tear ng In rmalidM1 below). Arty pparson has IIW ri�I) to 4ommenl mt this a plkalI" during ing :tars comment period, recap{ Iha decision onrlhe applicotior, I'aaringgs. and request a copy The Cliy may bce9pt public comments al any Ilme prior Id 1hg closing of tho record of an open record predecislon hflarl ,, la t 8 or, 3! no open record pre' aclslon nyeerinlg8 i5 lProvide 1,decision onhe p ECDC 2p.67?003 have gtnnding to Initialaran aodminiatrath'a appeald m tniormaiion an this deVatepmgnt a plicallon Can be viewed or oblaingd at the City 01 Edmonds Devolopmdnl services Department, 121 -5th Ave. iJ, Edmonds, Wq 9 020. Cflica hours are Mondays. Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 0tl) 9,m.10 4:30 p.m.. and Wednesdays Irom fi:a0 a,m, to noon or online through the Cily'swebsita at r Soarcn 1br pgrmll D 01 gOfM1. ClSY4.1ilaCla Brad Shipley, Associate Planner. (425) 771-0220, PVBLIC AR1NG INFORMATION A public hearing before the Planning Hoard will be held on Wednesday. February 28. 201a at 7:00 p-m. In Iha Council Chambers locsled at 25tl • 5In Ave. N, Edmonds. WA 9BV20, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 18EPALNOTICE The Clty 61 Edmonds to $EPA lead agency for the van that the City of Edmonds has Issued a J= under WAC 107-11-340 for the nmA at ICarance: February 13. muss bg lilad In willing citing the specific reasons for appear wrin the feclufred leg to the City of Edmonds Planning Otvislon, 121 - 5thAvg. N, Edmonds, WA 9A020, —fisned: February 13.2019. EOH796169 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2-71 day of , ,ter; L.E/S' let .�j�.,{���� otary i ao for the ate of Washington • 1, r. 1 Residing at t ti MV OF W Revised on 9130111 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 35 6.A.a Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination - File Number AM D20180001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for all property located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240"' St. SW. from Edmonds Way Corridor to Highway 99 Corridor. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing and recommendation from Planning Board. Name of Applicant: Shaun Leiser Location: All property located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240"' St. SW File No.: AMD20180001 Date of Notice: February 13, 2018 Comments on Proposal Due: February 28, 2018 (see public hearing information below). Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to noon or online through the City's website at hUs_Ilpermits.edmond_s_.wa.uslcitiaen. Search for permit AMD20180001. City Contact: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner, (425) 771-0220, brad.shipley[}a edittondswa.ga�+ PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION A public hearing before the Planning Board will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE* Packet Pg. 36 6.A.a *NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REVERSE SIDE* STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. Date of Issuance: February 13, 2018 SEPA Appeal Deadline: February 28 2018 at 4:00 .in. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. VICINITY MAP Packet Pg. 37 6.A.a yOi ryy AI �yN CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED EAST OF EDMONDS WAY (SR-104), WEST OF HIGHWAY 99, AND SOUTH OF 240T" STREET SW. Proponent: SHAUN LEISER Location of proposal, including street address if any: ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED EAST OF EDMONDS WAY (SR-104), WEST OF HIGHWAY 99, AND SOUTH OF 240T" STREET SW. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Fel)ruary 28, 2018. Project Planner: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue N h, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: Februa 9 2018 Signature:` U� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than February 28 2018. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on February 13 2018, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit0ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at WwvV.edmondSvV ov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number AMD20180001. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPADNS Packet Pg. 38 2/9/18 SEPA 6.A.a Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunit ec .wa. ov XX COMCAST Outside rlant Engineer, North Region 1525 75` St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Washington State Dept. of Commerce 906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 Olympia, WA 98504-8300 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 SEPACENTER DNR.WA.GOV XX Puget Sound Regional Council Attn.: S.R.C. 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1035 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller M/S 607 Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments: Vicinity Map SEPA Environmental Checklist PC: File No. AMD20180001 SEPA Notebook XX XX Gary Kriedt, Senior Env. Planner King County Transit Division Attn.: Env. Planning & Real Estate, MS KSC-TR-0431 201 South Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-35856 City of Shoreline Attn.: Permit Services Manager 17500 Midvale Avenue North Shoreline, WA 98133-4905 Edmonds School District No. 15 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District 8128 28" St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich se.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Shaun Leiser PO Box 60216 Edmonds, WA 98160 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DNS Packet Pg. 39 2/9/18.SEPA #P71 6.A.a Q,F EDP t. 1 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental 'impact statement (EIS) must be prepared For all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help v you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to c help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. v c aM Instructions for Applicants: w d This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use thisCL checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer m the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer a the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may 'u; avoid unnecessary delays later. t Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if a you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. E The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of �? ]and. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposes or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. E z V c� Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Q For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may + exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part 13) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of o 0. the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be W read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. W A. BACKGROUND E 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: DNA V c� Q 2. Name of applicant: Shaun Leiser 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO BOX 60216 Shoreline WA. 98160 206-229-6038 — — - ,Shaun Leiser — 4. Date checklist prepared: 12-26-2017 5. Agency requesting checklist: City otldmonds Revised on 9116116 SEPA_Checklist Pa e 1 of 29 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.a 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this c proposal? If yes, explain. c° t U .At some 2y nt ves. but not ri ht away. — _ 0 r _ a� .y N G Q (STAFF COMMENTS) _ a m 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related d to this proposal. 0_ Noneloiaioi 0 U N _ E z (STAFF COMMENTS) cva Q 0 a d 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting W the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. cv U No --- +� m E z to Q (STAFF CUNIXII?NTS)_ / Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 41 6.A.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Comp plan amendment (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. m There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You r- do not need to repeat those answers on this page. U Comn Alan amendment and xanin char fi'om current RM 2.4 to ro osed CG. Land area consists of a rox 2.5 0 acres in total. c a� .y N 0 Q C a m .N c a� m L (STAFF COMMENTS) i4- o 7- c C� . L Azs� U L N c E z 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your M proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal a would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the a agency, you are not required to duplicate traps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related 5 to this checklist. Location of p=osal consists of a "triangle" of land that includes multi le address's. The prpperty is Irian elated co between SR i041Edmonds way, 4`h ave. W. and 240"' st. sw. m Site plans attached with Rarcal numbers. E ca Q (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Pape 3of 29 Packet Pg. 42 6.A.a TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Real itivcly flat with some (STAFF COMMENTS) E S 4-, � w �� b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Aprox 6"4, (STAFF COMMENTS) 1 -tE -5L d ,4-rf d r.1 _ Q T/fC 5GQ,PE C--Ti, c 7trf7e:: 6P C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Not c gently known but some a technical reports for the area have been submitted (STAFF COMMENTS) S U -S 416 C-IL W dd C Z — d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) a Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Cheeklist Pa e 4 0 29 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.a 2. e. f. 9. h. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Currents i none yoposed (STAFF COMMENTS) .— Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No if an it would be ve r minor and would be controlled b BMP's. - (STAFF COMMENTe'F)t G i 65 (. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Current) y not ro osed areas in future would be Der allowed building code.. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Practice BMP's for ankdevelopment (STAFF COMMENTS) AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describf and give approximate quantities if known. Auto nunor dust 3ossible mior order. (STAFF COMMENTS) O C �.r' �' _G Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Page 5 of 29 Packet Pg. 44 6.A.a b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) J C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: C oolin use of transit lines water ex used sa'ls in s�nnmer months. (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No (STAFF COMMENTS):� (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of rill material. None (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Page 6 o 29 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS) d U O - (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. r cC _ y �t� — d G a _ a (STAFF COMMENTS) m t m L Q E (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the O �? type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. c Nonc known J m E z c� Q (STAFF COMMENTS) O a Cn m b. Ground: E z (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? I€ so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Q Will water be discharged to ground water.? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Page 7 o 29 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground froin sq)tic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chetnicals... ; agricuitural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None kizo« n (STAFF COMMENTS) l C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (inclLecling storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water How? Will this water flog►' into other waters? If so, describe. None ro osed at this time ossible storm water run off eolLected b catch asins. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ Revised on 9119116 SEPA Checklist Packet Pg. 47 6.A.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: None current[ ro osed. m a� (STAFF COMMENTS) _ co t U _ O — r cC _ 4. Plants y d G a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: a X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: _ X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: a X shrubs >_ .N X grass a=i t pasture °) a crop or grain c Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops U ., wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: z other types of vegetation: Q (STAFF COMMENTS)_ + O a d Cn m E b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 0 c� None current[ ro osed. future would be removal of trees ass shrubs ect. Q _ (STAFF COMMENTS) G c r} r s ra•• µJ Revised on 9119116 SEPA Checklist Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a r a Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Cheeklist Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) ./l m c c� t U c O d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, R if any: c .y nothing cun'endv nronosed W a c M FL (STAFF COMMENTS) l_ m y c a� t L Q E e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. O U None known w c m E t .r a (STAFF COMMENTS) a m r co r c m 5. Animals E t U a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near (athe site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows and squirrils mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: none fish: bass, almon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: none Revised on 9119116 SEPA-Checklist Packet Pg. 50 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ Q e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Cheeklist Packet Pg. 51 6.A.a 6. 7. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. i�ultsiu currenll ra scd future would be Natural as electric b th for heatin and ii htin m a� (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ c=a t U _ O r _ b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally .y describe. 0 a No _ IL — m .N c a� (STAFF COMMENTS) Q- E O U N _ C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed E measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 0 None currently proposed — Q O a d (STAFF COMMENTS) U m E z c� Environmental Health Q a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Cheeklist Packet Pg. 52 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) C-r 0 : CL (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None knor,vo (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Standard EMS (STAFF COMMENTS) — Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Cheeklist Packet Pg. 53 6.A.a (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None known (STAFF COMMENTS) -I n e6ma° b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic no -Is (STAFF COMMENTS) wo (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Some ,idciitiunal traffic and tem consaruc Lion noise w itli in city allowed noise ord. (STAFF COMMENTS) :Z:7�___ (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Use of extensive transit and ca oolin (STAFF COMMENTS)y r a Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Pa2e 15 0 29 Packet Pg. 54 6.A.a 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. 1-Sin le famil residential 37 unit condo buildiniz, 5 townhomes 2 single family homes converted to medical iFse buildings (physical therWyand Chira ratic office. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? NO (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ Q c. Describe any structures on the site. Please see answer on question 8A. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 55 6.A.a d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None currently proposed but in future )Les (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RA/T7d (STAFF COMMENTS) `!: f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? (STAFF COMMENTS) eD&7S J%l q Ca, 9- E'_t g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) Q h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. '\Tn Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 56 6.A.a k. 1. (STAFF COMMENTS) ff 5 E&- Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not known at this time (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not known at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) �� Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not currently Uroposed (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any - City staff review and approval (STAFF COMMENTS) • A!'' + OO5 M�- K 5 k `r" Oft ❑ C rr In. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 57 a 6.A.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Quanijy not know at this time it is assumed incomes would be middle and low levels (STAFF COMMENTS) MW RILIDAS,r--P e1L 4 1:15 d L- b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not know at this time (STAFF COMMENTS) 'PA os AL C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Proposal would help with housing soloutions (STAFF COMMENTS) 1 r PtiG v'CJ> ,_}r 5 0 AG &4u e ^fir lt- L 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? Not prQposed at this time hei hts would.be consistant with allowed building codes for the proposed zone. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 58 6.A.a 11 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None known C. (STAFF COMMENTS) V Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Proposal would go through the ARB process (STAFF COMMENTS) u v 73 - ILc vices-� Light and Glare a. b. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not known at this time (STAFF COMMENTS) Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No (STAFF COMMENTS) Q C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 SEPA Checklist Packet Pg. 59 6.A.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not proposed at this time m a� c (STAFF COMMENTS) t U _ O r _ _T 12. Recreation N d G CL a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in immediate vicinitv a m .N c a� m L Q E (STAFF COMMENTS) �j c m E z b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No Q r- O a d M Cn (STAFF COMMENTS) _ E z c� Q C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 60 6.A.a 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. NO (STAFF COMMENTS) UN iC-14 ucJN C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. DNA (STAFF COMMENTS) r a d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Not currently proposed. Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 61 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 84`4 ave. w. 240"' st sw. SR 104/Edmonds way. HWY 99. See attached site plans. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes site is located b multi le transit options. both alongHVVY 99 and SR 104. ,r- 517C-. C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? None cwTently proposed Q (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). None currently proposed, future would most likel in Jude new sidewalks in ublic right of wa . Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 62 6.A.a e. f. 9. h. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1f� A AC��«1E ►VEn-iE7-6 GCCoA- . •:7&6` A&AI n Ir-+ � t✓OLt [. Il.�' lw - NH - � � E57'e�r Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Not propsed at this time (STAFF COMMENTS)eCj 9115 FO P v_ _Po 54 C Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Q Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 63 6.A.a (STAFF COMMENTS) MAI aDS in L 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Generally yes, but not of great impact. (STAFF COMMENTS) T-C u EraT L b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None known (STAFF COMMENTS)I 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Electricity. gas. water,gar abe hone sewer cable. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 64 6.A.a b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All listed on question 16A. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency's lying on them to make its decision. i2-67Z2,17- Signature of Proponent Date Submitted Revised on 9119116 SEPA Checklist y Packet Pg. 65 6.A.a D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? 0 Pro osal would allow greater site covers a with impervious surfaces bui the Mater coverage would be co teracted with low c t impact development practices that are not currently in place, redevelopement would imprave water quality. Production of noise v would be temp during redevelo ement activities. 0 r c a� .y N G � S C Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: a m Low impact development ractices BMP ' lementati n caEpooling, transit use better walk-abili1y, ect. .N c d t m t� Q- E 0 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? �? The most im act would be to possible tree removal. No fish or marine life is in the area of proposal. Down stream impacts would im roved with the im lematation of LID. m E z 0 M 4a Q v 0 a Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Future Pro osed projects would go through city review channels that will re late land use and be sure that promects meet all local and ovt. standards. co c m z c� 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources_ Q The use of construction materials will naturally use some natural resources and or enerw. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Use of LID MP's een and or leed construction practices, solar energy, ect Revised on 9119116 SEPA Checklist Packet Pg. 66 6.A.a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? We don't believe the proposal will affect any environmentally sensitive areas or designated areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: DNA 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Land use would be more dense. Shoreline would be unaffected. Land use would be cam atiblc with s ing areas. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Shoreline would be unaffected Natural Land would be saved by allowin,= more densification of urban land use and reduciniz sprawl. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Future construction would increase use of power water and sewer, and transit services. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Solar. LID. BMP's. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Proposal would not conflict with any laws or requirements for protection of the environment. Q Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Packet Pg. 67 6.A.a r a Revised on 9119116 SEPA_Checklist Pa e 29 0 29 Packet Pg. 68 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/28/2018 Discussion on Critical Areas Allowed Activities / Select Vegetation Removal Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council Planning, Parks & Public Works Committee discussed this subject on October 10, 2017 and the full Council forwarded the issue to the Planning Board on October 17, 2017. An introductory presentation was given to the Planning Board on January 10, 2018. Staff Recommendation Discuss and prepare for a public hearing on March 14, 2018. Narrative Please see the attached memo from staff discussing this subject. Attachments: 1. Staff Memo 2. Planning Board draft minutes from January 10, 2018. 3. City Council agenda item and minutes 4. Comment letters Attachments: Attachment 1: Staff Memo - Select Vegetation Removal Attachment 2: Planning Board Draft Minutes 2018-1-10 Attachment 3: Council 2017-10-10 agenda item and minutes Attachment 4: Critical Area Comment Letters Packet Pg. 69 7.A.a Date: III MEMORANDUM February 23, 2018 Edmonds Planning Board From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Subject: Agenda Discussion: Critical Area Allowed Activities — ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) Select Vegetation Removal Activities Introduction Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) is the allowed activities section of the City's critical area regulations. This section identifies certain activities within a critical area and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical areas report. The allowed activities section applies to all critical areas and their associated buffers including landslide hazard areas, erosions hazard areas, streams, and wetlands. ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) allows for select vegetation removal activities including the removal of invasive species and hazardous trees. During the 2015-2016 Critical Area Ordinance update, the GAP Analysis prepared by the City's consultant, ESA, identified this section for a potential amendment noting the following: Also add a square foot threshold for limiting invasive vegetation removal activities. Language will be developed during code revision stage, but suggest something similar to City of Seattle Environmentally Critical Areas Code (SMC 25.09.320), which permits restoring or improving vegetation and trees through invasive plant removal (by hand) to "promote maintenance or creation of a naturally functioning condition that prevents erosion, protects water quality, or provides diverse habitat... when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area calculated cumulatively over three (3) years..." Following this recommendation, the 1,500 square foot limit was incorporated into ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(a) which states: The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years: The threshold was intended to ensure that removal of vegetation from large areas was first reviewed for consistency with the City's critical area regulations and with best management practices by a qualified professional appropriate for the type of critical area. Packet Pg. 70 7.A.a During a meeting of the City Council when a report on critical area regulations was being presented, a citizen commented that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area regulations was a concern. The citizen noted that the 1,500 sq. ft. limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration projects because the development of critical area reports adds time and costs that may be excessive for the size and intent of the project, particularly when the project is being done by a non-profit or citizen group with limited resources. The City Council referred this issue to the Planning Board for consideration and recommendation. Potential Alternatives Three potential amendments where identified by Councilmember Buckshnis in her memo to the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee for their October 10, 2017 meeting (see Attachment 3). 1. The first potential amendment was proposed by Joe Scordino who recommended adding the following language to ECDC 23.40.200(C)(8)(a) in an email: "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques." This language was more recently updated to be proposed as: "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees." The critical areas ordinance generally envisions habitat restoration projects to be consistent with ECDC 23.40.005, which defines restoration as: "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include reestablishment or rehabilitation." The general concern is that the City will need to have confidence that restoration project actions will be moving in the direction of returning the critical area or its buffer functions and values to its unaltered state. "Allowed activities" are provided for in ECDC 23.40.220 if the activity has been "reviewed and permitted or approved by the City of Edmonds..." and if the activity uses "best management practices." The main problem with the above language is that there is very little guidance as to what a "qualified organization and/or individual" is. 2. The concept in potential amendment 1 above was expanded upon in an email from Mariska Kecskes of Earthcorps who noted: ...the language proposed for future restoration projects needs a more institutional integration beyond a line in the critical area regulations. So instead of just "these restrictions don't apply to bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate city department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved qualified organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it Packet Pg. 71 7.A.a would ensure that projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being implemented. Of course, criteria would still need to be developed, and all this would totally depend on capacity within the appropriate city department to evaluate the credentials of those proposing projects and create formal agreements for participating organizations. In this case, the City of Edmonds could identify some preapproved organizations that property owners could work with on restoration projects and not be subject to the 1,500 square foot limit. The idea is that these organizations would have experience with restoration projects and have qualified professionals on staff or available to oversee the restoration projects. Organizations that wanted to be on the City's list of approved organizations would submit their credentials to the City for review and then the City would need to maintain a list of qualified organizations. This is not unlike a qualified professionals list. It could be updated annually or bi-annually to verify the qualifications or add new organizations, as appropriate. There would have to be some administration of a program like this; it is ultimately a policy call as to whether this cost should be subsidized by the City (in the interest of encouraging restoration projects) or some proportion charged to the restoration project proponent. 3. A third option is to use a different threshold (i.e. something greater than 1,500 square feet) before requiring a detailed critical area review. At some point, a restoration project of a certain size may be large enough that it should be designed and reviewed by a qualified professional to ensure the removal of vegetation is conducted in accordance with the critical area regulations and best management practices and to ensure any proposed replanting provides the functions and values intended to protect the critical area. As noted in the introduction, the 1,500 square foot threshold was lifted from Seattle's critical area ordinance. Perhaps that is not the appropriate threshold or maybe there are different thresholds that should apply to different critical areas (removing vegetation in a landslide hazard area has different impacts than removing invasive species in a wetland buffer). Because steep slopes have potential direct effects on life/safety, keeping a relatively low threshold for that type of critical area may be appropriate. A different level could be set for wetlands and streams, or the threshold could be applied to one year rather than the current three-year cumulative total. One of the goals of the Critical Areas ordinance is to encourage protection and restoration of critical areas. Encouraging small-scale restoration projects by non -profits and citizen groups is a worthy goal. However, not having some criteria for who is qualified to do the work, as well as identifying a limitation on the amount of vegetation that may be removed before requiring a critical areas report, could lead to unintended consequences that could negatively impact critical areas. Staff is proposing as a starting point for the discussion the following changes to the critical areas provisions. Note that we are only recommending changing how projects in wetlands and streams are handled. Other critical areas, such as landslide hazard areas; have potential life/safety issues that are of more concern. Packet Pg. 72 7.A.a 23.40.220 Allowed activities. A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 8. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, vegetation removal under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitation, up to a maximum of 2,640 square feet annually, if: i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization, approved by the City, that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity ii. Provides a specific proposal identify the e scope and location of the project, provides for project supervision, and a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department. Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species; Packet Pg. 73 7.A.b scheduled for January 25th at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room of City Hall. At the meeting, the consultant and City staff will bring forward a draft list of potential resources and tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse needs. The discussion will be geared towards different types of housing, different income levels, opportunities for partnerships, etc. The public is invited to attend and the Board Members will receive an update following the meeting. Mr. Chave advised that a public open house would be scheduled a few months after the Housing Strategy Task Force Meeting to solicit public input on the tools being considered. Following the open house, the consultant will prepare a draft Housing Strategy for the Planning Board's review in early spring. He noted that a special webpage has been created to provide information: https://www.edmondshousin sg trategy.or/. Staff will notify the Board Members when new items are added to the site. Another update will also be provided to the Board in advance of the consultant's presentation of the formal report. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) AMENDMENT — SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), which is the allowed activities section of the City's critical areas regulations. The section identifies certain activities within a critical area and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical area report. The restriction in area that can be eligible for vegetation removal without a report from a qualified professional is a new provision added in the last major update of the CAO. Since the CAO was last updated, concern has been raised that this limitation (1,500 square feet over 3 years) is too restrictive and/or costly in some circumstances. The City Council has asked the Planning Board to review the limitation and forward a recommendation to them. Mr. Chave explained that the consultant who assisted the City with the last CAO update recommended the 1,500-square-foot limitation, which is consistent with the City of Seattle's ordinance. As currently written, clearing of more than 1,500 square feet is allowed, but a critical area report from a qualified professional is required. He further explained that the intent of the restriction is to avoid situations of potential erosion when invasive species are removed from slopes or stream banks. It was felt that invasive species could be removed from small areas without disturbing much of the intact buffer, but there was concern about making sure people know what they are doing and have proper guidance when doing larger projects. He noted that the Staff Report outlines several options the Board could consider. However, it is important to make sure that larger projects have proper guidance. Describing the qualifications of the professional or organization will be very important. Staff intends to further refine the options based on feedback from the Board and present them for further discussion at the Board's January 24th meeting. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Planning Board had numerous discussions relative to the CAO as part of its work on the Shoreline Master Program. One particular item of discussion at that time was that alder trees that are 2-inch caliper or smaller should be considered noxious plants. He asked if this was incorporated into the CAO. Mr. Chave answered that is it likely found in the definition section rather than the section currently under discussion. He agreed to find the reference and report back. Board Member Lovell summarized that the language change the Board is being asked to consider makes sense on the surface. However, if they want to allow clearing and replanting (restoration) within a critical area larger than 1,500 square feet, it should be done under the auspice of a qualified and experienced individual or organization. He asked if is possible for the City assemble a list of qualified individuals and organizations. Mr. Chave said the City could create a list of individuals and organizations that have worked with the City before, but they are not going to know all that may qualify. Therefore, there must be some sort of a process for determining whether or not a person or organization is qualified to oversee the work. It does not have to be an onerous process, but there needs to be some measure to provide assurance that the work will be overseen by qualified people. This could be as simple as requiring a resume or description of the organization or person that outlines their experience. Board Member Lovell agreed that a simple process should be incorporated to avoid situations of "weekend environmental warriors." Board Member Lovel asked if there has been any discussion in house with respect to the City's responsibility to supervise and inspect the projects. Mr. Chave agreed that supervision and inspection should be part of the equation. For example, the City could ask for a simple restoration plan to ensure that the plantings and species are appropriate. After a project is finished, City staff could inspect to make sure it was done according to the plan. Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 74 7.A.b Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to provide more information about how restoration work is done in the City. She noted that there are many different levels of restoration projects, ranging from small to large, on both private and public lands. Some are required as part of a development proposal and others are done by the Parks Department. However, many are done by individuals and groups, as well. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department does work in and around the Edmonds Marsh each year, which can be substantial. Students Saving Salmon have done a number of projects, as well. In addition, individual property owners have done work on their own stream frontages. Usually, they check with the City to find out what is required and if there are any restrictions, but sometimes people clear things away from stream banks without realizing that they need to plant something else so the stream bank does not erode. There are varying levels of projects, as well as expertise and knowledge. Many people are watching over the streams now, so it is not unusual for the City to hear about projects. This allows them to check in to make sure they are doing things right. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the proposed amendment would impact work done by the Parks Department. Mr. Chave advised that the Parks Department is currently in the process of preparing a critical area report to identify all of the projects it expects to undertake over the next year. The report will be reviewed by the Planning Department to make sure it is consistent with the CAO before issuing approval for the range of projects. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Parks Department is also subject to the 1,500-square-foot limitation. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and said that is why they are doing a critical area report. Mr. Chave advised that, oftentimes, restoration work is required as part of a private development permit. In these cases, the developer must submit a critical area report. He cautioned that the proposed amendment must be crafted carefully so that these types of projects do not fall under the exemption, as well. However, he can see situations where a development has a lot of invasive species near a stream, and it may be appropriate for them to partner with a non-profit organization to accomplish the restoration work. But most of the time, developers will be wanting to clear a site for development, and a critical area report will be required to show how the restoration work will be accomplished. Board Member Rosen agreed with the concerns and suggestions raised by Board Member Lovell. He suggested that the draft amendment provided by staff should include the following elements: how the City will determine if an individual or organization is qualified, how the City recommends that supervision take place, and how the City will validate that a group or individual has kept its promises. Board Member Robles voiced concern that the City is being asked to allocate resources without having an accurate inventory. He asked what could be done to incentivize the collection of these resources. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed amendment would only apply to areas within the City that have been categorized as critical area. Mr. Chave added that they usually fall on slopes or near streams. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the Staff Report, which appears to identify the following five options for addressing the problems: • Eliminate the area limitation for bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individual. • Eliminate the area limitation for habitat restoration projects that are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City. • Revise the area limit threshold number. • Revise the area limit threshold limit when a restoration method is proposed. • Retain the existing code language. Board Member Robles felt that the code should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for vegetation removal to extend beyond 1,500 square feet. Vice Chair Cheung asked where the 1,500-foot limitation came from, and Mr. Chave answered that it was a standard from Seattle's ordinance and was recommended by the consultant as a reasonable number. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the process for amending the CAO is a bit different than the process used for most development code amendments. Following a public hearing before the Planning Board, the proposed amendment must be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval before being presented to the City Council for final Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 75 7.A.b approval. The proposed amendment should also be considered as a potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which triggers an entirely different process. He explained that the CAO applies to critical areas throughout the City, and the SMP applies to properties with the shoreline jurisdiction only. At this point, staff is only proposing an amendment to the CAO. Depending on how that goes, they could follow up with an amendment to the SMP when it is updated again in 2019. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the Board is looking at the concept of increasing the size of the threshold. In conjunction with this, they should consider the best way to make sure the City is comfortable with the process for vetting individuals and organizations identified to supervise a project. The Board could also consider additional criteria that removal of invasive species would be exempt from the area limitation as long as native species are planted to restore the area appropriately. Mr. Chave agreed to prepare draft language for the Board's review at their next meeting based on the feedback provided. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Cheung reviewed that the January 24th agenda will include a final report on the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis and a study session on draft language to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 14th agenda will include a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and a tentative public hearing on a draft amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 28th meeting will include a public hearing on the UFMP and a discussion on code updates to permit decision making (ECDC 20.01.003(A). Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the last meeting, he inquired about when the Board would receive a report on the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. He asked that staff work to add this to the extended agenda, noting that the consultant likely provided a timeline as part of the contract. Board Member Lovell asked if the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis would be presented by the consultant or staff. Mr. Chave answered that the work is being done by the consultant, but he does know if the consultant will make the actual presentation to the Board. Board Member Lovell also asked if the consultant would present the UFMP to the Board, and Mr. Chave said he was not sure if it would be presented by the consultant or staff. Board Member Lovell asked if the Tree Board would be represented at the February 14th and February 28th meetings at which the UFMP will be discussed. Board Member Robles said he knows that the Tree Board plans to be active in future discussions, and representatives from the Tree Board will be present at the Planning Board meetings when the topic is discussed. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell advised that he would take over the responsibility of being the liaison to the Citizens Economic Development Commission. Board Member Robles reported that he has met twice with the sign committee reviewing the gateway entry sign near Westgate where the road splits to the ferry and downtown. It is an interesting group of people and the artist is brilliant. The artist has come up with three or four designs, one of which was "out of the park." He hasn't seen the updated rendition, but the ideas thus far as very nice. The intent is for the sign design to reflect how the road splits in this location. Board Member Rubenkonig once again referred to the minutes from the joint Planning Board/ADB Meeting on December 13th. They contained excellent information that will be helpful for the Board when they move to the next part of the process. It was very interesting to review what was said that evening. Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 76 7.A.c City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/10/2017 Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) (15 min.) Staff Lead: Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Department: City Council Preparer: Sandy Chase Background/History Council approved the Critical Area Ordinance Staff Recommendation None Narrative Current restoration project section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) specifies only a length of 1,500 square feet can be restored over a three year time frame. The reason for the restriction was to help ensure that large areas or phases of restoration projects would have some governmental oversight and be reviewed for consistency with best management practices. However, the limitation also means that some larger restoration projects cannot proceed without special studies, which adds to the schedule and costs for restoration. Some language suggestions have been: "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques." Removing the limit and/or time frame allows for the removing of invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. The suggested new language could help fix the CAO problem of limiting invasive plant removal beyond 1500 square feet during habitat restoration projects. Of note, is that plant removal in critical areas needs to be restricted due to erosion and soil damage, but that concern is not necessarily reasonable for habitat restoration projects where the invasive plants are being REPLACED with native plants. It is believed that putting unnecessary restrictions on this type of habitat restoration projects is counter to the CAO and SMP stated goal to encourage habitat restoration. Voluntary restoration work will not occur if it requires people to go thru the CAO critical area permitting process, and that is to the detriment of enhancing our critical areas in Edmonds. Another suggestion is that the language proposed for future restoration projects, (especially by individuals who maybe don't quite fit into the EarthCorps model of working with the City), is something that needs a more institutional integration beyond a line in the CAO. So instead of just "these restrictions don't apply to bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate Packet Pg. 77 7.A.c city department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved qualified organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it would ensure that projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being implemented. Of course a criteria would still need to be developed, and all this would totally depend on capacity within the appropriate city department (whether it be Parks or Planning) to evaluate the credentials of those proposing projects and create formal agreements for participating organizations. Another option is to use a different threshold, such as 3000 square feet instead of 1500 before requiring a detailed critical area review. Any updates to the critical area regulations must first go through a public process that includes a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Board, as well as submittal of a draft proposal to the state for amending the regulations. At this time, the PPP Committee may ask the Planning Board to consider the PPP Committee's suggestion and bring back a recommendation to the full City Council. Alternatively, the PPP Committee could choose to recommend that the full City Council formally ask the Planning Board to consider this issue and provide a recommendation. Packet Pg. 78 7.A.c 10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 2 development, Architectural Design Board review, lack of bicycle lanes on SR-104, and including graphics of the development in the Development Services Update (February 2018). Action: Councilmember Johnson supported forwarding to full Council so the public could see the materials; Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Consent Agenda. If on Consent Agenda, include the materials staff distributed in the packet. 4. Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the American's with Disabilities Act; requirements of the ADA Transition Plan; curb ramp evaluation; priority chart; and maps of high, medium and low curb ramp and sidewalk and traffic signal barrier removal projects. He reviewed the total cost of upgrades ($151,500,000) and current annual budget ($220,000). The goal of the Plan is to identify a strategy to remove barriers and establish a schedule and funding strategy. He reviewed a 15-year schedule for the projects by category, highlighted elements of the funding strategy and described public outreach. Discussion included examples of sidewalk barriers, modifying priorities based on citizen requests, grant funds secured to improve pedestrian crossings including upgrading curb ramps, ADA plan for City buildings and upcoming ADA plan for Parks, cost of this Plan, how priorities are determined, cost to have ADA ramps constructed by a contractor versus inhouse, additional staff required to do inhouse, and prioritizing short walkways. Action: Schedule for full Council 5. Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project Mr. English recalled the center joint repair did not meet strength testing at the end of project in 2016. The contractor remobilized in July 2017 including conducting bond strength tests. In mid -September the contractor stated they would remedy the deficient repairs; the City's consultant is evaluating their proposed method. The request is an increase in budget authority of $75,000 for inspection, testing, etc. Discussion followed regarding concern the proposed remedy will not meet testing standards, who pays to remedy the deficient repair, and legal advice that the City give the contractor an opportunity to make the repair. Ms. Hite clarified the deficient repair affects the longevity of the fishing pier; it is not in danger of being closed. Action: Schedule for full Council next week 6. Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) Mr. Lien explained there were public comments regarding this section (allowed activities) at the time of the CAO update. Allowed activities which include select vegetation removal such as hazard trees and invasive species are not required to have a full critical areas report. Prior to the CAO update, there was no limit on the amount of area that could be cleared. With the CAO update, a limit of 1500 within a 3-year cumulative period was established without a critical areas report. Removal of more than 1500 requires a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional. Revisions suggested in the agenda memo (prepared by Councilmember Buckshnis) included, 1) adding "bona fide restoration projects," 2) establishing a different threshold, 3) City select non-profit organizations that do restoration projects and if a group works with them, a critical area report is not required. The origin of the1500 square foot limit was Seattle's CAO. He suggested the PPP committee request the Planning Board consider this issue and provide a recommendation. Packet Pg. 79 7.A.c 10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 3 Mr. Lien relayed the agenda memo refers to the SMP and CAO. The SMP adopted a specific version of the CAO; changing the allowed activity provision in the COA does not change how the provision is implemented in shoreline jurisdiction (which includes the Edmonds Marsh). He did not recommend amending the SMP until the 2019 update. Discussion followed regarding the process for review and public hearing by the Planning Board and Council and review by the State, the recent critical areas report prepared and approved for removal of invasive species in the Edmonds Marsh, and definition of a qualified professional in the CAO. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda to refer to Planning Board The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Packet Pg. 80 7.A.c PUD is a public utility, different from PSE which owned by the Macquarie consortium, a large Australian for -profit financial instruction. PSE continues to push natural gas, which is not natural; it is basically methane which is 86 times worse than CO2 with regard to greenhouse gas. Taking into account methane releases and leaks from the point of extraction, transportation and combustion, it is as bad or worse than coal. Two-thirds of natural gas is fraked in the United States. He suggested Edmonds think about using less natural gas and avoid getting electricity from gas powered plants. His house has a natural gas furnace and he cannot afford to replace it with a more energy efficient system. Other cities including Vancouver BC prohibit gas appliances in new residential and commercial buildings. He concluded "don't by the Kool-Aid from PSE." 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY MURPHY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DELORES BJORBACK (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), BURGER KING (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND RAMON RAMOS TINOCO ($150,000.00) 5. AUGUST 2017 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. PERMIT SOFTWARE SYSTEM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) AND BUDGET APPROVAL 7. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE SECTION 23.40.220(C)(8)(A) - SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL 8. SR-524 SPEED REDUCTION 9. UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROVIDENCE/VERDANT HEALTH & SWEDISH/STEVENS CAMPUS 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE RECORDING OF A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ALONG EDMONDS WAY ADJACENT TO 10032 EDMONDS WAY 11. AUTHORIZE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT 7. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE GERDON HOUSE LOCATED AT 209 CASPERS STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q October 17, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 81 7.A.d Comment on Agenda Item 8.13 "Critical Area - Selective Vegetation Removal" Planning Board Members, I am a retired fishery biologist and 38 year resident of Edmonds serving as a volunteer adult advisor to the Edmonds-Woodway High School `Students Saving Salmon' club with whom I've worked for almost 3 years on monitoring stream water quality in Edmonds and projects to restore salmon and their habitat. I am the "citizen" referred to in the first paragraph of your Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 8.13 who advised the Council "that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)) was a concern." I asked the Council to consider amending ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(8) because the ordinance does not acknowledge that habitat restoration projects do need to occur over larger areas every year in order to be effective in restoring stream habitat for salmon. The restriction was added during the 2015/16 CAO update apparently over concerns about erosion from vegetation removal, but such concern should not apply to restoration projects whose objective is to replace invasive and non- native plants with native vegetation. This restriction placed on habitat restoration work by 23.40.220(C)(8) is counter to CAO and SMP goals to encourage habitat restoration. ECDC 23.40.220 (C) (8) only allows "the removal of [invasive and non-native] vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years." An amendment that removes the area limit and time frame will allow bona fide habitat restoration projects to proceed to remove invasive or non- native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. Such change is essential for habitat restoration work in Edmonds. Students Saving Salmon had to cease plans to restore to habitat to benefit juvenile salmon in an area of Shell Creek on Holy Rosary Church property. Please consider a simple fix to the Ordinance that doesn't add complexity or increase lead time and volunteer effort for getting habitat restoration work done. It is hard enough to coordinate getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat expertise (such as Sound Salmon Solutions or EarthCorps), property owner involvement and approval, and volunteer (students, in my case) logistics coordinated without having to also go through additional `hoops' in the Critical Area Ordinance. Students Saving Salmon coordinated their last habitat restoration project with the Edmonds Tree Board, Sound Salmon Solutions, City staff, high school administrators and Holy Rosary Church, and it was a great success! After talking to many about this CAO problem, I recommend the following sentence be added to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(a) so that habitat restoration projects are not unnecessarily restricted. "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Joe Scordino Packet Pg. 82 7.A.d January 8, 2018 Comment by Val Stewart Dear esteemed Planning Board members, I am aware that the January 101h Planning Board meeting has a scheduled item for discussion regarding allowed activities in the CAO; 23.40.220.C.8.a. Having spent nearly a decade working on restoration projects in Discovery Park for the City of Seattle and also with Students Saving Salmon along with Sound Salmon Solutions, I wanted to offer my perspective on criteria for invasive plant removal. As you know, under the current CAO only 1,500 square feet of vegetation (including invasive species) may be removed in a cumulative three year period before a critical area report is required. Both the size of the area and the 3 year period are extremely limiting given the extent of restoration work that needs to be done in the City. Planting of native species also needs to occur in a timely manner after invasives removal. Having to go through the process of getting a critical area report along with added expense will likely discourage many projects from getting underway or continuing. I agree with the proposed language: "these restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate city department". Restoration work should be conducted by a qualified organization and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques. This has certainly been the case with Earthcorps for instance, and Students Saving Salmon in conjunction with Sound Salmon Solutions. Allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis would ensure that projects and those leading them would have the necessary City oversight. It is indeed important that the volunteers and supervisors be trained in appropriate removal techniques, especially on slopes so as not to destabilize them. Training in identification of invasives as well as guidance in appropriate native species choices for replanting in specific areas is also very important. My hope is that you will take this under consideration and forward a recommendation to City Council expeditiously. Thank you. Packet Pg. 83 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/28/2018 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 02-28-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 84 OY F.➢M N pLAKIMFC� BOARD "nc. 1890 Extended Agenda February 28, 2018 Meeting Item FEBRUARY 2018 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Feb. 28 1. Public Hearing to amend the Comp. Plan map designation for ten lots from Edmonds Way Corridor to Corridor Development Highway 99) (AMD20180001) 2. Discussion on Critical Area — Select Vegetation Removal MARCH 2O18 March 14 1. Public Hearing on Amendment to Critical Areas regulations addressing Select Vegetation Removal as an Allowed Activity 2. Urban Forest Management Plan Review and Discussion March 28 1. Presentation and discussion on draft Housing Strategy APRIL 2018 April 11 1. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan (tentative) April 25 1. Public Hearing on draft Housing Strategy (tentative) MAY 2018 May 9 1. Discussion on Code Update to Permit Decision Making ECDC 20.01.003A (tentative) May 23 Packet Pg. 85 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Packet Pg. 86