2018-08-08 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 8, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of July 25, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Shoreline Mater Program Periodic Review
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
August 8, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/8/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of July 25, 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:
PB180725d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 25, 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
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was modified to add a discussion about the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as Item 5b and a discussion about the
Board's retreat as Item 8a. The remainder of 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
Chair Monroe referred the Board Members to the written Development Services Director's Report and invited Board Members
to comment. Board Member Lovell announced that he attended the July 181 Economic Development Commission meeting
where they agreed to cancel their August 151 meeting.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO)
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board held a public hearing on CAO updates to specific wetland regulations on July 1 I'
and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council. He recalled that the purpose of the proposed amendments
was to bring the wetland regulations in the CAO up to date with the Department of Ecology's (DOES) 2016 Guidance. The
intent was to adopt the updated CAO sections as part of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) during the upcoming periodic
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July
121, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council's intent to update the wetland regulations with
the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to
the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the
City Council.
Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He
explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the
same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets
of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not
much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING -QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt
revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making
responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests
that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution.
Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003:
• Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline
exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and
staff administrative design review.
• Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits,
administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required.
Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III -A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area
review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required,
shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III -A decisions are not appealable to the City Council.
Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline
substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type
III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public
hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the
Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments
(PRDs).
• Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final
PRDs and site -specific rezones.
• Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area -wide zoning
map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations.
Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the
application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of
hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say,
full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision -making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts
of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition.
Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council's discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced
frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning
Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision -making
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the
City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows:
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the
City Council to Type III -A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B
decision process would then be eliminated.
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed
as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development
agreements would be similar to the process for site -specific rezones.
• A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed
in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code.
• The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV -A quasi-judicial
decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi-
step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of
conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City
Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have
been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill
5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC
20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process.
• An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic
downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision
has expired and will be removed.
• All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director.
• ECDC 17.00.030.0 would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public
agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the
City Council holds a closed -record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council
out of this quasi-judicial process.
• ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a
property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it
has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs
counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and
no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with
permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other
administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be
deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with
conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be
added.
• There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings
(ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals
of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to
combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures
before the Hearing Examiner.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action.
The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV
process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City
Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are
similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the
underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the
review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the
development agreement. For example, a site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely
be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial
process.
Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing
before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design
review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types
of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now
would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site -specific rezones and development
agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked
if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a
development agreement might be.
City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him
working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record
public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation
to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed -record public hearing,
the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on
their discussion. Because the City Council's hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new
information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn't ask the questions and get all
of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the
Council's review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process
is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site -specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to
adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that
is put forward by the Planning Board.
Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the
City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However,
it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the
appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner
and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they
are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move
the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and
have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and
citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court.
He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner
decisions.
Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added
that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to
attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that
appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that
appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well.
Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision -
making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien
said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be
modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and
Planning Board to do.
Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions
that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision
made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court.
City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in
the City Council's decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent
their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their
constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to
fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When
this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City
Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would
be minimized.
City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public
hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness
rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to
represent their constituents' viewpoints.
Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior
Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney
to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood
the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No
public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the
City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the
City Attorney's Office is retained on a flat -fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there
is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City
Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City's case while the City Attorney represents the City
Council.
Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington
Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the
quasi-judicial decision -making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public.
Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which
has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the
right way to implement the resolution.
Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months
following the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for
Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of
the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents
have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that
the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing
fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court.
Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable.
However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of
Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts,
most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed
with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions.
The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City
Council should retain the right to make the final decision.
Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply
maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go
forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of
LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that
appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is
appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take
significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to
consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to
citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works.
Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson's written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land
use decisions as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the
determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. " He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this
criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and
City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority,
which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed.
Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process
was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010.
Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals.
Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior
Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court,
but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals.
Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned
why the City Council does not want to retain this decision -making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of
Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court.
Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same
could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte
communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to
serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City
Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair
Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the
rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and
the City.
Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not
be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work
was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate
in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and
couldn't help represent the citizen's concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is
analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the
proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City
Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information
needed to make a recommendation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung's earlier comment comparing the City Council's role to that of a jury.
He explained that for site -specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the
jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets
to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The
Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council
does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He
summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal
stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently
asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE
CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT
DATED JULY 25, 2018.
Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial
decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he
suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have
been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial
of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council's direction in Resolution No. 1367.
Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien's earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less
if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the
legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney
Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to
step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when
they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes.
Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn't so
high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens.
As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to
develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that
establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the
process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents.
Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk
to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments
are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from
major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals
he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get
representation, but it is not a requirement.
City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City
Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA
action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads
the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for
consideration.
Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember's decision. City Attorney Taraday
explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A
Councilmember who is strongly anti -development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a
decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It
would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have
encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on
feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms
of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real -life experiences.
Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare.
City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments
represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application
process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the
values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use
applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday's
2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions
made in the quasi-judicial process.
CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision -making
process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He
said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be
adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the
pros and cons before making a final decision.
CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY
COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG
SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND.
Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the
City's codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential
conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different
for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking
before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably
more experienced and have their own counsel.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Monroe closed the public hearing.
The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5
Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board
of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents
or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered
no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member
of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective
manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member's participation
as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the
hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
Mr. Shipley advised that the applicant is proposing to rezone the subject sites (9107 and 9111 — 2361 Street SW) from Single -
Family Residential (RS-8) to Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5). The two sites are currently developed with a single-family
residential use and a legal, non -conforming multi -family use. If adopted, the proposal would bring the non -conforming multi-
family use into compliance with the zoning ordinance. The parcels were developed under Snohomish County zoning between
1958 and 1970, and the subject site was annexed into the City in 1997.
Mr. Shipley reminded the Board of the criteria it must consider when reviewing site -specific rezone applications:
Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
Map designation change from Single Family Urban I to Edmond Way Corridor was heard by the City Council on
October 17, 2017. The Council made the motion to approve the map change, but the amendment was inadvertently
omitted from the ordinance adopting the 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Council is scheduled to take
action on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments on August 21 ". Once adopted, the zoning proposal will be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy that
multi -family uses must be located near arterial or collector streets. The parcels are located on 236r' Street SW but are
within 300 feet of Edmonds Way where there is public transportation. Therefore, the proposal meets the criteria for
being adjacent to a major arterial.
• Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The current zoning designation allows one
single-family home per lot, and the proposed new zoning designation would allow a density of six units on the 9107
property and 14 units on the 9111 property. If the lots are combined, a total of 21 units would be allowed. Rezoning
the property would bring the current multi -family use into conformance with the code.
• Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of
surrounding or nearby property. Surrounding uses in the subject area are primarily multi -family and single-family
residential. There is some light commercial at the corner of 236' Street SW and SR-104. The subject site is bordered
on three sides by multi -family (RM-1.5) zoning, and single-family (RS-8) zoning abuts the subject site to the west.
Staff believes the proposed rezone is compatible with the surrounding area.
• Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city
policy to justify the rezone. The proposed zoning is justified as the area is already developed with multi -family
residential that has existed since the late 1970's. Rezoning the property would bring the current non -conforming
multi -family use into compliance.
• Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing
zoning and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area and parcels elsewhere in the same zoning. The neighborhood surrounding the
subject parcels has long been developed with either single-family homes or apartments. The site is located about 300
feet from a major arterial so the traffic impact to the neighborhood would be minimal. If rezoned for multi -family
use, a future development application would be required to submit a traffic impact analysis. A SEPA and Architectural
Design Board review would also be required for any proposal with more than four units.
• Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in
value to the property owner. There would be an increase in value to the property owners if the proposal is approved,
and the greatest impact of future development would be to the single-family zone adjacent to the subject site. During
the Comprehensive Plan amendment public hearing, one neighbor voiced concern about the allowable building heights
under RM-1.5 but appeared satisfied after the discussion. There have been no comments or questions related to the
rezone proposal to date.
Mr. Shipley recommended the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested rezone as
outlined in the Staff Report.
The applicant, Martin Reimers, did not have any additional comments to add but indicated he was available to answer questions.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
John Lange, Edmonds, said that until three years ago, he was the property manager for the apartment units located on the
subject site. He was impressed with the quality of the owners. The owners repaired things and managed the properties well,
doing upgrades when needed. They did not let them fall into disrepair with the hope of getting a rezone at some point in the
future. They maintained high -quality tenants, as well. The property was a benefit to the community.
Board Member Lovell asked about access to the property, and Mr. Shipley answered that each property has a separate access
from 236' Street SW. Board Member Lovell asked if surrounding property owners have commented regarding the proposed
rezone, and Mr. Shipley answered that no comments were received relative to the rezone application, but one adjacent property
owner voiced concern during the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing about height. After he let her know that the height
limit would not be significantly different, she appeared to be satisfied with the proposed change. Board Member Lovell asked
if the property owner intends to demolish the existing buildings and redevelop the site. Mr. Reimers indicated the intent is to
redevelop the site under the RM-1.5 zoning.
Chair Monroe asked how many people live on the subject site now, and Mr. Reimers answered that there are seven apartment
units and one single-family home. Chair Monroe pointed out that the rezone would allow up to 21 units, depending on whether
or not the lots are combined. He asked about traffic impacts, and Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that a traffic study would
be required as part of any development application.
Board Member Robles pointed out that 236r' Street is posted as 25 miles per hour and is a major driveway to Madrona School.
It also connects with SR-104, which has a D rating for traffic with a recent motorcycle accident. It is important to note that a
traffic study will be required.
Board Member Robles asked if adjacent property owners were actively notified of the proposed change, and Mr. Shipley
answered that notices were posted on the site and mailed to property owners. Notice was also published in the local newspapers
and on the City's website.
Board Member Robles recalled that there were some recent problems with stormwater runoff during a significant storm. He
asked if stormwater issues would be addressed as part of a development proposal. Mr. Shipley responded that improvements
have been made in the area recently and stormwater would be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a
development permit.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS
AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9107 AND 9111-
236TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-
1.5). CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL PLANNING BOARD RETREAT
In light of the Board's recent work on the Housing Strategy, Board Member Lovell suggested it would be helpful to talk about
one or more aspects of the strategies implementation at their retreat. Options include:
• Invite a developer to talk about what they need to develop affordable housing on a given piece of land in Edmonds.
• An independent discussion and presentation by staff as to the available lands. The Available Lands Inventory could
be used to identify where different types of housing might be developed.
• Pick a hypothetical property that may involve a rezone to accommodate affordable housing. What would the steps
and process be to get that done?
Chair Monroe noted that Board Member Crank previously suggested that a representative from Blockable be invited to share
information with the Board.
The Board decided to postpone further discussion about the retreat until more Board Members were present to participate.
They were invited to email potential agenda topics to staff.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the August 8' agenda will include a discussion about the SMP periodic review and potential dates
and agenda topics for the retreat. The August 22nd agenda will include continued discussion about the SMP periodic review
and a presentation on additional amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no Board Member comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/8/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Report.08.06.18
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
of EbAf
r
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
MEMORANDUM
August 3, 2018
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within
you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change
the world."
-Harriett Tubman
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board meets next on August 8. The agenda includes a review of the Shoreline
Master Plan.
REGIONAL NEWS
VISION 2040 Award
The Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan will receive a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) at the Edmonds City Council meeting on August 7. PSRC is an
overarching metropolitan organization representing four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce, and
Kitsap) and all the cities within them. This is the first time Edmonds has been given a VISION
2040 award, which is based on a competitive process and criteria. The award recognizes the
project's value as an outstanding planning example for the region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
The SCT Steering Committee met July 25, with an agenda with an agenda that included:
❑ Update on PSRC activities
❑ Update on Economic Alliance Snohomish Count
❑ Public Health and Planning Intersect (i.e., how land use/transportation planning and
good levels of public health work together)
1IPage
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)
AHA—a countywide organization of which Edmonds is a member —has announced that over
$500,000 is available for qualified housing projects. You can find the official Notice, as well as
Combined Funders Application (CFA) forms, and the AHA Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Policy Manual
on the AHA website, here. These funds are for use on projects within Snohomish County by
nonprofit agencies, public housing authorities and cities or towns within Snohomish County.
Funds come from Snohomish County Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 2 funds, per RCW 82.46.037
Section (1) (b) and (c), as well as the Town of Woodway's general fund. Projects must apply
these funds to projects or units that will provide homeless housing, and also demonstrate the
ability to expend all awarded funds by June, 2019. More details can be found in the online
announcement. Applications are due by COB October 30th, 2018.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ Our central Puget Sound region continues to draw newcomers. PSRC figures for 2018
show that 67,860 people were added to our region in just the last year.
❑ PSRC's Executive Board has approved the annual adjustment of Federal Transit
Administration funding, which boosted transit funding to our region by $38.8 million for
2018.
❑ A Regional Aviation Baseline Study will launch soon to better understand the region's
airports and their long-term aviation needs.
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The Architectural Design Board met on August 1, 2018. The meeting included:
❑ The first was Paradise Heights, a 12 unit multifamily project at 546 Paradise Lane
(PLN20180025). Following a public hearing, the Board approved the project with
conditions.
❑ The second project was the Edmonds-Woodway High School synthetic turf conversion
project at 7600 212t" Street SW (PLN20180014). After presentations and discussion, the
Board recommended approval of the project's design with conditions. This review is
consolidated with three other land use permits so all four will next go to the Hearing
Examiner. He will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation on all four permits
to the City Council, who will make the final decision on the project.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission meets next on August 6. An agenda will be posted on-line when available.
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board meets next on August 16. Its agenda will be posted on-line when available.
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met on August 2. The agenda included:
❑ Discussed upcoming meeting
❑ Discussed summary report of Taming Big Foot
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 16
5.A.a
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on August 1. Its agenda included:
❑ Update from City
❑ Closed captioning in public venues
❑ Presentation of recommendations to Mayor and Council
❑ Film series, World Cafe
❑ Incident Response Language
❑ Incidents in Community and Commission Role
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission meets next on August 15. An agenda will be posted on-
line when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner has no meeting scheduled for August 9.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission meets next on August 9. An agenda will be posted on-line
when available.
Tree Board
The Tree Board's August 2 meeting included:
❑ Update on upcoming events activity
❑ Discussion of City web page content
❑ 2018 Budget & planning for 2019 Budget
City Council
The Council's July 24 meeting included:
❑ Presentation from Bicycle Advisory Group
❑ Adoption of: (a) Ordinance for Safe Storage of Firearms; and (b) Ordinance for Reporting
Lost or Stolen Firearms
❑ Public Hearing and approval of HPC's recommendation for eligibility of Yost House (658
Maple St) for Register of Historic Places
❑ Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy
❑ Critical Areas Update to use most recent Ecology guidance.
The Council's August 7 meeting will include:
❑ PSCRC VISION 2040 Award
❑ Verdant Health Commission Update
❑ Review of 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
❑ Review of Revised Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
❑ Annual Transportation Benefit District Report
❑ Council Discussion of 2019 Budget.
31
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• August 3: Outdoor movie nights (Wonder), Frances Anderson Center field, 8:45 pm
• August 4: Port of Edmonds 70th Anniversary, at Marina at 11 am
• August 5: Sea Jazz, Port of Edmonds Public Plaza, 1— 3 pm
• August 5: Concerts at City Park, 3pm
• August 10 —August 12: Taste of Edmonds
• August 13: Low Tide Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor Station, 12 pm
• August 16: Art Walk, downtown at 5 pm
41
Packet Pg. 18
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/8/2018
Shoreline Mater Program Periodic Review
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must
prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored
to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The SMP is essentially
a combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system for shoreline
specific uses.
The SMA requires each city and county to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every
eight years. The legislature set a staggered schedule that alternates with similar reviews under the
Growth Management Act. The City of Edmonds is required to complete its SMP periodic review by June
30, 2019.
The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1411 initiating the periodic review and adopting the
Work Program and Public Participation Plan on May 22, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Continue review of SMP revisions at future Planning Board meetings.
Narrative
The periodic review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent
with other City of Edmonds plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new
information and improved data.
The City of Edmonds just completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017. This
comprehensive update took many years to complete and some recent amendments to the SMA and
shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated in the City's SMP. Attachment 1 contains the periodic
review checklist which identifies recent statutory and regulatory amendments that relate to shorelines.
Most of the updates identified in the SMP Periodic Review Checklist are minor in nature and will not
substantially modify the SMP adopted in 2017.
Staff added the Other Review Elements section to the end of Ecology's checklist to identify a couple of
other items that maybe amended with this periodic update. Updates to the SMP may result from the
site specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City including updating the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated
Packet Pg. 19
8.A
with the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction. Additionally, staff identified section ECDC 24.80.100
for process clarifications how a shoreline permit review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to
a public hearing process (Type III).
Staff has also recommended that the City of Edmonds revise its critical area ordinance (CAO) wetland
regulations for consistency with Department of Ecology's most recent Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates. The recent CAO update was completed prior to Ecology's issuance of their updated wetland
guidance. This updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to
include the most recent guidance on wetlands. As a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland
regulations, one that applies in shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating the CAO by reference will provide consistency for
wetland regulation within the City.
Attachment 2 contains the proposed code amendments in Title 24 ECDC for the issues that are noted in
the SMP Periodic Review Checklist. Staff will review these amendments at the Planning Board meeting.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: SMP Periodic Review Checklist
Attachment 2: Proposed SMP Periodic Review Code Revisions to Title 24 ECDC
Packet Pg. 20
8.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
qVIIIIiiiiim State of Washington
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Periodic Review Checklist
Introduction
This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns conducting the "periodic review' of
their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local
circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology's rule outlining procedures for conducting these
reviews is at WAC 173-26-090.
This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted
between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews.
How to use this checklist
See Section 2 of Ecology's Periodic Review Checklist Guidance document for a description of each item,
relevant links, review considerations, and example language.
At the beginning: Use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local
amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
At the end: Use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP
addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-
090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information
on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.
Row Summary of change
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that the definition of
"development" does not include
dismantling or removing
structures.
C. Ecology adopted rules that clarify
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
Review
ECDC 24.80.010.13.1 lists a
threshold value of $5,718.
ECDC 24.90.020.1 does not
include the clarifying sentence
at the end of the definition
noting that "development"
does not include dismantling
or removing structures.
ECDC 24.80 does not include
the clarifications for
exceptions to local review.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
Action
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold.
Definition of development
should be updated.
Should add new section to
ECDC 24.80 consistent with
WAC 173-27-044 and 173-27-
045.
1
Packet Pg. 21
Row i Summary of change
d. Ecology amended rules that
clarify permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
e. Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
"developments" and do not
require SDPs.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
g. Ecology clarified "default"
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
III
Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
Review
Administrative procedures in
24.80 are consistent with the
permit filing procedures
adopted un SSB 5192.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
relies on the Forest Practices
Act (RCW 76.09) for forestry
activities within shoreline
jurisdiction as recommended
by WAC 173-26-241(3)(e).
No shoreline areas within
Edmonds jurisdiction are
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
contains a nonconforming
development chapter
(Chapter 24.70 ECDC).
The only mention of periodic
reviews (updates) in the SMP
is under the Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
section in ECDC 24.80.150.
ECDC 24.80.150.A notes a
cumulative effecters review
every seven years with the
SMP update.
Joint public hearings with
other local, state, regional,
federal or other public agency
allowed by ECDC 20.06.001.
City of Edmonds may consider
the optional SMP amendment
process during the periodic
update.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
does not contain a description
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
_I�� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
Should considered amending
provision requiring a
nonconforming structure
which is moved any distance
to be brought into full
conformance. Current
language may act a
disincentive to making
something less
nonconforming (e.g. move
further away from shoreline).
Consider adding line regarding
periodic reviews under City
Council's Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
(ECDC 24.80.150.C) and
correct the update frequency
in ECDC 24.80.150.A.
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
2
Packet Pg. 22
Row
2016
a.
b.
2015
a.
2014
a.
b.
2012
i Summary of change
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structures to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
The Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) for replacement docks on
lakes and rivers to $20,000 (from
$10,000).
The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on -water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
Review
of the SMP submittal process
for Ecology's review.
The list of exemptions in ECDC
24.80.010.13 does not contain
and exemption regarding ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds included
the most recent wetland
guidance (June 2016) within
its SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
currently does not contain the
special procedure for WSDOT
projects.
ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b lists a
threshold value of $10,000.
The City of Edmonds does not
have any floating on -water
residences and new on -water
residences are prohibited.
These provisions are not
about appeals of individual
permits. They describe the
appeal pathway after
Ecology's approval of an SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
does not describe the appeal
process of an SMP.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring ECDC 23.50.010.A (which is
that wetlands be delineated in 1 adopted by the SMP)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
_I� State of Washington
Action
The list of exemptions should
be updated to add the new
exemption for ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds should
considered updating the CAO
with the June 2016 guidance
prior to updating the SMP so
the same wetland regulations
will apply both within and
outside shoreline iurisdiction.
A new section could be added
to ECDC 24.80 to address the
90-day review target for
WSDOT projects.
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold. .
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
3
Packet Pg. 23
Row i Summary of change
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
_2011.
d. The Legislature authorized a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
2010
The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act — Shoreline
Management Act clarifications.
2009
a. The Legislature created new
"relief" procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High Water
Mark.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
Review
references the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual for designating
wetlands.
Geoducks are not specifically
addressed in the aquaculture
section (ECDC 24.60.010);
however, given the urbanized
shoreline, geoduck
aquaculture in Edmonds is
highly unlikely.
No existing floating homes
within Edmonds and new on -
water residences are
prohibited.
Nonconforming structures
addressed in ECDC 24.70.020.
SMP was developed with
GMA/SMA integration taken
under consideration.
This "relief" procedure is not
explicitly referenced in the
SMP; however, the process
may be used even if the
provision is not in the SMP.
Critical area regulations
incorporated in the SMP
authorizes the use of wetland
mitigation banks.
c. The Legislature added moratoria Moratoria not explicitly
authority and procedures to the addressed in the SMP.
SMA.
2007
a. The Legislature clarified options Floodway not defined in SMP
for defining "floodway" as either or CAO.
the area that has been
established in FEMA maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the SMA.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIECOLOGY
MOWS� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
Consider adopting "relief" rule
by reference, or granting relief
incorporate the rule into the
SMP to make it clear that this
process is available.
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary
A definition of floodway
should be added to the CAO
noting that floodways are the
area established in the FEMA
maps.
0
Packet Pg. 24
Row Summary of change
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
C. Ecology's rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181.
Other Review Elements
Review
Shoreline jurisdiction in the
City of Edmonds is defined
within the text of the SMP and
on maps.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
provides an exemption for fish
habitat enhancement
projects, but does not contain
all of the language included in
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p).
8.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
momod ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Action
Review and revise shoreline
jurisdiction as necessary.
Consider amending the
exemption provision to match
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) or
simplify the language to
reference the exemption.
In addition to ensuring consistency with changes to the state laws and rules identified above,
the City of Edmonds is considering reviewing and modifying (as necessary) the following
elements of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
SMP Section
Edmonds
Marsh, UMU IV
shoreline
designation,
Shoreline
Inventory and
Characterization
24.80.100
Summary
Review
Action
The Edmonds Marsh was
The City of Edmonds has
Results from the
identified as a shoreline of the
contracted with a
Edmonds Marsh study
state relatively late in the
consultant to assess the
will be used to update
previous SMP update and
ecological functions of the
the Shoreline Inventory
appropriate shoreline
marsh and evaluate buffer
and Characterization and
regulations surrounding the
widths that will ensure
could result in
marsh was the subject of
effective site -specific buffer
modifications to UMU IV
significant public comment and
functions.
shoreline regulations.
discussion before the City
Council.
This section identifies when a
Clarification should be
Consider establishing a
public hearing is required for a
added to how a review
process similar to the
shoreline substantial
moves from a staff decision
contingent review
development permit. In some
process (Type II) to a public
process in critical areas
instances, a shoreline permit
hearing process (Type III).
section ECDC 23.40.195.
may begin the process as a
staff decision but require a
public hearing if one or more
interested persons request a
public hearing.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
5
Packet Pg. 25
8.A.b
Edmonds Page 1115
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
24.40.020 Critical areas.
A. Applicability. Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: wetlands, areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
B. The city of Edmonds critical area ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated May 3,
2016, Ord. 4026 and as amended by Ord. 4106 and Ord. XXXX), is herein adopted as a part of this program, except
for the specific subsections list below in subsection (C) of this section. All references to the city of Edmonds critical
area ordinance in this program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds critical
area ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in subsection (C) of
this section, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline
permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40
through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B of this master program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the city of Edmonds critical area
ordinance and this shoreline master program, provisions of the shoreline master program shall prevail.
C. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the critical area ordinance listed below shall not apply to development
within shoreline jurisdiction.
1. General Provisions.
a. ECDC 23.40.130(D), Monitoring Program.
b. ECDC 23.40.210, Variances.
2.. ail
a. ECDC z3.50.n1 n��edand Ratings.
b. ECDC 23.50.n^n Standard Buffer- Widths.
e. ECDC 23.50•040(F)(2), Required Measures to Minimize ists-to Wetlands.
d. ECDC 23.5A-040(Kr Small, u..arolegieally iseluted Wetlands.
-32. Geologically Hazardous Areas.
a. ECDC 23.80.040(B)(1) and (2), allowed activities in geologically hazardous areas.
D. Development Limitations.
1. All uses, modifications and activities on sites containing marine shorelines, environmentally sensitive areas
and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in
these areas unless in conflict with the provisions of this master program.
2. The site must be specifically designed so that hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area
and/or critical areas will be mitigated.
3. Mitigation Sequencing. In order to comply with subsection (D)(2) of this section, a shoreline permit
applicant or project proponent shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient
mitigation such that the activity does not have significant adverse impacts. Mitigation shall occur in the
following prioritized order:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using
appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to
avoid or reduce impacts.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 26
8.A.b
Edmonds Page 2/15
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical
3
conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project.
2
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations
m
during the life of the action.
0
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
a
E
4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing
�a
a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example,
a
monitoring shall occur in years one, two, three, five, seven, and 10 after site construction), and how the
L
monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report
shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the
compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that
performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than 10 years.
L
5. Long -Term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The city shall require documentation that a mitigation site has
0
W
been permanently preserved from future development or alteration that would be inconsistent with the
functions of the mitigation. The documentation may include, but is not limited to, a conservation easement,
V
deed restriction or other agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such
V
documentation shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor.
w
N
E. Wetlands. Wetlands these designa4ed in WAG 173 22 035, 4ia4 ipmadated
d
afe afeas, aeeardanee with are or-
H
O
to
0
>
.
landscape these Jdly 1, 1990, that the
amenities, or wetlands oreated after were unin4en4ionally ereated as a result of
highway. Wetlands include those intentionally fre
.0y
d
construction of a road, street, or may artifieial wetlands oreated
nonwetland areas to mitigate the eonversion of wetlands.
Wetlands be to the Washington Department
shall rated aeeerdiag efEeelogywedand rating as setU
system,1.
ferth in the Washington Sta4e Wetland Rating System fer Westem Washing4ea: 2014 Upda4e
3
(Eeelagy
m
methods for- deter -mining whether- the a fite -i below ., o et
>
Category 1. Category 1 larger than
a. wetlands are: (i) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands one acre-,-
(ii) high 3value that identified by the Washington Natural
0
wetlands of eonservation are seientists of
Heritage Progran:DDNR; (iii) bogs; (iv) forested larger than
L
ni-Aure and old growth wetlands one aer-e4,v)-
a
a
than thm fune6eas 23 These
ene aere; and (vii) wetlands perform many well (sear-ing pain4s or- mere).
cn
...
m
N
within a human lifetime; or- (iv) pr-avide a high level of fidnetions.
a
0
b. Category H. Category 11 (i) than disturbed
wetlands are: estuarine wetlands smaller one acre, or
larger than
estuarine wetlands one ;
high level funetions between 20
C
mesaie of wetlands; er (iii) wedands with a meder-ately of (sear-ing an
E
t)
Category HL Category H! (i) level funetions (seoring
t4
e. wetlands are: wetlands with a moderate of
between 16 19 be
r
a
and points); (ii) can often adequately replaeed with a well planned mitigation proj ;
(iii) interdanal between tenth Wetlands between 16 19
and wetlands one and one aere. seoring and poi
have been disturbed in less diverse isolated from
generally some ways and are often or more other natffal
,anlsea.othan
resourees nthe Category 11 wetlands
a
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 27
8.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
ffi
�.
.. M-1 W. , WN --- I
Page 3/15
Buffer
Width
(in Feet)
Based
c........
on
Lu.../bitat
Based PM tota-1 seoree
7-5
4AD5
4-6-5
2-M
FB"EgE�— ds high
440
2-M
of eensel=vatiefl VaIii
3
A)
m
=a
0
�L
w
a.
E
L
0
L
a.
C�
G
S
0
W
\r
U
G
U
W
N
d
H
O
N
C
0
An
0
N
O
U
3
m
a�
�a
O
�L
a
a
2
Cn
m
0
0.
0
L
N
C
d
t
C�
a
a
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 28
8.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
Page 4/15
c,.ore
Pr Buffer Width /:« Feet) Based on
[R et and Category�..4
}
5
LLu�'.fbitat
OT
cn
Categefy
w•
1�5
MENEENEL—
Forested
"5
�_
Esttwine
4-50
/bu ff ..ykdth not based on habitat s Fe\
�22e
7-5
195
4§55
Category r
te
T«..,7tmal. etl,.«,1..
0
ii5
Category
IT -,.«:«e
4-W
/ 1... FF «.. :.7t1. not 1.....e.7 on l...l.it..t - «e\
on
Category
60
) 95
5
5
Categery A' 1"I
40
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 29
8.A.b
Edmonds Page 5115
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
Dtist I Use be��ge en4 praefieesto� �l
lost
qW
BUffleF
Width
(in Feet)
Based
on Habitat SC;OF
am7efland Catego
-7
'
EE. Geologically Hazardous Areas. Development in designated geologically hazardous areas shall be regulated in
accordance with the following:
1. New development or the creation of lots should not be allowed that would cause foreseeable risk from
geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development.
2. New development should not be allowed that would require structural shoreline stabilization over the
normal, useful life of the development. Exception may be made for instances where stabilization is necessary to
protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will
result. The stabilization measures shall conform to ECDC 24.50.020, Shoreline stabilization.
3. Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible,
and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or measures to protect
existing primary residential structures may be all in conformance with ECDC 24.50.020 requirements and then
only if no net loss of ecological functions will result.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 30
Edmonds
Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
GF. Critical Saltwater Habitats.
Page 6/15
1. Development shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when all of the conditions below
are met:
a. The public's need for such an action or structure is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent
with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020.
b. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible
or would result in unreasonable and disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose.
c. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions
associated with critical saltwater habitat.
d. The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery.
2. Private, noncommercial docks for individual residential or community use may be allowed; provided, that:
a. Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
b. The project, including any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions
associated with critical saltwater habitat.
3. Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, all overwater and nearshore
developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to conduct a habitat assessment of the site and
adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions.
14G. Critical Freshwater Habitats. Existing hydrological connections into and between water bodies, such as streams
and wetlands, shall be maintained. Obstructed channels shall be reestablished as a condition of non -water -dependent
uses, where feasible.
1=H. Additional Authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have, the city is hereby authorized to
condition or deny a proposed use, modification or activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated
with the use, modification or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical area, and/or the effect of
the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 24.70
NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
Sections:
24.70.000
Purpose.
24.70.010
Nonconforming uses.
24.70.020
Nonconforming development, building and/or structure.
24.70.030
Nonconforming lots.
24.70.040
Nonconforming signs.
24.70.050
Nonconforming local public facilities.
Page 7/15
24.70.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Nonconforming uses are shoreline uses which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the
Shoreline Management Act or this master program, or amendments thereto, but which do not conform to present
regulations or standards of this master program or policies of the Act.
B. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to adoption of this master program or any
relevant amendment and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a
nonconforming use. A use which is listed as a conditional use but which existed prior to the applicability of this
master program to the site and for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a
nonconforming use.
C. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (D) of this section, but it may not
be expanded in any way, including additional lot areas, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or
hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 24.70.050.
D. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for six consecutive months or for 12 months during any two-year
period, any subsequent use shall be conforming. It shall not be necessary to show that the owner of the property
intends to abandon such nonconforming use in order for the nonconforming rights to expire. Uses such as
agricultural or aquiculture, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the seasonal use is not utilized
during one full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement
cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in
ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., is filed within six -eighteen months of the date such damage occurred. After the
application has been filed, only one 180-day extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (D)(2) of this section shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's
agent; or
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
the owner's agent.
c. In the event that subsection (D)(3)(a) or (b) of this section applies, the nonconforming use shall be
abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be determined as
proved in ECDC 24.70.020.
E. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the conforming or
nonconforming status of the building or structure in which it is housed. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 32
Edmonds Page 8/15
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
24.70.020 Nonconforming development, building and/or structure.
A. Nonconforming development means a shoreline development which was lawfully constructed or established prior
to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act or this master program, or amendments thereto, but which
does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program.
B. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site development standards
applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such standards due to the enactment or amendment
of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure
annexed to the city. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was
annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation of the city of
Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
C. A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming structure and the
requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting nonconformities.
D. A nonconforming development, building and/or structure which is moved any distance must be brought as
closely as practicable into conformance with this master program.
E. Nonconforming development, building and/or structure may be maintained and continued, unless required to be
abated elsewhere in this chapter or section; provided, that it is not enlarged, intensified, increased, or altered in any
way which increases its nonconformity except as expressly provided in subsections (F) though (L) of this section.
F. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by reconstruction of a
building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Register
of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds register of historic places, or
is listed in a council approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation. "Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the
same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code and
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction
of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code.
G. If a nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not exceeding 75
percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size, shape and lot location as
existing immediately prior to the time the structure was damaged, so long as restoration is either:
1. Completed within one year of the date of damage; or
2. Completed within one year of the date of issuance of all required permits, so long as applications for such
permits are vested within si*-eiehteen months of the date of damage and are pursued in a timely manner.
H. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall
be appealable as Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
I. The right of restoration described in subsection (E) of this section shall not apply if:
1. The development, building and/or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner
or the owner's agent; or
2. The development, building and/or structure is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross
negligence of the owner or the owner's agents.
J. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely
for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without
regard to the limitations of subsections (D), (E) and (G) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are
met:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.b
Edmonds Page 9/15
Chapter 24.70 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure.
"Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which
the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and
provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and
is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with
current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state
law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming
accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it
is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after
complying with current codes. "Substantial compliance" shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff
decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB rather than the hearing examiner. The
decision of the ADB shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
K. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall
be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively demonstrates that the
accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1,
1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption
may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
L. B135 Zone. The B135 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing residential
structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the BD5 zone, conforming
and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 and this
master program without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor elevation requirements of
ECDC 16.43.030(B). [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 34
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Chapter 24.80
ADMINISTRATION — SHORELINE PERMITS
Page 10115
Sections:
24.80.000 Purpose.
24.80.010 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process.
24.80.020 Letter of exemption.
24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews.
24.80.030 Review criteria for all development.
24.80.040 Substantial development permit criteria.
24.80.050 Conditional use permit criteria.
24.80.060 Variance permit criteria.
24.80.070 Minimum application requirements.
24.80.080 Notice of application.
24.80.090 Special procedures for limited utility extensions and bulkheads.
24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects — Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use
reeulations
24.80.100 Public hearings.
24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT projects.
24.80.110 Notice of decision, reconsideration, and appeals.
24.80.120 Initiation of development.
24.80.130 Revisions.
24.80.140 Time requirements of shoreline permits.
24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility.
24.80.160 Compliance.
24.80.170 Enforcement.
24.80.010 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process.
A. Application and Interpretation.
1. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or
more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.
2. An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with
the Shoreline Management Act or the city of Edmonds shoreline master program, or from any other regulatory
requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions
of this master program and the Shoreline Management Act.
3. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance
standards of the master program, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a variance.
4. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this master program, or is an unlisted use,
must obtain a conditional use permit even though the development or use does not require a substantial
development permit.
5. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
6. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is
required for the entire proposed development project.
7. The city of Edmonds may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as
necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this master program.
B. Exemptions Listed. The following developments shall not require substantial development permits:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.b
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 11115
1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed
$5-,7U7,047, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection must be adjusted for inflation every
five years consistent with WAC 173-27-040(2)(a). For purposes of determining whether or not a permit is
required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on
shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the
development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or
materials.
2. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or
elements. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a
lawfully established condition. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance,
within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse
effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as
repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the
replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not
limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause
substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment.
3. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A "normal protective"
bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the
ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant
structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the
purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not
more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. When an existing bulkhead is
being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further
waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has
deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water
landward of the bulkhead then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high
water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion control projects may be considered a normal
protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the
project has been approved by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An "emergency" is an
unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment which requires immediate action
within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter. Emergency construction does not include
development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective
structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation,
upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have
been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the local master
program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and
the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and
may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency.
5. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys.
6. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their
own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 25 feet above average grade
level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof,
other than requirements imposed pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. "Single-family residence" means a detached
dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a
contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance as defined in ECDC 24.90.010(F). Construction
authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark.
7. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private
noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and multiple -family residences.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 36
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 12/15
A dock is a landing and moorage facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage
facilities or other appurtenances. This exception applies if either:
a. In salt waters (Puget Sound), the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500; or
b. In fresh waters (Lake Ballinger) the fair market value of the dock does not exceed: (A) twenty thousand
dollars for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than
the existing dock being replaced; or (B) $10,000ten thousand dollars for all other docks constructed in
fresh waters.; b>A-However, if subsequent construction having a fair- ma-r et valt e exeeedia . $2,500 occurs
within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the
subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall
be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter.
8. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now
exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making
use of system waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands.
9. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly
interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water.
10. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other similar drainage or utility
facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an
agricultural drainage or diking system.
11. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW.
12. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for
development authorization under this chapter, if:
a. The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waters;
b. The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to
fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values;
c. The activity does not involve the installation of any structure, and upon completion of the activity the
vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activity;
d. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or
provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure that the site is restored
to preexisting conditions; and
e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550.
13. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the
use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final
environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology
jointly with other state agencies under Chapter 43.21C RCW.
14. Watershed restoration projects as defined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o). The administrator shall review the
projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision
along with any conditions within 45 days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for
exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for
watershed restoration projects as used in this section.
15. Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or
fish passage, that conforms to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. ^ �..W; . to „ eet that is deSigfoa *�
fish of wildlife habitat of f4sh passage, when
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 37
Edmonds Page 13/15
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
a. The project has been approved in vffiting by the Department of Fish and Wildlife;
3
2
chapter 77.55 n GIAI; and
V
The has determined that the is the loeal
a
O
program.e.
eity project substantially eonsistent with shoreline master
The determination in timely it by letter to the
L
eity shall make sueh a manner and provide projeet propon
[Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
a)
a
E
�a
16. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access
a
to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
m
d
24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or
c
other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following;
W
A. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant
G
to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.1051) RCW, or to the Department of
U
Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW.
w
N
B. Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person
installingsite 'te improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a
national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
o
N
C. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State
C
g
Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to
y
obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review.
a�
D. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
o
U
E. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50
RCW.
>
d
.a
02
24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects —Relief from shoreline master program development standards
and use regulations.
a
The city may grant relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations resulting from
a
shoreline restoration projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215.
Cn
m
24.80.100 Public hearings.
N
O
A. The administrator shall determine whether an application requires a public hearing pursuant to the criteria below
a
no later than 15 days after the minimum public comment period provided by ECDC 24.80.080(B). An open record
O
a
public hearing shall be required for all of the following:
N
interested has 15 the final
One to the days
C
or more submitted within of
' administrator,er-sons
publicationnotice
the for hearing together the for the
of applioation, a vffitten request sueh a with a statement of reasons
request; e
21. The proposal is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and an environmental
r
Q
impact statement is required in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act; or
m
32. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this master program; or
t
.r
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 38
Edmonds
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
Page 14/15
34. The use or development requires an open record public hearing for other city of Edmonds approvals or
permits, or . [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017].
4. The city receives a request from any interested person within 14 days of the date of the native of application
and the public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee in the amount of 50 percent the difference
between the Type 11 and Type III application fee.
B. When a public hearingis s triggered pursuant to subsection A.4 of this section, the project applicant shall pay the
other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III application fee, on top of the previously paid
Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days of notice from the city that the fee is due. If
the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-dayperiod, the application for the project shall be
deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing until the additional fee has been paid. For these
public hearings, the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by the city,
24.80.105 Special procedures for WSDOT proiects.
A. Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a
target of 90 days review time for local governments.
B. Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after date of filing. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may
begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions.
24.80.150 Administrative authority and responsibility.
A. Shoreline Administrator. The shoreline administrator shall be the planning manager or his/her designee and is
vested with the following authority and responsibility to:
1. Have overall administrative responsibility for this master program;
2. Determine if a public hearing should be held on a shoreline permit application by the hearing examiner
pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
3. Grant or deny written permit exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit requirements of this
master program;
4. Authorize, approve or deny shoreline substantial development permits, except for those for which a public
hearing is required pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100;
5. Make written recommendation to the hearing examiner or city council as appropriate and insofar as possible,
in order to assure that all relevant information, testimony, and questions regarding a specific matter are made
available during their respective reviews of such matter;
6. Review and evaluate the records of project review actions (permits and exemptions) in shoreline areas and
report on the cumulative effects of authorized development of shoreline conditions at a minimum every s�
eight years when this master program is updated. The administrator shall coordinate such review with the
Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other
interested parties;
7. Advise interested citizens and project proponents of the goals, policies, regulations and procedures of this
master program; and
8. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this master program and
the Shoreline Management Act.
B. Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner is vested with the following authority:
1. To grant or deny shoreline substantial development permits requiring public hearings pursuant to ECDC
24.80.100;
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.b
Edmonds Page 15115
Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES*
2. To grant or deny shoreline conditional use permits under this master program;
3. To grant or deny variances from this master program; and
4. To decide on appeals of administrative decisions issued by the administrator of this master program in
accord with procedures set forth in ECDC Title 20.
C. City Council.
1. The Edmonds city council is vested with the authority to approve any revisions or amendments to this master
program in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the Washington
Administrative Code.
2. To become effective any amendment to this master program must be reviewed and adopted by the
Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173-26 WAC. [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]
3. The City Council will conduction the periodic review process consistent with the requirements of RCW
90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090.
24.90.020 Definitions — C to F.
I. "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling;
dumping; grading; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulk heading; driving of piling; placing of
obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the
surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level. "Development" does not include
dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re -development.
GG. "Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include lands that can reasonably be expected
to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the
federal government, the state, or a political division of the state.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018.
Packet Pg. 40
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/8/2018
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:
08-08-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 41
of EbAf
U� O�6
PLANKNO WARD
,�18go Extended Agenda
August 8, 2018
Meeting Item
AUGUST 2018
August 8 1. SMP Periodic Review
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
August 22 1. SMP periodic Review
2. Public Hearing on Critical Area Wetland Regs.
SEPTEMBER 2018
September 1.
12
September 1.
26
OCTOBER 2018
October 10 1.
October 24 1.
NOVEMBER 2018
November 14 1.
November 28 1.
DECEMBER 2018
December 12 1.
December 26 CANCELLED DUE TO HOLIDAY
Q
Packet Pg. 42
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 (Vt 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. 43