Loading...
2018-12-12 Planning Board Packet- 0� L1UM0 Agenda Edmonds Planning Board Rq� COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 12, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of October 24, 2018 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report B. Election of Officers for 2019 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review B. Public hearing before the Planning Board on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will set a minimum residential parking standard for small -footprint buildings (4,800 sq. ft. or less) located in BD -zoned properties in Downtown Edmonds. These small -footprint buildings have previously not had any parking required. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda December 12, 2018 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 Approval of Draft Minutes of October 24, 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: PB181024d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 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 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Lovell urged Board Members to review the Washington State Ferries Long -Range Plan and comment during the public comment period. He observed that there appears to be some misconceptions amongst the public that the ferry system is planning to construct a new terminal south of the existing one. In fact, building a new terminal is not included in the long- range plan. Chair Monroe noted that the public comment period closes on October 25t1i Chair Monroe pointed out that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seeking public comments on an environmental assessment of new commercial airline service at Paine Field. It was noted that a public workshop and hearing is scheduled for October 29 at the Lynnwood Convention Center from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., and the public comment period will remain open until Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a that time. Board Member Crank announced that the Airport Commission will meet on October 251 at the Future of Flight. At that meeting the Commission will receive a general update on the airport, as well as an update on actions taken relative to a presentation they heard about sex trafficking that can happen through airports. The intent is to combat the issue ahead of time before Paine Fields opens for commercial flights in February. She said she would chair the meeting and would report back to the Board. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2019-2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects and ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The PROS Plan was last updated in 2016. The Transportation Plan was updated in 2015 and includes the Walkway Plan, Bicycle Plan, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Plan, Pavement Preservation Rating Study, List of Priority Projects, and Financial Plan. The Comprehensive Water Plan was updated in 2017 and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2013. The Storm and Surface Water Management Plan is an older version adopted in 2010, and funding is identified in the 2019 budget to start a major update. Mr. English advised that, in addition to the priorities identified in the various plans contained in the Comprehensive Plan, a number of other factors are considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP. These include input from the City Council, available funding, concurrency, safety, project delivery capacity, grant sources and competitiveness, and maintenance issues. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2018 Projects: The Pavement Preservation Program is a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2018, the City overlaid almost 9 lane miles using funding from both the Street Overlay and Utility Programs. The last paving project on 2441 Street was just finished this week. They are currently testing a new application called slurry seal, which is supposed to provide a tougher surface that can withstand heavier traffic. Pavement preservation projects are funded by both REET revenue and the General Fund. The 238t1i Street Walkway Project was completed in June and provides a continuous sidewalk on the north side of 238' Street between SR-104 and Highway 99. It also provides a mid -block crossing near the bus stop on the east side of the street. The Highway 99 Revitalization/Corridor Study is in the final stages and staff will present a report to the City Council in December. It provides a footprint and plan for the City's improvements on Highway 99, using a concept similar Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a to the City of Shoreline to the south. The City received $10 million from the State as a starter package and the overall project costs, including underground utilities, are estimated at about $200 million. • The sewer replacement project on Edmonds Street was finished on October 22nd, and the roadway will be repaved next week. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2019 Projects: • The Highway 99 Revitalization effort will continue with design work in 2019 for the first phase of the project, which will focus on the segment between 2201 and 2241 Streets. • The City Council approved a preferred alternative for the Waterfront Connector Project, and final design and permitting are expected to move forward in 2019. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project between 31 and 91 Avenues will be done as part of the much larger Dayton Street Utility Project. This project was identified in the Walkway Plan as a top priority. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Project will continue using REET contributions. The intent is to improve nine intersection crossings to make them safer by installing rapid flashing beacons or High -intensity Activated crossWalK (Hawk) Signals. • REET funds will also be used for the 84t' Street Overlay Project between 220' and 212' Streets. The City received a Federal grant for the project, which will also include some stormwater improvements to correct deficiencies. • The 238t1i Street Island and ADA Ramp Upgrades on the south side of SR-104 will also use REET funding, as well as funding from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City was able to remove the paved area on the north side and provide an ADA walkway through the island and landscaping to improve its appearance. The intent is to do the same on the south side. • The Pavement Preservation Program will continue in 2019 with a budget of $1.5 million. • The annual Pedestrian Safety Program will continue in 2019 with $50,000 to help solve traffic calming concerns, provide crosswalks, etc. • Traffic signal upgrades will be done at several intersections. • Audible pedestrian signals will be installed at some intersections to help people with vision impairments. • Guardrails will be installed in some locations to address geographic situations and existing guardrails that are at the end of their useful life will be upgraded. • A crosswalk will be installed on Admiral Way, and the Public Works Department is currently working with the Port of Edmonds to identify the exact location. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project will continue in 2019, and the intent is to upgrade nine pedestrian crossings. • Construction of the 841 Avenue Overlay Project will move forward in 2019. • The Five Corners Reservoir Project is well underway. Work is wrapping up on the smaller reservoir, and the intent is to start work on the larger reservoir in 2019. • The Water Utility will replace 2,400 feet of watermain, recoat the larger Five Corners Reservoir and overlay 1.6 lane miles of street affected by waterline replacement. • The Stormwater Utility will replace 3,200 feet of pipe, complete the Dayton Street Pump Project, overlay 0.3 lane miles of street affected by stormwater replacement, update the Storm and Surface Water Management Plan, and do pre -design work for the Ballinger Regional Facility that would help with Lake Ballinger Flooding and provide stormwater infiltration options for the Highway 99 project. The Dayton Street Pump Station Project was delayed waiting for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. However, the City Council decide not to wait for FEMA funding and use money from the Stormwater Utility Fund to go forward with the project, instead. • The Sewer Utility will replace 1,260 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,500 feet of sewer pipe using the cured -in - place method, overlay 0.5 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. Board Member Crank asked if the preferred alternative for the Waterfront Connector, which was recently approved by the City Council, will be available on the City's website. Mr. English answered that the website will be updated soon to include the approved alternative. Ms. Hite advised that, in addition to the project selection criteria described earlier by Mr. English, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department uses additional criteria when selecting parks projects for the CIP and CFP. These include an Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a assessment of resources and acknowledging opportunities to connect and expand the current system, enhancing identity, advancing big ideas and leveraging funding to maximize grants. Ms. Hite shared highlights of 2018 projects: • Civic Park is in the design development stage. A master plan was adopted in 2017 and a consultant has been doing design development and working with stakeholder groups in the community to review the schematic designs. • The City partnered with the City of Lynnwood on the Meadowdale Playfield Project. The fields are owned by the Edmonds School District and operated and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. The City of Edmonds pays half the maintenance costs and put capital dollars into the project, as well. There are now three softball fields and two multi- use fields, all with synthetic turf. The fields have been used heavily. • The City is still working with the contractor to address needed repairs at the fishing pier, and staff is hoping to wrap the project up soon. In meantime, the facility remains safe for people to use. • The City's Waterfront Redevelopment and Walkway Project has been moving forward parallel with the Senior Center's effort to rebuild the center. The City's intent is to redevelop the beachfront and connect the walkway. • The City continues to work with the Engineering and Public Works Departments on a project to daylight Willow Creek. The goal is to rehabilitate the marsh and reintroduce salmon habitat and to improve stormwater retention and reduce flooding on Dayton Street. Grant funding was used to complete the required feasibility studies and early design work. • The City Park Storage Building will arrive soon. • City staff is currently working with a citizen who is interested in donating a plot of land that could be used to host a community garden. The hope is to have an agreement in place by the end of the year so that the community garden can be started in 2019. • The playfield at the Frances Anderson Center was replaced and is well loved by the community. • Other projects funded by the 2018 CIP include the fishing pier restrooms, Mathay Ballinger Trail, Seaview Park improvements, Yost Pool locker room updates, Hickman Park hill erosion, and rehabilitation of the Marsh Walkway. Board Member Lovell said he recently read comments from the public that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has taken over the Unocal property. It has been suggested that part of the property could be utilized to expand the marsh and facilitate the daylighting of Willow Creek. Ms. Hite responded that WSDOT is expected to take over the property next year, but she does not know the exact timeline. City staff continues to have discussions with WSDOT regarding opportunities to daylight Willow Creek as they explore opportunities to develop the property to address ferry issues. The intent is to continue this collaboration and eventually reach an agreement. Next, Ms. Hite shared highlights of the proposed 2019 projects: • Design of Civic Park will continue to move forward, with the goal of construction starting in 2020. Staff is working to put together a $12 million funding package. They have $6 to $7 million secured or pending so far, and the plan is to start construction in 2020. • Design and permitting for the Waterfront Development and Walkway Project will continue to move forward. The intent is to have the project ready to start in April so that the in -water work can be done during the fish window (July and August). • Design work for the Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Project will continue on to reach 60% design. Keely O'Connell is the project manager, and she has been very aggressive in going after grant funding to support the project. • Consistent with the City's goal of replacing at least one play area per year, a new play area will be installed at Seaview Park in 2019. • Again, the City's hope is to acquire land to establish a community garden in 2019. • Money has been set aside in the 2019 budget to take the Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan off the shelf and start mapping out its implementation. • The City recently received a grant from Verdant Health Care to install two outdoor fitness zones. The first will be installed at Mathay Ballinger Park in 2019 and the second at Civic Park in 2020. The CIP identifies $75,000 in 2019 as matching funds for the Verdant Health Care Grant. In addition, the City has secured a tentative $30,000 grant from the National Fitness Campaign. Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Mr. English explained that in 2017, Fund 16 (Building Maintenance) was closed by the Finance Department. The initial plan did not include a list of building maintenance projects, but the list has since been added (Pages 7 and 8). All of the projects on the list will now be funded via the General Fund. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. The draft plans were presented to the Board on October 10'. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 51, and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 201. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans in late November or early December. Chair Monroe complimented staff on their presentations and said he enjoyed hearing about the process for selecting projects and funding. He said he has been particularly impressed with the City's method of addressing American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps and experimenting with the slurry seal alternative to cut costs. Chair Monroe referred to the Ballinger Townhouse Project and noted that it does not appear that traffic mitigation will be required. He asked how that intersection would be addressed in the future if level of service is significantly impacted by the new development. Mr. English responded that the project is actually located in the City of Lynnwood, so it is difficult for the City to address impacts the development might have on Edmonds streets. However, the City tries to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on projects that intersect jurisdictional boundaries. For example, the City is working with Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County on the Highway 99 Corridor Study, and they anticipate that both jurisdictions will be funding partners as the project moves forward. Chair Monroe commented that the intersection is already difficult and no mitigation funds are being used to address the problem. Mr. English agreed to contact the City of Lynnwood regarding the concern and report back. Chair Monroe noted that $39,000 was allocated in 2018 for trackside warnings at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings, yet the project has not yet been completed. He asked if the money would be rolled over to 2019. Mr. English explained that the City has been waiting for Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) to complete its project to fix the crossing arms at Main Street. This work needs to be finished before the City can move forward with the trackside warning project. The goal is to have the work completed in 2018, and staff will have discussions with the City Council about the need for additional funding to complete the work. Board Member Cloutier asked how the annual replacement of sewer, water and stormwater facilities compares to the overall scope of the existing problems and the City's ability to maintain the facilities to the standard level. Mr. English responded that the City currently has a 100-year replacement program for its watermains, which equates to about 7,500 feet of watermain replaced each year. Right now, the City has enough revenue to fund the projects without bonding, but there are large projects forecast for the future that will require additional funding. For example, the watermain replacement program may be reduced in 2019 so that funds can be used for the reservoir project. However, he concluded that the overall outlook for maintaining the 1 % per year replacement program is healthy. The issue is more difficult for the sewer utility. Although the City has been able to maintain more sewer mains using the cured -in -place process, there are a number of large projects coming down the pike, including the Sunset Avenue Lift Station, the Lake Ballinger Sewer/Stormwater Study where improvements will require trenching and excavation between the homes and the lake, and a big project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The rate revenue will be sufficient to continue the replacement program, but it will not be enough to fund these three additional projects. The 2018 budget included funded to purchase a storm video inspection truck that will allow City staff to video the insides of the pipes to evaluate their condition. Until the truck comes on line in early 2019, it is difficult for staff to identify the replacement program that is needed to maintain the system. Board Member Crank asked if there are any projects in the plan that staff is particularly concerned about as far as funding. Mr. English noted the three large sewer projects he described earlier. These projects need to go forward in the coming years, yet the City does not have funding for them yet. It is likely that some type of bonding will have be approved to fund the projects, and staff is currently working to develop a scope of work and identify the costs. Ms. Hite said the City really wants to start developing Civic Park in 2020 and she is concerned that the longer the plan sits on the shelf, the less interest there will be and people will start wanting to redesign the project. It is likely that bond funding will be needed for the project. Another project of concern is the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach Park Project, which is currently a three to five-year plan. The Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 estimated cost of the project is between $8 and $10 million, and staff continues to work on funding opportunities. While there aren't a lot of local grant opportunities, there may be some Federal grants the City could tap into. She noted that it is easier for the City to obtain grants for smaller projects, but the phased projects are more difficult. Board Member Robles asked if the proposed new fields at the former Woodway High School site would be crumb rubber. Ms. Hite said no decision has been made regarding the second set of fields. If the project moves forward while the City's moratorium is in place, then crumb rubber would not be an option. The City is expecting a Federal report out any day. At this time, there has been no effort on the part of the City or the school district to move the second phase of the project forward. Board Member Robles questioned the statement in the plan that there are 150,000 residents within five miles of the park. Ms. Hite agreed to review the statement and revise it as appropriate. Board Member Robles recalled that, at the last meeting, he raised the concern that there are no sidewalks on Meadowdale Park Way and the roadway is wet and slippery. Since the last meeting, a stop sign was added at the intersection. He commented that there are a large number of signs along the roadway. Mr. English pointed out that the roadway is actually located in Lynnwood. He said the City has received similar complaints from other citizens about the large number of signs, and staff intends to have a discussion with Lynnwood about the number of signs, as well as their close proximity to the pavement. Board Member Robles referred to the project description for the Parks and Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building, which anticipates a 6,600 square foot building. He asked if the estimated cost of between $3 and $4 million is accurate for a building of that size. Ms. Hite responded that the estimated cost might actually be low for a building that would house both the parks maintenance and facility staff. As proposed, the building would include a number of technical areas such as a sign - making shop and a nursery. Vice Chair Cheung asked staff to describe the City's current process for finding grants. In particular, he asked if it would behoove the City to hire a grant writer. Ms. Hite commented that the City is fortunate to have two private grant sources that honor and support civic projects in Edmonds: the Hazel Miller Foundation and the Verdant Health Commission. In addition, the State has about 20 different grant types, mostly through the Recreation and Conservation Office. The City submitted four applications in 2018 for a total request of $2.2 million. She said she writes the grant applications for parks with the help of staff. She briefly described the process of writing and presenting grant applications, as well as how the grant committees review and score applications. She reported that the City's application for funding for the youth athletic fields at Civic Park scored #1, and their local parks project grant application scored #5. The land conservation grant application for Civic Park scored #5, as well, but this grant is a federal fund that is in jeopardy right now. The City's application for a waterfront project did not score well. She concluded that she keeps her eyes open for other grant opportunities, as well. Mr. English commented that the applications for grant funding are always significantly more than the funding available, and transportation is where the Public Works Department has the most opportunity. The City's Traffic Engineer typically tracks these opportunities and prepares the applications. While the City has never considered having a dedicated grant writer, they have hired consultants to help write grants. For example, the application for the grant the City recently received for the Waterfront Connector Project had a lot of parts to it, and a consultant was hired to assist staff. Vice Chair Cheung noted that the City is still looking for $6 million to fund construction of Civic Park, and there is only so much City staff can do. He suggested that hiring a consultant would be helpful in this situation. Ms. Hite said this option is being considered. There are also other sources of funding to look at. For example, Snohomish County has a parks fund that is funded via Conservation Futures Park Impact Fees or REET dollars, and the City received a $500,000 grant to help purchase Civic Field. In addition, City staff and Mayor Earling work strategically with local representatives in Olympia during the budget season to bring State money home to the Edmonds area. The City received $6 million from the State for the Waterfront Connector Project and over $1.3 million in Federal grants for the intersection improvements at 220' and 76r' and the preservation project on 761 Avenue north of SR-524. They also have an additional 6 applications that are currently being reviewed and secured. Board Member Lovell said he finds the information relative to grant funding very important and suggested the City find a way to publish the information and inform the local citizens of the City's aggressive efforts to pursue and secure grant funding. Grant opportunities are very competitive, and the City of Edmonds consistently rates very high. This reflects staff's attentiveness in seeking out and applying for grants, meeting with legislators, etc. Their efforts are clearly making a difference Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a and the public would appreciate knowing more about it. Ms. Hite agreed that is a great idea. She noted that Mayor Earling recently submitted an article to THE EDMONDS BEACON relative to all the grants the City has received. He is preparing another submission to talk about 2019 grant opportunities, as well. Board Member Lovell observed that, over the last several months, there has been a lot of citizen conversation about the City spending too much money, taxes going up, the need to be more selective about what is funded, and cutting back on wishes and demands. At some point, the City will need to pass some type of levy lid in order to allocate sufficient funding for infrastructure improvements and parks. At this time, the City is lucky to have accomplished so much. Amber Groll, Edmonds, introduced herself as the City's newest planner. She noted that the presentation did not include any bicycle improvements. While the City encourages and incentivizes bicycling, employees are less likely to use this mode of transportation if they do not feel safe. Mr. English advised that the Transportation Plan, which is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, includes a bicycle plan that identifies designated bike lanes and routes throughout the City. Over the past few years, the City has installed a number of bike lanes including 212r' Street and 761 Avenue and 2201 Street to State Route 524. In addition, sharrows were added where they cannot quite get the lane configuration to work. Also, the City has added right-of-way and lane width and signage to make vehicular and bike traffic aware of the system. The effort is ongoing and the City's Traffic Engineer has done a good job of finding money for the improvements over the last five years. Ms. Hite added that the Verdant Health Commission also funded a huge bike project last year that the City of Edmonds did in conjunction with the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood to provide connections between the cities. She noted that most of the bicycle improvements, such as sharrows and signage, are identified in the operational budget rather than the capital budget. Board Member Robles referred to the map that is included in the Bicycle Plan, noting that a lot of the bike activity was moved from the main roads to the smaller side streets for safety reasons. Ms. Hite added that maps and signage have been funded by a grant from the Verdant Health Commission. There is also a website called "Bike to Health," that was launched by the City of Lynnwood and the Verdant Health Commission as part of the project that was mentioned above. The public portion of the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THEH BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the November 141 meeting agenda will include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Downtown Business (BD) parking requirements and a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The December 12' meeting agenda is set aside for the Board to finalize its recommendation on the SMP, if needed. The second meetings in November and December were cancelled. They agreed to elect officers for 2019 at their November 14r' meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank welcomed the City's newest planner, Amber Groll. She also announced that she would attend an Airport Commission meeting on October 251. In addition, she said she received an email from Director Hope inviting her participate on a community task force to redo the draft Housing Strategy. No date has been set for the meetings to start, but the intent is to assemble a group of community members. She agreed to share information as it becomes available. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the October 17r' Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where Mark Craig, the developer of the Westgate Project (Bartells) provided an update on the process they went through with the City to get the project approved. While he did not put it in negative terms, he summarized that the process was quite Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a challenging. Overall, the fees and expenses to execute the project were the highest he had ever encountered. He further reported that the EDC has forwarded a memorandum to the City recommending that the Public Works Department undertake a public relations and information process in conjunction with the Dayton Street Utility Project. The memorandum recommends there be a central information gathering and distribution point for businesses and residents along the route that might be impacted by construction. Lastly, he reported that the EDC appointed a subcommittee (himself, Patrick Doherty and Darrel Haug) to review the entire Strategic Action Plan that was adopted in 2016 and identify the status of each action item. A memorandum with the subcommittee's findings will available on the EDC's website. Board Member Rosen said he continues to attend most of the meetings related to the draft Housing Strategy, and he has monitored and tracked all of the public comments. He gave a shout out to Mayor Earling and Director Hope because they have heard a lot of comments from a lot of different sources and it became very obvious that a lot of work still needs to be done. The City has hit pause and the process will be revised to include significantly more community involvement. This action is a testimony to the system working: create a draft, present it for public comment, and then course correct as a result of the public comment. Currently, Director Hope is working on a very detailed process and schedule for how the strategy will move forward, and it will be released very soon. Board Member Rosen said he is encouraged by the number of things that everyone agrees on, which reflects the values of the community: safety, seniors, kids, and preserving those things that are special about the community. He is seeing a chain of public discourse and public process and things get done when that happens and better decisions are made. It is important to recognize that there are things they all want and they will not get all of them, but the plan will be better if they all participate. He asked that the City staff and City Council use one coordinated process moving forward. It is very confusing to residents and participants and you create significant potential to compromise the process when that is not the case and the two groups create their own processes in parallel. He also asked that everyone collectively come together because they want to make the plan better. He urged those who not like the process or what is in the strategy to come together to make it better. That is what will be in the best interest of the City. Board Member Robles advised that the committee that was formed to review designs for the SR-104 entry sign will begin meeting again in the near future. He reminded the Board that he participates as a member of this group. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 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. 12.07.18 Packet Pg. 11 5.A.a OF EQ_4 L l MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2018 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report "All successful people men and women are big dreamers. They imagine what their future could be, ideal in every respect, and then they work every day toward their distant vision, that goal or purpose." -Brian Tracy Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board meets next on December 12. The agenda includes public hearings on updates for the periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program and on removing the current parking exemption for buildings with less than a 4800 square foot footprint that have residential units and are in the downtown area. NATIONAL & REGIONAL NEWS Small Cell Wireless At both the national and state level, current technology for wireless communication is moving toward "small cell" facilities that can be deployed in cities to improve wireless services. The small cells —not surprisingly —are smaller in size than the more familiar macro cell towers that serve as the backbone of the wireless industry. Typically, small cells are attached to utility poles in the public rights -of -way and connect to fiber and power. The new facilities, while much smaller, still have a visual impact and may add to the complexity of maintaining infrastructure in the rights -of -way. Cities all over the country are considering how to address the technology. We expect that, after more research is done, a proposal for amendments to the Edmonds code will be brought forward to the Planning Board and City Council by spring of 2019 as part of a public process. Ferries Planning Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a The Washington State Department of Transportation has posted a summary of comments received on its 2040 Draft Long Range Plan for state ferries. The Department received 390 public comments. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ PSRC posted a public opinion survey online in multiple languages, inviting input from people in the region about growth and planning. The online survey was open from April through October 2018 and received over 2,100 responses. Results from the online survey are consistent with findings from a statistically valid version conducted in the spring. View presentation. LOCAL PROJECTS Housing Issues An informational public meeting about housing issues was held December 3 in the evening at the library plaza room. To view the slides that were shown, go to: Edmonds Housing Strategy. Topics covered included: two housing projects that have gotten public attention, multifamily tax exemption, and the status of the housing strategy process. A second informational meeting that had been planned for December 13 has been changed to January 10, in recognition of the busy holiday season. Creative District Downtown Edmonds has been awarded designation as Washington State's first Certified Creative District. The Creative District Program was approved by the state legislature and the Governor in 2017 as a platform for communities to grow their arts and creative economies, providing jobs, educational opportunities, and cultural enrichment. Climate Goals Project A new Greenhouse Gas Inventory is being prepared for the City of Edmonds. The inventory follows up on extensive work that the City has accomplished regarding climate protection and sustainability. (For the resolution, go to city webpage at: Resolution 2017 #1389). An update on the inventory and related project information will be provided to the City Council in early 2019. An open house for the public is planned for January 17 (Thursday) at 6:30 in the Brackett Room of City Hall. Tree City USA The City has completed its annual application for continuing Tree City USA certification. The application included a report on the amount of time and money spent by the City (including both staff and the Tree Board) on trees and tree issues. It also contained supporting documentation from the Mayor. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Final revisions are being planned for the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan. While a new draft (November) was prepared and contains various improvements, some additional local information and changes to some data are anticipated during early 2019. 21PanF Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB had no meetings in November or December. Arts Commission The Arts Commission met on December 3, with an agenda that included: ❑ Creative Programs ❑ Capital Projects ❑ Funding & Administration Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board met on November 15, with an agenda that included: ❑ Officers for 2019 ❑ Staff Reports on cemetery sales and burials, financial and other items ❑ Walk Back in Time for teachers ❑ Seeking two new members by 2019 Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee has been reviewing and providing input on elements of the Climate Goals Project, as well as continuing its regular work. The Committee met last on December 6 with an agenda that included: ❑ Draft result of citywide greenhouse gas inventory ❑ Subcommittee updates Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission met on December 5, with an agenda that included: ❑ Interview Commissioner applicants ❑ Update from the city ❑ 2018 Subgroups Economic Development Commission (EDC) The EDC's met on November 28, with an agenda that included: ❑ Strategic Action Plan update Subgroup Updates: Development Feasibility, Arts/Tourism, Dayton Street project & Business attraction. Liaison Updates Hearing Examiner The Examiner's next hearing is December 12. An agenda will be posted online when available. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission will meet on Dec. 13, with an agenda that includes: ❑ Update on properties for Historic Register 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a ❑ Historic calendar 2019 ❑ Election of Officers for 2019 Tree Board The Tree Board met on Dec. 6, with an agenda that included: ❑ Small trees for small places ❑ City web page links update ❑ Tree brochure update by consultant ❑ Report on Tree City USA application ❑ UFMP revision update Youth Commission The City is forming a youth commission. Eight members have been appointed so far and recruitment is still open until December 14. For more information, see the City's webpage. City Council The November 27 City Council meeting included: ❑ Adoption of an ordinance for a 1% property tax increase. (FYI, the 1% increase means an increase of about $6 per year for a typical residence.) ❑ Final public hearing on 2019 proposed budget —with extensive discussion of amendments. Some of the amendments were discussed and Council voted on them; others will be considered at the next Council meeting. ❑ Adoption of an ordinance proposed by the City Clerk for a minimum threshold for business license and definition of "engaging in business" (Note: this is related to business licenses being processed by the state in the near future.) ❑ Approval of $10 K from the Council 2018 contingency funds to hire 2 student interns to work on expanding the Register of Historic Places in 2019. ❑ Discussion of a new process for creating a housing strategy (with action to be taken later) December Council meetings have a primary focus on the 2019 Budget. COMMUNITY CALENDAR • December 1— 31: Holiday on the Docks — Port of Edmonds guest moorage • December 12: Argosy Christmas Ship Visit at Public Plaza (behind Anthony's Restaurant) 7 pm. 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 15 5.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 Election of Officers for 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Staff Recommendation Elect the officers for 2019 Narrative Packet Pg. 16 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 Public Hearing on Shoreline Master 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. The Planning Board heard an introduction to the SMP Periodic Review at its June 27, 2018 meeting and reviewed draft SMP code amendments during its August 8, 2018 meeting. Staff Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program regulations as provided in Attachment 2 and to include the memorandum in Attachment 3 providing a description of the existing conditions of the Edmonds Marsh as an addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. Narrative The periodic review ensures that 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 Packet Pg. 17 6.A 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 may be 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, such as updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction. Attachment 3 is a memorandum from Windward Environmental LLC which will serve as the addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization providing more information on the existing conditions of the Edmonds Marsh than currently exists in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. Additionally, staff identified section 24.80.100 ECDC for process clarifications on how a shoreline permit review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to a public hearing process (Type III). Part of this process requires the parties requesting a public hearing (when one is not initially required) to pay half of the difference between the Type II and Type III permit applications. At the August 8, 2018 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board recommended revisions to this section to make it more explicit that the parties requesting the public hearing are responsible to pay half the difference between the Type II and Type III permit applications. Revisions have been made as recommended by the Planning Board. 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. The revised wetland regulations were adopted by the City Council on October 16, 2018 under Ordinance No. 4127. 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 Public Hearing. Attachments: Attachment 1: SMP Periodic Review Checklist Attachment 2: Proposed SMP Periodic Review Code Revisions to Title 24 ECDC Attachment 3: Edmond Marsh Memorandum Attachment 4: June 27, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Attachment 5: August 8, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 18 6.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. Packet Pg. 19 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 6.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. 20 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 6.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. 21 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 6.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. 22 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). 6.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. 23 6.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. 4127), 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. 24 6.A.b Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Page 2/15 c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 4. Monitoring Program. Mitigation plans shall include a program for monitoring construction and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, two, three, five, seven, and 10 after site construction), and how the 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. 5. Long -Term Protection of Mitigation Sites. The city shall require documentation that a mitigation site has 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, deed restriction or other agreement between the applicant and the owner of a mitigation site. Such documentation shall be recorded with the Snohomish County auditor. ses!rrsciesses!:rsrr�e�:.asrtir.�:r*sr:!�sr�:ee!e�ee!rrarnes. !srEe!eee!�:essf 116 -� 109 sari=• _ I sar cs�r n eersslrss�sf�seti IMILW11W. project;Is. Category HL Category H! wetlands are: (i) wetlands with a moderate level of funetions (seoring between 16 and 19 points); (ii) can often be adequately replaeed with a well planned mitigation and (iii) interdunal wetlands between one tenth and one aere. Wetlands seoring between 16 and 19 poi generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natLffal resourees in the landseape than Category 11 wetlands. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 25 6.A.b Edmonds Chapter 24.60 SPECIFIC USE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Pill 1, I W. �N- Page 3/15 E A Istill Width (in Feet) Based on44abbitat Seneree Mledand Category AL . 4 -5 111 64 jp Category 1� CategoryOwl T Begs high and wetlands of eenset=vatien vaiii Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 26 6.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. 27 6.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. 28 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. 29 6.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. 30 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. 31 6.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. 32 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. 33 6.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. 34 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) twent. thousand five hundred 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) $10,000eleven thousand two hundred dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters., but -However, if subsequent construction fair ffhw4et valt e exceeding $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. ^ -L E . � to „ eet that is deSigfoa *� fish of �Aldlife habitat of f4sh passage, when The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 35 Edmonds Page 13/15 Chapter 24.100 APPENDICES* E M L tM 0 L a L d N R 2 [Ord. 4072 § 1 (Att. A), 2017]. c 16. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with L0 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access y to the structure by individuals with disabilities. r- a� c 'L 24.80.025 Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews 2 Reauirements to obtain a substantial development Dermit. conditional use Dermit. variance. letter of exemption. or U other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following; IL A. Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to Chapter 70.1051) RCW, or to the Department of V p Ecology when it conducts a remedial action under Chapter 70.105D RCW. w le B. Boatyard im04 provements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, anyerson installing,site '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. 0 C. WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State N Department of Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to 0 y obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. W D. Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. a) 0 c� E. Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to Chapter 80.50 3 RCW. d 24.80.095 Shoreline restoration projects —Relief from shoreline master program development standards 0 'L and use regulations. m 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. 2 24.80.100 Public hearings. N A. The administrator shall determine whether an application requires a public hearing pursuant to the criteria below 0 no later than 15 days after the minimum public comment period provided by ECDC 24.80.080(B). An open record a 0 L public hearing shall be required for all of the following: a 15 days the final N •administrator,within of publicationnotice C the for hearing together the for the N of applioation, a vffitten request sueh a with a statement of reasons E request; o t t� 21. The proposal is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and an environmental Q impact statement is required in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act; or }; c m 32. The proposal requires a variance and/or conditional use approval pursuant to this master program; or E t Q 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 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 notice of application and the public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee, to be paid by the persons requesting the hearing, in the amount of 50 percent the difference between the Type II 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 11 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 sir 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. 37 6.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 conduct 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. 38 6.A.c Tin ward environmental LLC 200 West Mercer St. • Suite 401 • Seattle, WA 98119 Phone: 206.378.1364 • Fax: 206.973.3048 • www.windwardenv.com MEMORANDUM To: Michael Nelson, Diane Buckshnis, Kristiana Johnson, Shane Hope, Kernen Lien, and Maureen Judge, City of Edmonds From: Jennifer Love and Ron Gouguet Subject: Description of Edmonds Marsh for inclusion in the 2019 Shoreline Master Program periodic review DRAFT Date: November 2, 2018 INTRODUCTION The Edmonds Marsh (Marsh) is a tidally influenced' wetland occupying approximately 27 acres in the heart of Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1); it is the remnant of a much larger estuarine wetland that was once located along the shores of Puget Sound (Sea - Run Consulting et al. 2007). Historically, the Marsh was a pocket estuary more than 100 acres in size and protected by a barrier sand spit (Shannon & Wilson 2015). It extended from Point Edmonds (located at the southern end of Marina Beach Park) north to Brackett's Landing near the Washington State Department of Transportation ferry terminal. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide updated information regarding the Marsh, its tributary creeks, and Shellabarger Marsh to be included with the 2019 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) periodic review. A great deal of data and other information has been collected regarding the Marsh and its tributary creeks since 2007, when the last shoreline inventory and characterization document was published (Sea - Run Consulting et al.). 1 The Marsh is tidally influenced when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh is open, typically in the spring and summer months (April through September) (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007). Packet Pg. 39 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 2 The western portion of the Marsh contains mudflat habitat and tidal channels and supports saltmarsh plants (Figure 2). This area is understood to be brackish in the winter months, when the tide gate downstream of the Marsh typically is closed, and saline in the spring and summer months, when the tide gate typically is open (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007). The eastern portion of the Marsh is a predominantly freshwater system fed by two tributary creeks —Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek (Figure 1). Shellabarger Marsh is an approximately 5-acre freshwater wetland located on the east side of State Route (SR)104 (Figure 1). It was once part of the Marsh, but the two areas were separated when SR 104 was constructed. The two marshes are still hydraulically connected via a pair of culverts that run under SR-104 (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007) Both marshes provide valuable habitat to birds and other wildlife, in addition to conveying large quantities of stormwater and surface water. The Marsh is connected to Puget Sound via Willow Creek, which currently flows out of the Marsh into an approximately 2,200-ft-long system of ditches, pipes, culverts, and flood gate infrastructure prior to discharging into Puget Sound via a submerged outfall. The City of Edmonds (City) plans to daylight (i.e., bring aboveground) Willow Creek, a project that will improve hydraulic and habitat connectivity between the Marsh and Puget Sound (Shannon & Wilson 2015). As the Marsh is the only remaining salt marsh within the nearshore habitat zone of Watershed Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 (the Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed), daylighting Willow Creek is ranked as a high priority restoration project (SRFB 2014, 2018). SITE SETTING AND DRAINAGE BASIN The Marsh is surrounded by commercial development, as well as transportation rights - of -way (ROWs) and a former (now vacant) industrial site. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad ROW runs northeast to southwest along the western boundary of the Marsh, and SR 104 runs north to south along the eastern boundary of the Marsh, as shown on Figure 1. The Port of Edmonds's Harbor Square property, which contains buildings, paved areas, and recreational facilities (e.g., tennis courts and a paved trail), is adjacent the Marsh to the north. Two properties are adjacent to the Marsh to the south: the Willow Creek Fish Hatchery (Hatchery) property, which is owned by the City, and a former bulk fuel terminal known as the Unocal property, which is owned by the Chevron Corporation (Chevron). Shellabarger Marsh is surrounded primarily by residential developments, both single-family homes and apartment and condominium buildings (Figure 1). The drainage basin of Willow Creek is approximately 393 acres in size and encompasses residential land to the south and east of the Marsh (Shannon & Wilson 2015; SAIC and Herrera 2013). Willow Creek enters the Marsh as two separate branches, flowing into the southeastern side of the Marsh via the Hatchery property (Figure 1). The drainage basin of Shellabarger Creek is approximately 378 acres in size and encompasses dense residential developments to the north, east, and south of the Marsh (SAIC and Herrera 2013). Shellabarger Creek flows through Shellabarger Marsh and other privately owned WM ward environmental LLC Packet Pg. 40 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 3 residential properties to the south of Shellabarger Marsh before passing through the SR 104 culverts into the Marsh. Upon exiting the culverts, Shellabarger Creek flows in an unconfined path (i.e., it is not contained within a distinct channel) through the dense Marsh vegetation (predominantly cattails [Typha latifolia]). Including the two creeks and other areas that discharge surface water to the Marsh, the drainage basin of the Marsh is approximately 900 acres in size. Other smaller areas also contribute surface water flows to the Marsh. Stormwater enters the Marsh from the Harbor Square property and Dayton Street via two stormwater outfalls on the northern edge of the Marsh (Figure 1). After exiting the outfalls, the stormwater flows into patches of cattail and other emergent vegetation at the Marsh perimeter. Stormwater from a portion of SR 104 also discharges directly to the eastern portion of the Marsh. Water flowing out of the Marsh enters the lower, channelized portion of Willow Creek. Just downstream of the primary tidal channel of the Marsh, Willow Creek makes a sharp turn to the south and runs through a 600-ft-long open ditch parallel to and alongside the BNSF railroad tracks (Shannon & Wilson 2015) (Figure 1). The creek then flows into double culverts that run underneath the railroad tracks before entering a 1,600-ft-long series of underground pipes and other drainage infrastructure, including a tide gate (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The tide gate is made of steel and has a top -hinged flap gate within a large storm drain vault. It is chained open in spring and summer (from March until October), allowing tidal flow into the Marsh. It is closed in fall and winter (from October until March), although it is not totally watertight when closed. After passing through the underground drainage system, Willow Creek discharges to the Puget Sound via a submerged outfall located approximately 200 ft offshore from Marina Beach Park (Shannon & Wilson 2015). The current drainage system through which Willow Creek passes prior to discharging to the Puget Sound limits both tidal flow and fish passage into and out of the Marsh and its tributary creeks (Shannon & Wilson 2015). Even with the existing tide gate open, tidal flow into the portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property detention basin is muted (i.e., reduced) by 1 to 2 ft of elevation owing to the seaward pipes and other drainage infrastructure that Willow Creek passes through before connecting to Puget Sound. The City is planning a project to daylight and otherwise restore the portion of Willow Creek downstream of the Marsh. The project would restore a more natural, aboveground creek channel in this portion of Willow Creek, removing the creek from the subsurface pipes, culverts, and other drainage infrastructure through which it currently flows. A few alternatives for the creek alignment are being considered, but ultimately the creek would flow to the Puget Sound by way of Marina Beach Park (Shannon & Wilson 2015, 2017). The daylighting project would also include the excavation of channels through the Marsh in order to improve the flow of Shellabarger Creek downstream of the SR 104 culverts and through the eastern portion of the Marsh, �� ward en�iranmenfal i'1C Packet Pg. 41 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 4 re-establish connections between Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, and increase the extent of saltwater influence within the Marsh. Extending saltwater influence would allow native salt marsh vegetation to re -occupy some of the areas that are currently dominated by cattail, and opening up the creek channels would allow fish to access the stream habitat (Shannon & Wilson 2015). MARSH HABITAT AND WILDLIFE The US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Internet soil survey lists Mukilteo muck as the dominant soil type within the Marsh (USDA 2011). Mukilteo muck is typically found in depressions, and its parent material is herbaceous organic material. It is very poorly drained soil with a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. The NRCS rates Mukilteo muck as hydric. Minor soil types are also present on the margins of the Marsh, including Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams and Everett very gravelly sandy loam. Urban land, consisting of level areas where structures and altered soils are present, is also present on the Marsh's margins. Alderwood-Everett and Everett soil types are found on terraces and outwash plains formed by glacial outwash. These soil types drain moderately well, and their surface layer is gravelly sandy loam. As part of a baseline study being conducted within the Marsh in 2018 and 2019, water depth and salinity data are being collected from five monitoring stations within the Marsh using conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) recorders. An additional CTD recorder is being used in the fenced basin west of the BNSF tracks, which receives outflow from the Marsh and Willow Creek. CTD data from July 17 through October 11, 2018, are currently available; the network of CTD recorders will be maintained for a total of one year as part of the baseline study. To date, salinity within the Marsh has ranged from 0 to 25 (+) parts per thousand (ppt).2 Maximum salinityrecorded was 25 ppt, but the absolute peak has not been determined due to "high pegging' of the conductivity sensor; a higher conductivity range was selected on October 22, 2018, in order to better evaluate the higher salinity range. Absolute tide (referenced to the geoid) will be calculated after a real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS survey is completed toward the end of the baseline monitoring period. The earliest CTD records (July and August 2018) indicate a constriction in tidal exchange, but records from September and early October 2018 suggest a reduction in that restriction, as salinity and water depth over the sensor values have increased substantially. 2 In 1978, the Practical Salinity Scale, which uses a ratio of measured conductivity to the conductivity of a standard potassium chlorine solution to determine salinity, was adopted by oceanographers (Thermo Scientific 2011). This scale is referred to as PSS-78 and has no units, as it measures ratios, but it does report salinity in "practical salinity units' (psu). One psu is virtually equivalent to 1 ppt, and salinity is often still reported in ppt. The salinity measurements being taken in the Marsh are calculated from conductivity and temperature in psu, but are reported here as ppt for comparison with regulatory standards. �� ward en�iranmenfal i'1C Packet Pg. 42 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 5 Vegetation in the eastern portion of the Marsh is dominated by cattail, with some patches of alder and willow intermixed (Figure 2). The western portion of the Marsh contains tidal channels, mudflat habitat, and a greater diversity of Marsh plants, several of which are salt -tolerant, such as pickleweed (Salicornia depressa), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), American three -square (Schoenoplectus pungens), and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). Figure 2 shows the existing boundary between the cattail - dominated eastern portion of the Marsh and the western portion, which is tidally influenced. A diverse mix of both native and non-native vegetation is also present within the Marsh's buffer areas. Native species observed along the northern portion of the Marsh within the Harbor Square property include Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings, common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), red -flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), and red -osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), among other species. The diversity of native plants in this area has been enhanced by recent restoration efforts. Invasive species, including reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), are also present, as are ornamental plantings along the northern side of the paved pedestrian path. The Hatchery property contains relatively high -quality, forested upland and wetland habitat with a diversity of native species, including red alder, bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga douglasii), western red cedar, and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). The understory contains a variety of native shrub and ground cover species, including salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis), red -osier dogwood, red -flowering currant, vine maple (Acer circinatum), western red cedar seedlings and saplings, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), fringecup (Tellima grandiflora), youth -on -age (Tolmiea menziesii), lily -of -the -valley (Convallaria majalis), western bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), and a good number of skunk cabbages (Lysichitum americanum) beneath the tree canopy along Willow Creek. Invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy (Hendra helix) and a few scattered seedlings of English holly (Ilex aquifolium), have also been observed within the Hatchery property, but for the most part these exist in sparse and non -dominant patches. A very dense patch of bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) is present near the transition from the forested wetland habitat of the Hatchery to the emergent area of the Marsh interior. Forest vegetation along the southwestern portion of the Marsh, located on the Unocal property, appears to be similar to that of the Hatchery property. Vegetation growing between SR 104 and the Marsh consists of a narrow but dense strip of red alder, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and Pacific willow. Near the location where Shellabarger Creek passes through the double culverts to enter the Marsh, cattails extend from the Marsh all the way to the sidewalk along the highway. The invasive species bittersweet nightshade, Himalayan blackberry, and reed �� ward en�iranmenfal i'1C Packet Pg. 43 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 6 canarygrass are also present in this area. The strip of trees and shrubs between the highway and the Marsh widens as it extends south from the Shellabarger Creek culverts. The forest here is a mix of native trees, including red alder, water birch (Betula occidentalis), Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, and western hemlock. Edmonds Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are home to 190 bird species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, herons, raptors, and passerines (Riddell and Peterson 2016). Eastern cottontail rabbits, coyotes, and deer are some of the mammal species that have been observed in the Marsh and its buffer areas. While fish are not currently known to use the Marsh's tidal channels, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), resident and sea -run cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), sculpins, and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were observed in Willow Creek historically (Sea -Run Consulting et al. 2007; Shannon & Wilson 2015).3 Prior to the early 2000s (when the Willow Creek outfall pipe was lengthened and submerged deeper into the Puget Sound), small numbers of adult coho salmon were known to return to Willow Creek and migrate into Upper Willow Creek (Shannon & Wilson 2015). After the early 2000s, very small numbers of adult salmon or sea -run cutthroat trout were reportedly able to find the submerged pipe and migrate up into Willow Creek, but none have been observed for the past several years (Shannon & Wilson 2015). In 2008, more than 5,500 threespine stickleback, a pair of prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), and a single starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) were captured in the lower portion of Willow Creek adjacent to the Unocal property and the BNSF railway line (Arcadis 2010).4 No salmonids were observed in this portion of the creek in 2008. One of the goals of the Willow Creek daylighting project is to promote the use of the Marsh and its tributary creeks by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Additional data and information regarding the habitat value and other ecological functions provided by the Marsh and its adjacent buffer areas are being collected as part of the Edmonds Marsh Baseline Study. This study started in the summer of 2018 and will continue for one year. Additional information generated by the study will be available in the future to help inform the SMP periodic review process. REFERENCES Arcadis. 2010. Final - Phase II remedial implementation as -built report. Appendix E. Fish relocation, Willow Creek, former Unocal/ Chevron Edmonds terminal site ARCADIS, Seattle, WA. Riddell C, Peterson T. 2016.190 bird species of Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds, WA. 3 Fish were observed within Willow Creek; it is not clear whether they were also observed in the Marsh's tidal channels or in Shellabarger Creek. 4 The fish were captured and removed from this portion of Willow Creek because it was undergoing remediation by Chevron. wi ward en�iranmenfal 11C Packet Pg. 44 6.A.c Edmonds Marsh Description for 2019 SMP Update November 2, 2018 DRAFT Page 7 SAIC, Herrera. 2013. Dayton Street and SR 104 storm drainage alternatives study, City of Edmonds. SAIC and Herrera Environmental Consultants. Sea -Run Consulting, Tetra Tech Inc., Reid Middleton Inc., Pentec. 2007. Shoreline master program update. Shoreline inventory & characterization. Prepared for City of Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson. 2015. Final feasibility study, Willow Creek daylighting, Edmonds, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. Shannon & Wilson. 2017. Willow Creek daylight project, expanded marsh concept design and hydraulic modeling report. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, WA. SRFB. 2014. Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) project subcommittee report. 2014 grant round - salmon recovery funding board (SRFB) & Puget Sound acquisition and restoration (PSAR). WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, Salmon Recovery Funding Board. SRFB. 2018. Approved 2018 WRIA 8 four-year work plan - capital project and program priorities. Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Thermo Scientific. 2011. Applications tip of the week. Conductivity and salinity. Thermo Scientific. USDA. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils data interactive map: areas of interest [online]. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. [Cited 4/8/11.] Available from: http: / /websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Win)environmentalward LLC Packet Pg. 45 6.A.c Win war N environmental LLB 0 0.1 0.2 Miles 500 1,000 Feet o Major vegetation transition line �_ Parcel • Storm culvert _� City of Edmonds boundary Storm line Storm ditch/creek Note: Shellabarger and Willow Creeks no longer flow through defined channels in the eastern portion of the marsh; however, their previous flow paths are shown. Figure 1. Site setting and stormwater structures DRAFT Packet Pg. 46 6.A.c Z -I1W i, I Patch ID No. Species Present Within Patch 1 seaside arrowgrass and American three-s uare I-C.. / y} I -�C.r r� r • z r { v 'f 2 brass buttons growing along mudflat perimeter 3 L n b a L�.3S- u�,� { e'ssed a cattail and hardstem bulrush; American three -square 4 growing along mudflat perimeter 5 hardstem bulrush T f ` �� M _r 11J # •' 6 hardstem bulrush 7 common reed 8 saltgrass, potentilla MM F r 9 saltgrass + 10 American three -square 11 American three -square, seaside arrowgrass 12 baltic rush, saltgrass, potentilla, meadow barleyzz _5 13 potentilla narrow band of reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry- 14 along wooden boardwalkk „ , A. 15 cattail and bittersweet nightshade native shrub buffer (e.g., snowberry, roses, red -flowering - � a 16 currant) - planted i� Japanese knotweed, hops, reed canarygrass, small -fruited - 17 bulrush growing adjacent to boardwalk 18 American three -square, potentilla, 4 r - F ,' , } saltgrass 19 saltgrass f O ' . , — J cattail and common reed (common reed in western portion of 20patch)a'. saltgrass, potentilla, baltic rush, Lyngbye's sedge, small •' " L patch American three -square, brass buttons, spear saltbush 21 and pickleweed along mudflat perimeter 22 spear saltbush, saltgrass O'ew 23 barley A spear saltbush, saltgrass, meadow _ 2 24 spear saltbush, saltgrass, meadow barley 25 hardstem bulrush, creeping bentgrass 26 cattail lCLla:LlG15 L rL7 F- 16 • 4 },q - J Willow and f _- - ti.Y - _- _' ,fir.• - dw alder �p r L Imagery taken May 2018 provided by Google Earth N o Wi11 V V a 0.01 0.02 Miies �❑ Unique vegetation patches Major vegetation transition line Figure 2. Marsh interior vegetation environmental LLC 0 50 100eet DRAFT d Q Packet Pg. 47 6.A.d accountability of tax money: Where is the funding coming from and how will the City assess success or impact? There is also concern to actively police the burgeoning presence of homeless camps and transient vehicle living. Rather than cast aspersion on the "downtrodden," Board Member Rubenkonig referred to one of the most poignant points she saw on social media, which proposed an action for our neighbors. "The money (reference to the $250,000 the City Council allocated for homelessness) could be used to help the elderly before they get behind in property taxes, or mortgage payments in Edmonds, and other individuals who have lost their jobs and may lose their homes in Edmonds. Maybe a qualification would be that the person needs to have lived in Edmonds for five years. " Board Member Rubenkonig also quoted another social media post, `Affordable housing would go a very long way toward helping get people off the streets. Ever heard of working homeless? " She commented that many homeless people hold down jobs, and many have children who are enrolled in the Edmonds School District. She cautioned that the words spoken by the Board at this meeting will not alter the problems their neighbors face tomorrow. She said she believes Edmonds cares but prefers to see a structured approach focusing on chosen priorities as identified by the City Council. Again, she expressed her belief that the report provides facts about Edmonds situation and possibly provides a direction to take. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if staff would propose a recommendation for the Board to consider at its next meeting. Director Hope said staff would identify the changes. Board Member Rubenkonig asked that staff provide the Board with some options as to how to craft the discussion and come up with a recommendation to the City Council. Director Hope explained that, typically, Planning Board recommendations are not expected to be big statements. The Board can recommend that the Council approve the document as is or with some changes. They do not need to summarize all of the various opinions. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW INTRODUCTION Mr. Lien reviewed that the City just completed a comprehensive update of the SMP in June of 2017. This update was a complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent with new regulations and guidelines that were adopted by the Department of Ecology (DOE) in 2003 (WAC 173-26). The Board completed its work on the comprehensive update in 2015, but it took a few years to get through the Council due to a few issues. Mr. Lien advised that the SMA requires each city and county in the State to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Given that they just completed the comprehensive review in 2017, only minor tweaks are needed at this time. He referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 4), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic review. Most of the amendments are minor and no substantive changes are proposed. Mr. Lien said in addition to the potential amendments identified on the checklist, 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 with the Urban Mixed -Use IV shoreline jurisdictions. He explained that the Edmonds Marsh was identified in the updated SMP as a Shoreline of the State, which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. In the previous SMP it was not considered a Shoreline of the State so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the marsh. This new shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square was a controversial topic during the SMP update, and the City Council initiated the study to get more information about the marsh and appropriate buffers. At this time, he is not sure that the study will be completed in time to be incorporated into the periodic review. Mr. Lien said that another potential amendment is related to public hearings (ECDC 24.80.100). In the previous SMP, all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits went to the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision. With the updated SMP, only certain Shoreline Substantial Development Permits can go to the Hearing Examiner. If a Conditional Use Permit or design review is required, applications automatically go to the Hearing Examiner. However, minor projects that do not otherwise require a hearing are staff decisions. As per the current SMP, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits begin as a Type 11 staff decision and change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner upon written request during the comment period. Staff will propose amendments to clarify this process in the SMC, likely using something similar to the Critical Area Contingent Review Process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.d Mr. Lien said that, in conjunction with the periodic review, staff is recommending that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) wetland regulations be revised for consistency with the DOE's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. He explained that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of the updated wetland guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance on wetlands. That means the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline jurisdictions. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency for all wetland regulation within the City. The CAO amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board on July 11 th Mr. Lien said there was a recent code amendment that had to do with the amount of clearing that could occur without a Critical Area Report. However, this recent amendment does not currently apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. By re -adopting the CAO, the amendment will also be incorporated into the SMP, as well. Mr. Lien reviewed the work program approved by the City Council, including a public participation plan. He said the periodic review is due by June 30, 2019, and the intent is to have the work completed by that date. The Planning Board is scheduled to conduct a public hearing in September or October. Following the 30-day comment period, staff will compile and respond to the public comments. It is anticipated the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Council by the end of 2018. He said he would bring back the specific code amendments that were identified in the checklist on July 25r' for Planning Board discussion. Chair Monroe asked how often the SMP will come before the Board for a periodic update, and Mr. Lien said the periodic update occurs once every eight years. The deadline for the next update is June 30, 2019. Chair Monroe asked if the City would have to wait another eight years to incorporate information from the Edmonds Marsh Study into the SMP if the study is not completed in time for the 2019 update. Mr. Lien answered that if the Edmonds Marsh Study recommends different buffers, the City could update the SMP before the next periodic update is required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the July 11 ' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance update and a continued discussion on the Draft Housing Strategy. The July 25' meeting agenda will include a presentation on the Shoreline Master Program periodic update, a public hearing on a rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 and a public hearing on a code update related to permit decision making. At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, the Board agreed to review their schedules and discuss possible dates for a Planning Board Retreat at their next meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe announced that Ms. Livingston, the Board's student representation, has resigned due to scheduling conflicts. He thanked her for her service and suggested the Board start the recruitment process to select a new representative. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she filled in for Board Member Lovell at the Economic Development Commission meeting on June 191. At the meeting, it was decided that the liaisons to the Commission would be given an opportunity to report on what their groups are doing. The intent is to invite one liaison to report at each meeting. She advised that the Commission is still interested in having a joint meeting with the Board. �IL111J 711u_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.e a brief presentation, it is anticipated the public will be invited to share ideas. Board Member Rosen advised that he posted the open house notice on the Nextdoor website in an effort to engage more people in the conversation. Board Member Lovell reported that the Economic Development Commission cancelled its August meeting, so their next meeting will be September 19'. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires each city and county with "shorelines of the state" to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific needs of the local community. The SMA also requires that SMPs be updated at least once every eight years, and the City is required to complete its periodic review by June 30, 2019. Mr. Lien explained that a periodic review is different than a comprehensive review. The City just completed its comprehensive review in June of 2017, completely overhauling the SMP to be consistent with state guidelines found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The periodic review is a statutory requirement of all cities and counties in the state. The periodic review is intended to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with the City's other plans, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data. Mr. Lien referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 and identifies the amendments that are needed to make the City `s SMP consistent. He explained that the SMA comprehensive review took a number of years to complete and some of the recent amendments and shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated. He noted that none of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the SMP. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments identified on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few additional amendments as part of the update. He explained that updates to the SMP may result from the site -specific study of the Edmonds Marsh that is currently in progress. These amendments may include updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and modifying the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline jurisdiction. Staff is also recommending language to clarify the process for moving shoreline permit review from a staff decision (Type II) to a public hearing process (Type III). In addition, staff is recommending that the City revise its Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) wetland regulations for consistency with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) most recent Wetland Guidance. He reminded the Board that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of their updated Wetland Guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance. As a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency for wetland regulations throughout the City. Mr. Lien reviewed each of the proposed amendments with the Board as follows: • ECDC 24.80.010.B.1— Cost Threshold for Substantial Development Permit (2017.a). The Office of Financial Management (OFM) revised the cost threshold above which a development will require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) to $7,047. The 2012-2017 amount of $6,416 was simply adjusted for inflation. The new threshold was effective September 2, 2017. Staff is proposing that the dollar amount in the City's SMP be updated accordingly. • ECDC 24.90.020.D — Definition of Development (2017.b). The DOE amended its permit rules to clarify that the definition of "development" does not include projects that involve only dismantling or removing structures without any associated development or redevelopment. Staff is proposing a new sentence be added to the definition of "development." Board Member Lovell asked if this new definition would apply to the demolition of Haynes Wharf. Mr. Lien answered that it would apply to removal of the bulkhead and other development landward, but he is not sure it would apply to the wharf, itself, since it is located in the water. • ECDC 24.80.025 — Exceptions to Local Review Under SMA (2017.c). The DOE adopted WAC 173-27-004 to consolidate three separate laws that create special exceptions to applicability of local SMPs. As proposed, a new section would be added to ECDC 24.80.025 to identify the types of development actions that are exempt from review under the Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 50 6.A.e City's SMP. These include: remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions, boatyard improvements to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and certain Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) maintenance and safety projects and activities. The change is consistent with what the City has been doing in practice. ECDC 24.70.020.1) and G — Nonconforming Use and Development (2017.g). The introductory paragraph clarifies that the rule is a default rule that only applies if a local government has no provisions in their local SMP to address nonconforming uses. The City's SMP contains a nonconforming development chapter (ECDC 24.70), so this provision would not be applicable. However, staff is recommending a revision to ECDC 24.70.020.13, which currently requires a nonconforming structure that is moved any distance to be brought into full conformance. This provision is potentially a disincentive to moving structures away from the shoreline so they are less nonconforming. As proposed, the change would require a nonconforming structure to be moved "as far as practical" from the shoreline. This change allows more flexibility to get something better that is less nonconforming. The DOE is recommending that the time period for obtaining permits to replace damaged development be extended from 6 months to 2 years. Even in normal circumstances, it can take longer than 6 months to prepare an application, and staff believes a longer timeframe is warranted when a development has been damaged. However, staff is recommending an 18-month time period to be consistent with the timeframe in the nonconformance chapter of the code. • Expansion of Nonconforming Use via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The DOE suggested allowing the expansion of nonconforming uses through a CUP. However, the City does not have a similar provision in its nonconforming code or zoning code. Staff does not believe this is something the City should allow, so no amendment has been proposed. • ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 and C.3 — Periodic Reviews (2017.h). The DOE adopted new rules in 2017 that spell out the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews of SMPs as required by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.080(4). Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 be amended to update the frequency of the periodic review from 7 to 8 years. In addition, a new sentence would be added under the Administrative Authority and Responsibility section. (ECDC 24.80.150.C.3). • Process for Submitting the SMP to the DOE (2017.j). Board Member Lovell asked if the City's SMP contains a description of the SMP submittal process for the DOE's review. Mr. Lien answered that it does not; and therefore, no amendment is needed. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.16 — Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Permit Exemption (2016.a). The legislature created a new SDP exemption for retrofitting existing structures for ADA compliance. The City's current list of exemptions does not include ADA retrofitting, and staff is proposing that the list be updated accordingly. • ECDC 24.80.105.A and B — 90 Day Target for Local Review for WSDOT Projects (2015.a). The legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of WSDOT projects. The law allows WSDOT projects that address safety risks to begin 21 days after the date of filing if the project will achieve no net loss of ecological function. Staff is recommending a new section (ECDC 24.80.105) to add this special procedure. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b — Replacement Docks on Lakes and Rivers (2014.a). The legislature raised the cost threshold for requiring an SDP for replacement docks on lakes and rivers from $10,000 to $20,000. Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b be amended to reflect this updated dollar threshold. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how "fair market value" is determined, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be based on the value of the project. Docks have a certain value assigned to them in the table the City uses to apply the building code, and this same table would be used when implementing this SMP provision. The intent is to prevent someone from replacing a dock and then doing small additions later to avoid the permit requirement. • ECDC 24.80.095 — Shoreline Restoration Projects within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) (2009.a). The legislature created new "relief' procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) resulting in a hardship for properties subject to new and extra regulations. The new procedures were a response to concerns that the SMP regulations could stop or significantly alter restoration projects. This Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.e "relief' procedure is not explicitly referenced in the current SMP, and staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.095 be amended to adopt the "relief' rule by reference. Another option would be to incorporate the rule into the SMP to make it clear that the process is available. The rule allows people to do restoration projects that expand the OHWM further landward without expanding the shoreline jurisdiction, as well. This new rule could be applied at the Edmonds Marsh as part of the City's project to daylight Willow Creek. • ECDC 24.90.020.GG — Options for Defining Floodway (2007.a). The legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps or the floodway criteria set forth in the SMA. Currently, neither the CAO or the SMP define the term "floodway." Staff is recommending that a definition be added to ECDC 24.90.020.G. that uses the FEMA maps. The "SMA floodway" described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA Floodway Map, which is derived from a model. Currently, no floodways have been identified in Edmonds. • List and Map of Streams and Lakes (2007.b). The DOE amended the rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs must include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. The City's shoreline jurisdictions are defined within the text of the SMP and on maps. Staff is recommending that the shoreline jurisdictions be reviewed and revised as necessary. • ECDC 24.80.010.B.15 — Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects (2007.c). The DOE's rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects. The City's SMP provides an exemption for fish habitat enhancement projects, but it does not include all of the language in WAC 173.27.040(2)(p). Rather than adopting language to match the WAC rule, staff is suggesting that ECDC 24.80.010.13.15 be amended to include a reference to the WAC rule. That way, the City won't have to amend the section again if the WAC rule changes at some point in the future. Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments outlined above, which are intended to ensure consistency with changes to state laws and rules, staff is considering modifications to the following elements of the SMP: • Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state relatively late in the previous SMP update and appropriate shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh was the subject of significant public comment and discussion before the City Council. The City is working with a consultant to assess the ecological functions of the marsh and evaluate buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. Results from this study will be used to update the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and could result in modifications to the UMU-IV shoreline regulations. ECDC 20.80.100 —Public Hearings. ECDC 24.80.100 identifies when a public hearing is required for an SDP. In some cases, the SDP may begin the process as a Type II staff decision but change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner if requested during the comment period. Staff is recommending that ECDC 24.80.100 be amended to clarify this process, which would be similar to the contingent review process in the CAO (ECDC 23.40.195). As per the proposed process, an SDP that does not trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or require an open record hearing would be a Type 11 staff decision. Staff would issue a notice of application, followed by a 14-day public comment period. If someone requests a public hearing during the public comment period, the application would be bumped up to a Type III decision by the Hearing Examiner. The application fee would increase from $880 (Type 11) to $1,820 (Type III), and the person requesting the hearing would be required to pay 50% of this additional cost. The applicant would be responsible for the other half of the fee, and the City would pay the Hearing Examiner costs. Board Member Lovell suggested that the language in ECDC 24.80.100(A)(4) needs to be changed to provide more clarity relative to who would pay the fees when an application changes from a Type II to Type III decision. Mr. Lien agreed to review the language for clarification. • ECDC 24.40.020 — Critical Areas. As discussed earlier, this section of the code would be amended to adopt the updated CAO provisions for wetlands into the SMP by reference. The City is currently working to update the CAO to be consistent with the DOE's newest 2018 Wetland Guidance. Once the CAO has been updated and adopted by reference in to the SMP, the wetland section of the SMP can be deleted. The result will be one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. Mr. Lien summarized that the work program going forward identifies additional Planning Board study sessions before the public hearing. However, the proposed periodic changes are minor, and the Board may be ready to move on to the public Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.e hearing without any additional study sessions. After the public hearing and public comment period, staff will respond to the comments received and then the Board can formalize its recommendation to the City Council. The Edmonds Marsh Study is ongoing and the timeline for updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization has not been finalized. Staff will conduct a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review at about the same time as the public hearing. A page was created on the City's website to provide information about the SMP Periodic Review, including the checklist, work program, public participation plan and links to Planning Board agendas and minutes. The Board agreed that no additional study session is necessary before the public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding is that the Edmonds Marsh Study will not be completed before the Board acts on the SMP Periodic Review. Mr. Lien agreed that the study would not be completed, but the part that needs to be acted upon, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, should be available this fall. The study will not impact any of the proposed code changes identified on the checklist. However, after it has been completed, along with a buffer study, the City Council may want to change the buffers and setbacks for the UMU-IV shoreline jurisdiction. These changes would come later and will not be part of this periodic update. PLANNING BOARD RETREAT The Board discussed the following list of potential agenda topics for their retreat: 1. Identify, invite and host a non-profit housing developer or affordable housing "oriented" developer to meet and talk about strategies for putting together such a project in Edmonds. 2. Have a staff member present and lead a discussion regarding available building land within Edmonds. 3. Pick a given area or property in Edmonds and discuss the applicable regulatory steps and/or modification necessary for said property to accommodate affordable housing. 4. Increasing the Board's effectiveness in service to the Council. 5. Increasing the Board's effectiveness and efficiency in working with staff. 6. Increasing public engagement. 7. Defining a vision of success as a Board. 8. Hold an open forum for local business owners to offer ideas and suggestions on how to improve the business district. 9. Bring in a consultant that specializes in increasing to tourism to cities. Given the amount of public interest, Board Member Rosen suggested that Topic 1 might be more appropriately discussed in a regular meeting that allows the public to engage in the conservation. Board Member Lovell agreed that the draft Housing Strategy has ignited a lot of feedback from the public, and the City Council has expressed to staff that they want more public input before carrying their discussions further. They scheduled a public open house for August 27. Board Member Lovell said he suggested Topics 1 through 3 because he thought the issue of housing would be a big concern coming up in the City and it would be good for the Board Members to become better educated on the topic. He said he supports the idea of bringing in a developer to talk about what could be developed and how the City could help, whether the discussion takes place at a retreat or a regular meeting. Board Member Crank recalled that she previously suggested the Board invite a representative from Blockable to do a presentation at the Board's retreat or as part of a regular meeting. In addition, she suggested it would be helpful to have a presentation/discussion about housing development in general, and not just focused on affordable housing. Focusing too much on affordable housing created a lot of stress, misinformation and negative connotations amongst the public, when the Housing Strategy is really about diversifying the housing strategy. It would be helpful to have a general presentation around the potential housing inventory for all types of housing. Chair Monroe commented that this general discussion about housing would be more appropriate for a regular meeting rather than the retreat. Board Member Crank observed that the Planning Board is also the Parks Board, yet it has been quite some time since the Board has had any park -related discussions. She suggested the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be invited to provide an update on parks, especially as it pertains to accommodating the population growth related to development. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like the presentation to go beyond the regular quarterly report, perhaps an overall presentation about what is going on at all the parks. Board Member Rosen commented that if the Board's concern is that staff is not Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 53 6.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 Public hearing before the Planning Board on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will set a minimum residential parking standard for small -footprint buildings (4,800 sq. ft. or less) located in BD -zoned properties in Downtown Edmonds. These small -footprint buildings have previously not had any parking required. Staff Lead: Planning Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History On August 21, 2018, the City Council adopted a moratorium on new residential units in the BD zones that don't have any on -site parking; the issue was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. The Planning Board discussed the issue on October 10, 2018. Staff Recommendation Forward the draft code amendment language to the City Council for potential adoption. Narrative A complete application for a nine -unit apartment building in the City's Downtown Business District (BD2 zone) was recently submitted and approved under the City's existing code. The proposed development will have no on -site vehicle parking. That is consistent with the existing code for this particular zoning district, which states plainly: "No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet." (See Attachment 1, especially the code provision in ECDC 16.43.D.3 which specifies the exemption). The code chapter applies only to the BD zones. Note that "footprint" simply means the ground area occupied by the building. Therefore, because the 9 units were comprised of three units on each floor and the building footprint was less than 4,800 square feet, no parking could be required. Project approval must be decided based on the existing code at the time of application submittal. The issue was brought to Council and a moratorium was adopted on August 21, 2018, to give the Planning Board time to study the issue and forward a recommendation to the Council on any potential code amendment regarding this code provision. The exemption for residential parking in downtown BD -zoned buildings was adopted by a previous Council over 10 years ago (2006) with the purpose of incentivizing small -footprint buildings in the downtown area. At that time, new limits had been placed on downtown buildings regarding first floor height and placement, requiring 12- or 15-foot first floor heights and pinning the ground floor to the adjacent grade level. These provisions had been adopted so that the ground floor of a building was not sunk below ground level, which had started to' happen with some new development. With these new Packet Pg. 54 6.B restrictions, the Council at the time also wanted to provide incentives for property owners or developers to build smaller -footprint buildings, thus the exemption from residential parking for building footprints under 4,800 square feet. Since there was also no commercial parking requirement, it was possible that no on -site parking need be provided. This may not have been fully appreciated at the time. The potential for no onsite parking for a new building was recently realized with the application for a new 9-unit residential building downtown. Other property owners on the street became aware of the project and expressed great concern over the potential impact on the street and available parking. Attachment 1 contains the relevant downtown parking provisions, with potential amendments identified. This is a public hearing. The Planning Board recommendation will be forwarded to the Council while the moratorium is still in effect. Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Amendments to ECDC 16.43 BD Parking Attachment 2: Planning Board Minutes Attachment 3: BD Residential Parking 2018-08-21 City Council agenda item Attachment 4: CC Minutes 2018-08-21 BD parking Packet Pg. 55 Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards — BD zones. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. Page 1/3 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The "downtown business" zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD 1 — Downtown Retail Core; BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Side Minimum Rear Maximum Designated Street Sub District Area Width Street Setback Setback' Setback' Height2 Front° BD15 0 0 0 0 0 30' 15' The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4125, passed August 21, 2018. Packet Pg. 56 Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Side Minimum Rear Maximum Sub District Area Width Street Setback Setback' Setback' Height2 BD2' 0 0 0 0 0 30' BD3' 0 0 0 0 0 30' BD4"' 0 0 0 0 0 30' BD5' 0 0 0 0 0 25' 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). S Within the 13134 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. "Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street -front" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the "finished" ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Page 2/3 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front' 12' 12' 12' 12' D. Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off -Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD 1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. 3. No par -king is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprin4 of less than 4,900 squarve €ee. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4125, passed August 21, 2018. Packet Pg. 57 Edmonds Community Development Code Page 3/3 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. C. The Downtown Business Area. 1. All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a mixed use or residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. For purposes of this chapter, "residential uses" shall refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features. 2. All existing and new uses in existing buildings are considered to comply with the parking requirements set forth in this chapter of the code. [Ord. 3496 § 2, 2004]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4125, passed August 21, 2018. Packet Pg. 58 6.B.b Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are tree -planting techniques that direct root growth downwards so as to avoid interference with the hardscape. She suggested the City seek input from landscape architects regarding these opportunities so that street trees are planted in ways that encourage root growth to grow deeper rather than branching out and remaining closer to the surface. This will help minimize the conflict between trees and hardscape. DISCUSSION ON MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHOUT PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD) ZONES. Mr. Chave reviewed that, in the interest of encouraging smaller buildings in the BD zone, a previous City Council decided not to require parking for residential development in buildings with a total footprint of less than 4,800. At the time, there was already no parking requirement for commercial uses in the BD zones. Until recently, there had been no projects to take advantage of this residential parking incentive. However, an application for a 9-unit apartment building was recently approved that will have no on -site vehicle parking, which is consistent with the existing code for the BD2 zone. Other property owners on the street raised concern that no on -site parking would be provided and how this would impact the available on -street parking. In response to these concerns, the Council adopted a moratorium on August 2l't to give the Planning Board time to study the issue and forward a recommendation to the Council on any potential code amendments regarding this code provision. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 3 of the Staff Report, which contains the general downtown parking provisions. He highlighted that ECDC 17.50.010.0 normally requires one parking space for each residential unit, but the language in ECDC 16.43.D.3 specifies an exemption to the parking requirement for residential uses in buildings with a total footprint of less than 4,800. The easiest approach to reinstate a minimum residential parking standard for downtown development in small buildings would be to simply delete this section so the exemption no longer exists and then default to ECDC 17.50.010.C. Chair Monroe pointed out that ECDC 17.50.010.0 speaks to the parking requirement for residential uses associated with mixed - use development, but it does not specifically speak to buildings with only residential units. Mr. Chave agreed that the language in ECDC 17.50.010.0 could be amended to clarify that it would apply to buildings that are entirely residential, too. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council is seeking feedback and a recommendation from the Board so that code amendments can be in place before the moratorium expires in February. That means the Board needs to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation by December. Again, he said staff is recommending that the residential parking exemption for small buildings (ECDC 16.43.D.3) should be eliminated. That would mean that the parking requirement for all residential units in the BD zone would be the same (one space per unit). If that is the direction the Board wants to go, staff would review the remainder of the BD zoning standards to make sure the parking requirements are consistent throughout. For example, it may be necessary to add additional language to ECDC 17.50.010.0 to make it clear that all residential units in the BD zone must provide one parking space per unit. Vice Chair Cheung asked how "dwelling unit" is defined in the City's code. Mr. Chave said it is defined as a place where one family resides. "Family" is defined as related individuals or up to five unrelated individuals. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that although there is an opportunity for several unrelated individuals to live in a single dwelling unit, only one parking space would be required in the BD zone. Vice Chair Cheung said the proposed change to require one parking space per dwelling unit seems to make sense, but perhaps there could be some exceptions to the requirement to accommodate units that are occupied by people who do not own vehicles. Mr. Chave explained that parking spaces in a multifamily building are not typically assigned to individual units. They are generally provided for the residential property, and it is up to the property owner and residents to parcel them out. The City does not enforce having one space per unit whether or not you have a car. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has provisions that would allow an exception for a multifamily project that is located close to a bus stop and other public transportation. Mr. Chave said there is no exception in the BD zone, but this option does exist on Highway 99 if a proponent can produce a study that supports the lower parking standard. Board Member Robles asked if there are size requirements for the parking spaces. Mr. Chave said there are depth and width requirements, but not height requirements. Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 59 6.B.b Board Member Robles asked if there are other options for incentivizing affordable housing. He is concerned about requiring large parking areas for residential units that do not necessarily need the space. Mr. Chave said some jurisdictions have taken the approach of eliminating the parking requirement altogether for properties located near transit. He agreed that the parking requirement has an impact on the ability to develop affordable housing, but it also impacts lenders when determining whether or not a project is viable. He pointed out that a 1 parking space per unit requirement would still be less than the City's requirement for multifamily development in other zones. Elsewhere, the lowest parking requirement is 1.2 spaces for a studio apartment. Board Member Robles asked if allowing residential development without any parking could result in any externalized risks. Chair Monroe answered that it could tax the public good by reducing costs to developers and putting the costs on the public instead. While it would allow a developer to maximize the building area, it would push cars out onto the streets. Vice Chair Cheung pointed out that almost all on -street parking in the BD zone is restricted to a certain number of hours. He asked if it would be possible for residents to purchase permits that allow them to park on the street for longer periods of time. Mr. Chave said the City already offers permits for commercial employee parking, but it is fairly limited. Vice Chair Cheung suggested that perhaps the program could be expanded to accommodate residential parking, as well. This would help limit the residual affect of having no parking requirement, and having no parking requirement could result in more opportunities for affordable housing. Vice Chair Cheung suggested that before making a blanket requirement of one parking space per unit, the Board should consider other options further. Chair Monroe said he would not feel comfortable reducing the parking requirement to less than one stall per unit. There is a race to eliminate single -occupancy vehicles, but it is not yet a reality. Vice Chair Cheung summarized that the point of the proposed amendment is to avoid driving multiple cars into the streets where there are already parking issues. However, it may be possible to address the issue better by providing flexibility for less parking so that units can be more affordable. For the purpose of the discussion at hand, Chair Monroe suggested that the best solution would be to require one parking space per unit, which is consistent with all other residential development in the BD zones. The Board could then discuss a more comprehensive approach to address parking and affordable housing in the BD zones at some point in the future. Board Member Robles observed that the City Council has debated this issue, and they will make the ultimate decision. Getting their input on the record is the most important thing the Board can do. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how stakeholders and property owners who would be most impacted by the proposed change could be notified of the public hearing. Vice Chair Cheung suggested it would be helpful to hear from the developer of the apartment complex that caused the issue to come to the forefront, as well. Mr. Chave advised that the public hearings regarding the proposed amendments will be published in the local newspapers, posted on the City's website, and posted in various locations throughout the City. A public hearing before the Planning Board is set for November 14'. At that time, staff will present proposed language that would reflect a requirement of one parking space per unit. Board Member Cloutier advised that a quick search of the issue reveled that a parking requirement of one space per unit is actually quite low compared to other jurisdictions. Many require one space per bedroom. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the October 24' agenda will include a public hearing on the 2019-2023 CIP and CFP. The November 141 agenda will include a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the BD zone parking requirement and a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program Update. The November 28t1i meeting was cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe commented that he enjoyed the presentation on the CIP and CFP. It is a lot of fun watching projects go from conception to design and then development. Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 60 6.B.c City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/21/2018 Moratorium on Development of Residential Units Without On -Site Vehicle Parking Space in the BD Zoning District Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History A complete application for a nine -unit apartment building in the City's Downtown Business (BD)District was recently submitted and approved under the City's existing code. The proposed development will have no on -site vehicle parking. That is consistent with the existing code for this particular zoning district, which states plainly: "No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of less than 4,800 square feet." (See ECDC 16.43.D.3.) The code chapter applies only to the BD zones. Note that "footprint" simply means the ground area occupied by the building. Therefore, because the 9 units were comprised of three units on each floor and the building footprint was less than 4,800 square feet, no parking could be required. Project approval must be decided based on the existing code at the time of application submittal. Amending a city code related to development or zoning typically takes at least 3 months to be prepared and brought through a required public process. The required process includes: Analysis of the issue and options to address the problem Development of specific language for the code amendment Review under SEPA and its timelines Public hearings of the proposed amendment by both the Planning Board and City Council (each with minimum 14-day public notice ahead of the hearing) Additional meetings by the Planning Board or City Council, as needed A 60-day notice to the state (although the state will sometimes approve an expedited notice and review process) Preparation or review of an ordinance by the City Attorney Final decision by the City Council. Sometimes the need for a code amendment --and the possibility that more development would proceed under a problematic part of the existing code --is strong enough that the City temporarily intervenes by adopting a limited moratorium on that type of development. That intervention is proposed with this agenda item. Staff Recommendation Adopt the attached ordinance Packet Pg. 61 6.B.c Narrative State law authorizes the legislative bodies of city and county governments to establish and continue moratoria in increments of no more than 6 months, while a more permanent solution is sought. Such a moratorium ordinance does not require a public hearing or other advance process steps. However, a public hearing on whether to continue or change the moratorium must be held within 60 days of the ordinance's adoption. Moratoria are not to be considered lightly. It is a significant step that takes time and energy and should be narrowly crafted so as to not affect other types of development. The nine -unit apartment building recently approved without on -side parking in a BD zone may be an anomaly. This is the first time the on -site parking exemption has been used and no new applications have been submitted for development of housing without on -site parking in the BD zone. However, without a moratorium or similar legislative action, if such an application were submitted before a code amendment can be adopted to add a parking requirement, the application would be subject only to the existing code. The attached ordinance: 1. Precludes City acceptance of applications for new housing in the BD zone that does not have one or more on -site parking spaces per unit; and 2. Sets a public hearing for September 25 to consider whether to continue the moratorium. 3. Has an immediate effective date and stays in place for 6 months unless certain other legislative actions are taken to shorten or extend the time period. Options: A. Do not adopt a moratorium, thus allowing potential development applications to proceed under the existing code, while a code amendment goes through the normal public process. B. Adopt the moratorium as a temporary measure while a code amendment goes through the normal public process and can be considered for adoption. Attachments: 2018-08-16 Moratorium - residential without parking Packet Pg. 62 s.g.� CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONES, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING, SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE BD ZONES THAT DO NOT PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City recently approved an application for a new 9-unit apartment building that did not provide any vehicle parking on site; and WHEREAS, the zoning code for the BD zones currently exempts buildings with a footprint (not total area) of less than 4800 sq. ft. from the City's normal on -site parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the City considers it likely that development permit applications could become vested soon which would permit additional residential units that would not provide on - site parking; and WHEREAS, the City is questioning whether this exemption should continue to be allowed for residential buildings and residential portions of buildings; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council therefore believes a moratorium to preserve the status quo is necessary, until the Edmonds City Council can study, hold public hearings, deliberate, and adopt appropriate regulations to address such residential structures or units; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council does not have sufficient information to consider the impacts of and the options to allowing additional residential structures or units that do not provide parking; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose an immediate six-month moratorium on the acceptance of any development permit application for the permitting, siting, establishment or Packet Pg. 63 s.g.� construction of any residential structures or units in the BD zones that do not provide parking on - site; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to study the impacts associated with the permitting, siting, establishment or construction of residential structures and units in the BD zones that do not provide parking on -site and to consider options for imposing new requirements for residential units and their associated parking in the BD zones. The City's goal is to ultimately draft zoning regulations to address such structures and units in the BD zones, to hold public hearings on such draft regulations, and to adopt such regulations. Section 2. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council hereby imposes an immediate six-month moratorium in the BD zones on the acceptance of all development permit applications to permit, site, establish or construct residential structures or units that do not provide at least one on -site parking space per residential unit. This moratorium shall apply equally to new residential structures, residential additions to existing structures, and changes of use to residential within existing structures. Section 3. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 1 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Packet Pg. 64 s.g.� Section 4. Public Hearing on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on September 25, 2018 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Declaration of Emergent. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's acceptance of development permit applications, such applications could become vested, leading to the construction or establishment of additional residential units in the BD zones which do not provide on -site parking. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 7. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 65 s.g.� Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 66 s.g.� SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2018, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONES, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING, SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE BD ZONES THAT DO NOT PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2018. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 67 6.B.d ■ All property located south of 240th St. SW, between 84th Ave. W and Edmonds Way. Change Comprehensive Plan designation from Edmonds Way Corridor to Corridor Development (Hwy 99) (AMD20180001). o Comprehensive Plan amendments related to the budget will occur at a later date. Councilmember Johnson commented these amendments are proposed in anticipation of being the only Comprehensive Plan amendment this year; however, the City has until December to adopt the amendments and things are afoot in other areas such as the moratorium related to parking in the BD zone and the Council's role in development review applications. She asked if any further 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments were anticipated through the end of the year. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered these are the only Comprehensive Plan amendments proposed during the period that Comprehensive Plan Amendments were accept for 2018. The exception would be anything related to the CFP or CIP which are done during the budget process. The moratorium is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan as it is a zoning issue. The Council's role in development review applications would be an amendment to zoning procedures in Title 17and possibly other sections and no Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. Ms. Hope clarified zoning regulations need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but that does not mean the Comprehensive Plan contain everything that is in the zoning regulations, building code, etc. The Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year with certain exceptions. Development regulations, as long as they do not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, can be amended at any time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4123, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2018 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHOUT ON -SITE VEHICLE PARKING SPACE IN THE BD ZONING DISTRICT Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the current code does not require a building in the Downtown Business (BD) zone with a footprint of less than 4800 square feet current code to provide onsite parking. Most buildings have provided onsite parking in spite of the code because the developer felt it was needed. A complete application was submitted and approved under the City's existing code. Although there were concerns with that proposal, the application had to be approved as it met the code. The concern now is whether other development could be proposed before the code is adjusted. A code amendment typically takes three months due to public hearing, approval by the state, SEPA process, etc. Even though there are no other applications for residential units without onsite parking in the BD zone, it seemed a good precaution to propose a moratorium on new residential without at least one space per unit of onsite parking while that issue is studied. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for acting swiftly, noting she was shocked when she received an email that this had occurred, thinking a residential building would have to have onsite parking. She clarified a commercial building with a footprint under 4800 would still follow the code. Ms. Hope agreed, explaining the moratorium would only effect residential. The moratorium requires a public hearing within 60 days and sets a date. Following the public hearing, the moratorium would continue for up to six months unless the Council decides otherwise. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4124, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE BD ZONES, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING, c m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a August 21, 2018 Page 10 Packet Pg. 68 6.B.d SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE BD ZONES THAT DO NOT PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. CRUMB RUBBER EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM Council President Nelson explained the City Council adopted a moratorium in December 2015 on crumb rubber on publicly owned athletic fields within the City. The intent at that time was to extend the moratorium until a federal study was completed by the Environmental Protection Agency Center for Disease Control and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. A draft report, Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds, was sent to peer review in May 2018 and the next step is public comment this summer. In the meantime, he requested extending the crumb rubber moratorium until November 15, 2018. COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4125, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER") ON PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 2018; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Teitzel agreed with extending the moratorium but was concerned about the proposed extension to November 2018 because the moratorium also refers to the federal study as well as the study by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in California is due to be released in mid-2019. The California study will study fields in hot temperatures and assessing off gassing. He preferred to extend the moratorium through June 30, 2019 to allow the California study to be completed before a decision is made. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM UNTIL JUNE 30, 2019. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the City was only allowed to extend a moratorium for six months. She preferred to extend the moratorium for six months. City Attorney Tom Brubaker agreed. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECONDER. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR SIX MONTHS. Mr. Brubaker said with this amendment, the moratorium would be extended for six months from the date of publication, late February 2018. Councilmember Mesaros suggested extending the moratorium from the expiration of the previous moratorium. Mr. Brubaker advised the current moratorium expired on August 15, 2018. Councilmember Tibbott recalled in the past he requested the Council consider excluding the school district from the moratorium. At that time, he was concerned the federal study would not be completed by July which in fact is the case and now the Council is considering extending the moratorium to February 2019. C 00 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes a August 21, 2018 Page 11 Packet Pg. 69 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 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 extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting. Packet Pg. 70