2019-06-12 Planning Board Packetti3 f!}:qr
- Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
ant ,4x COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 12, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes: May 22, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Legislative Update
B. PSRC VISION 2050 Planning Process
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 12, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/12/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes: May 22, 2019
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft minutes
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached
Attachments:
PB190522d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
SUMMARY MINUTES
May 22, 2019
Chair Cheung 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
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Nathan Monroe
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report. Board Member Lovell requested an update
on the status of the Housing Commission. Mr. Chave reported that Director Hope discussed a variety of options with the
City Council and they gave her the go ahead to prepare some options. Hiring a consultant to assist the Commission is one
option on the table. Board Member Crank announced that the City Council is accepting applications through the end of May
and over 90 applications have been received so far. She asked about the framework for reviewing the applications and
appointing members, and Mr. Chave said he was unable to comment on that.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS
Mr. Lien recalled that this public hearing was originally scheduled for May 8', but was postponed until May 22nd because the
meeting room was overbooked. He explained that, as per ECDC 17.40.020.A, 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 into the City. " The code section in question prior to the interim ordinance is
ECDC 17.40.020.F. It says that "if a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to
75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be constructed except in full
conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. "
Mr. Lien explained that the situation came forward when banks started to refuse financing for the purchase of condominiums
that were constructed prior to the City's major zoning change in the 1980's. Many of these developments exceed the current
bulk standards (density, height and setbacks). He provided a map of properties that might be impacted, but noted that the
map has not been updated since the last meeting. Staff identified 24 sites but did not evaluate all residential buildings within
the City.
Mr. Lien advised that the City Council passed an interim ordinance on April 23`d that added an additional sentence to ECDC
17.40.020.17, which reads, `PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in the same location, and
to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before the destruction or damage occurred if an application for
a building permit is submitted within one year of the date the damage occurred. "
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board discussed this issue on April 24" and provided direction similar to the language
contained in the interim ordinance. The Board felt a property owner should be restored in full if something were to happen to
his/her property. Based on the Board's feedback, staff drafted the proposed amendments. He reviewed each of the changes as
follows:
• ECDC 17.40.010.F.1. This section refers to a code section that is no longer relevant. The proposed amendment
would update the language to provide the correct reference (ECDC 19.00.025(G).
ECDC 17.40.020.F and G. ECDC 17.40.020.17 deals with restoration of all nonresidential nonconforming
buildings, and ECDC 17.40.020.G deals with restoration of all nonconforming residential buildings in commercial
zones. The proposed amendment combines Section F and G and breaks it into three separate sections. The majority
of the proposed changes match the interim ordinance. However, the interim ordinance had a one-year timeline for
submitting a building permit application, and the Board requested that it be increased to 18 months, with an
opportunity to extend for an additional 180 days.
• ECDC 17.40.020.F.1 would apply to all nonresidential nonconforming buildings and would require that
nonresidential nonconforming building that are damaged more than 75 percent, must comply with all of the current
zoning codes. Buildings damaged less than 75 percent can be restored if a building permit application is submitted
within 18 months of the date such damage occurred.
ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 would apply to all nonconforming multifamily residential buildings or mixed -use buildings
containing multiple residential units. The Planning Board will need to make a recommendation on whether or not
this provision should be limited to multi -family residential or include mixed -use buildings that also contain
residential units, as well. Some of the old nonconforming code applied to buildings that were primarily residential.
The provision would allow nonconforming multifamily residential buildings or mixed -use buildings containing
multiple residential units to be restored if damaged in excess of 75 percent if a building permit application is
submitted with 18 months of the date the damage occurred.
• ECDC 17.40.020.F.3 pertains to the right of restoration and would apply to both nonresidential nonconforming
buildings and residential nonconforming buildings. As written, the right of restoration would not apply if -
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's
agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
owner's agent;
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment.
Item c is a new item that is intended to address the situation of an existing apartment building that is nonconforming
(exceeds density and height) and a developer wants to tear it down and construct another building. Staffs thought is
that the building should be required to comply with the current zoning standards.
• ECDC 19.00.045 is a new section that was added to the Building Code. The City has a policy for determining when
a project is considered new construction versus a remodel. Different standards and fees apply whether a project is
new or a remodel. Many developers try to retain 25 percent of a structure's value and do a remodel instead of a
rebuild. This amendment would codify the policy and add a specific reference to the nonconforming section to
make it clear that the nonconforming code would still apply.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the City Council wants to address this issue fairly quickly, and they are seeking a
recommendation for the Board prior to their public hearing, which is scheduled for June 4'.
James Forrer, Edmonds, said he lives in the condominiums that abut 4" and 5" Avenues South, and his primary concern is
that many of the owners are between 80 and 90 years old and have lived there since the project was built in 1979. If the issue
is not resolved in the right way at a time when they might need medical care, assisted living or a nursing home, a lot of their
net worth is tied up in their condominiums and a lot of that would be obliterated if people cannot get bank loans or cash
purchasers do not come in to replace the bank loans.
Cami Morrill, Director of Government and Public Affairs with the Snohomish County and Camano Association of
Realtors, offered support for the draft code language, which will allow the nonconforming buildings to be restored to the
same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred.
Wendy Kondo, Windermere Real Estate, said she brought this situation to the City's attention when her transaction
wouldn't close. The bank would not lend money for the condo when it was discovered it could not be rebuilt. That means
they are unwarrantable and underwriters won't purchase the loans. This is a very dangerous situation, especially with the
banks and government getting tighter and tighter with lending. Most cities she checked into have grandfathered these types
of buildings because they already exist and people already own them. She asked that the City change its code language to
allow these structures to be grandfathered in so the owners can sell their condominiums and people can still get loans to
purchase them. There is no reason not to allow them to be rebuilt. The buildings are already there and they won't be built
any differently than they currently are.
Board Member Rosen referred to ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 and asked if it would be possible to apply the proposed provisions to
just the residential portion of a nonconforming building and require that the nonresidential portion must meet the current code
standards. Mr. Lien answered that it would be very difficult to have different provisions for the commercial versus
residential space because there are number of ways a building can become nonconforming.
Board Member Monroe asked if it would be possible to include a provision that would lock a development into the current
ratio of commercial versus residential. He wouldn't want to allow a property owner to significantly change the ratio. Mr.
Lien clarified that the proposed amendments would not open the box to allow a property owner to maximize the density that
existed in 1980 or when the building was constructed. It allows the building to be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks, etc. that existed before the destruction or damage occurred and the nonconformity could not expand.
Board Member Lovell said he supports the proposed amendments. However, it is important to understand that if a building is
lost, the insurance company will be responsible for making the owner whole and not the City. Regardless of how long that
process takes, he doesn't understand how that is the business of the City. While the banks can raise concern about the
nonconforming issue, he doesn't believe they would deny the loan if the purchaser wants to go forward anyway. The unit
would still be livable even if it was built to an earlier code standard.
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Board Member Lovell observed that, although the amendment would allow a property owner to restore a structure to the
same bulk and setback standards, the restoration would have to meet the current Building Code requirements. All the
amendment offers is a one -for -one replacement of the space in whatever configuration it existed in before the building was
lost.
Mr. Lien agreed that most owners will have insurance and if a condominium burns down, they will receive X amount of
money from the insurance company and the owner could technically purchase a condominium in another location. However,
that may not make an owner who has a condominium on 5`t' Avenue with a view whole. It would not give the property owner
back what he/she had at the same location. He summarized that the proposed amendments are not intended to solve the
insurance and banking issues. The intent is to allow a property owner to be made whole, and it is more than just providing a
new place to live. It is providing a new place to live in the same location that they were.
Chair Cheung asked if the proposed amendments have been run by any insurance companies or banks to solicit feedback on
whether or not they will resolve the issues. Ms. Kondo reported that the interim ordinance addressed the bank's problem and
the purchaser was able to obtain a loan to purchase the unit. Mr. Lien summarized that the interim ordinance addressed the
situation that raised the issue initially, but the proposed amendments have not been presented to financial institutions for
feedback.
While some may be looking at this as an opportunity to address a number of things at one time, Board Member Crank
recommended they fix the immediate issue of grandfathering nonconforming condominiums first. She supports applying the
proposed provisions to nonconforming mixed -use buildings with residential units, and she is opposed to having a different
standard for the commercial portion of a mixed -use building. They need to address this issue expeditiously. Edmonds is a
bedroom community, which means the majority of condominium owners are older. Time is of the essence in making sure
they rectify the situation. She said she supports grandfathering in those buildings that have been identified as
nonconforming, including those that are mixed -use. She encouraged them to right the ship first before making other potential
changes to zoning.
Vice Chair Robles asked who would adjudicate the "rights to restoration" matter. While it is obvious when there is a fire,
earthquake, etc., there are more ways by which buildings can lose substantial value. For example, they may need a new roof,
new siding, and new piping. Together these costs might exceed the value of the building, in which case the owners may
decide to demolish it and build a new one. He asked if this would fall within the definition of gross negligence. Mr. Lien
explained that a property owner would provide a list of all the materials needed to reconstruct the building, and the Building
Official would make the final determination of whether or not it equates to 75 percent. The property owner can appeal the
Building Official's decision to the Hearing Examiner. A building that needs a new roof, siding, wiring, etc. would fall into
this category if the work exceeds 75 percent. He commented that some property owners try to save at least 25 percent of a
building so it can be considered a remodel rather than replacement so that different permits, codes and fees can apply.
Vice Chair Robles asked if staff feels the proposed amendments adequately cover every eventuality. He asked how "gross
negligence" would be defined. Every building has a service life, at which point it needs to be brought down. Mr. Lien said
"gross negligence" includes situations of ongoing neglect. A building that hasn't had any maintenance done to it for the past
40 years would not necessarily fall into this category, but it could fall into the "ongoing neglect" category. Mr. Chave added
that if the Building Official finds that a building is uninhabitable or dangerous, it likely got there by gross negligence.
Chair Cheung asked if Section F.3.a would cover situations where someone intentionally damages a building in order to
collect insurance money. He asked if it has to be an unlawful act in order for F.3.1 to apply. Mr. Lien responded that
accidents happen, and that is what the amendments are intended to address. Section F.3.a is intended to address situations
where property owners intentionally damage their buildings.
Vice Chair Robles asked if the adjudication process could include a third -party review to access negligence. Mr. Lien said
the Building Official is the City's qualified expert to make that call. If the property owner disagrees, the Hearing Examiner
would be the third -party review. The Hearing Examiner's decision can be appealed to Superior Court. Vice Chair Robles
voiced concern about forcing a condominium owner into an appeal process that will require money to pay for attorneys and
experts. That money could be better spent repairing the building. Mr. Lien said that, as a professional, he follows a code of
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
ethics, and the same is true for the Building Official. The Building Official tries to make ethical decisions, and requiring a
third -party will add an upfront cost that may not be necessary. Even if a third -party review is required, there must still be an
avenue of appeal. He cautioned against adding this unnecessary step.
Board Member Monroe asked what happens if one condominium owner intentionally burns down his/her unit and it catches
the entire building on fire. Would this trigger ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.a. Mr. Lien said he doesn't believe that situation would
fall under this provision since the action would be out of the hands of the other owners in the building. Board Member
Monroe asked who would make that determination. Mr. Lien said a number of people would be involved in the decision.
Board Member Monroe suggested that ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.c be changed to read, "the building was intentionally
demolished." Chair Cheung suggested that ECDC 17.40.020.F.3.a also be changed to replace "unlawful" with "intentional."
Mr. Lien agreed to consider these two changes to make the language clearer.
Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.40.020.F.2 and asked if the restored building would be required to meet all four
of the standards (density, height, setbacks and coverage). Mr. Lien said these are all different aspects for why the building is
nonconforming. They represent the bulk and dimensional standards for what a structure can be rebuilt to. Board Member
Monroe suggested this could be clarified by replacing the word "and" with "or." Mr. Lien agreed.
Board Member Monroe commented that in addition to making property owners whole, the proposed amendments will also
make the community whole. If a building burns down, the community will lose residents and businesses, etc.
Board Member Lovell said he supports correcting the alleged short fall within the provisions to make it possible to rebuild,
but it should be clear that the amendments have nothing to do with insurance, banking or the value of a unit before, after or
during loss. The amendment simply enables a property owner who has a nonconforming building to rebuild in accordance
with the new Building Code, but to the preexisting density, setback and height.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH ONE CHANGE TO AMEND ECDC
17.40.020.F.2 BY REPLACING "AND" WITH "OR." BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave advised that the amendments, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a
public hearing on June 4t'
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung advised that the June 12' agenda will include a legislative update and a Vision 2050 update. Mr. Chave
advised that staff would also present an update on development activities around the City.
Chair Cheung reminded the Board Members of the joint meeting with the City Council on June 18t''. Topics of discussion
will include housing and improving the lines of communication between the Planning Board and the City Council. Mr.
Chave said the Board will also be meeting jointly with the Architectural Design Board soon to discuss the design review
process.
Since there are few items on the extended agenda for June and July, Board Member Monroe suggested that they consider
adding some of the items included on the "Pending" list. For example, staff could provide an update on Highway 99
Implementation.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung reported that he and Vice Chair Robles presented the Planning Board Report to the City Council. He told them
the Board was excited to have more topics coming their way. He explained how the Board Members try to get their
comments in the minutes from their meetings and hope that the City Council Members take the time to read them. A few
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Council Members indicated that they read all of the Board's minutes. He suggested that, moving forward, the report should
be schedule for twice a year rather than every quarter. Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps they could alternate with joint
meetings with the City Council.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Robles pointed out that the Planning Board minutes are being searched, particularly when people are interested in
learning more about "hot button" topics. The Board Members need to be aware that they are establishing a data base with
their comments. The City Council appears to be respectful of the Board's work.
Board Member Monroe recalled that Board Member Rubenkonig indicated she would serve as the interim liaison to the
Economic Development Commission. He agreed to contact her to confirm that she would attend the next meeting.
F.11 13010 19010 1 pool 1
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
May 22, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/12/2019
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
The Development Services Director will give an update on the Housing Commission.
Attachments:
Director. Re port.06.07.19
Packet Pg. 9
5.A.a
°F E L Af
rrrc. i !t'y.
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 7, 2019
To:
From:
Subject
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there.
- Lewis Carroll
Next Planning Board Meeting
The next regular Planning Board meeting is June 12. It will feature an update on VISION 2050,
and a recap of 2019 planning -related legislation.
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board will meet next on June 13 to discuss:
❑ Regional Growth Strategy Preferred Alternative
❑ VISION 2050 Draft Multicounty Planning Policies.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
❑ The SCT Planning Advisory Committee (comprised of planning and community
development directors around the county) met in May. Discussion included:
o Preparations for 2021 Buildable Lands Report
o Planning for light rail communities
o Timeline for County's 2023 Comprehensive Plan Update to incorporate future
VISION 2050 policies
o Update on VISION 2050 process.
❑ The SCT Steering Committee (comprised of elected officials) met May 22. Discussion
topics included:
o Economic Alliance Snohomish County
o VISION 2050 update
o Community Advisory Board appointments
o Recommendation on Rural Town Centers.
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 10
5.A.a
Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART)
Snohomish County has formed a new task force to identify opportunities for the region to meet
affordable housing needs. The task force is comprised of local leaders from the county, cities and
tribal governments.
Executive Dave Sommers antic a five-year plan that identifies opportunities to improve the
region's ability to meet affordable housing needs through 2050. The focus of the work will be on
middle income, affordable housing, subsidized housing, alternative housing models, and land use
and redevelopment. A report detailing those goals is expected by the end of the year.
Mayor Dave Earling is the City of Edmonds' representative to the new county -wide task force and
Shane Hope, Development Services Director, is the alternate.
LOCAL PROJECTS
Housing Commission
The City Council has established a new Citizens' Housing Commission. Applications are being
accepted from eligible residents. For more information, including application forms, checks
online at: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. (Note: A recent vote by the City
Council on formalized that members of codified boards and commissions during the last two
years are not eligible for appointment.) A postcard mailing, with brief information and reference
to the website, has been sent to every known household address in the City.
Small Tree Brochure
The Citizens' Tree Board has just completed a new brochure. The brochure is designed to
provide examples of trees for small spaces, noting key features and illustrations of several
different species. This information will be very useful to local residents as they think about tree
choices. Copies of the brochure will be available soon for public distribution.
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Housing Commission Applications
Applications for the Citizens' Housing Commission now number about 125. They come from all
seven districts in the City. The application period has been extended until June 21 to provide
more time for interested residents to apply. A press release went out yesterday about this.
Ultimately, each of the seven Council members will select two Commissioners and one alternate
for their assigned district. The Mayor will then select one Commissioner and one alternate from
the remaining applicant pool. Meanwhile, the City Council has approved additional resources
(consultant and possible part-time temporary staff person) to support the Commission' work
through 2020. Commission meetings and events will be videotaped. (More information is
available at: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/.
Urban Forest Management Plan
A new revised draft Urban Forest Management Plan has been issued. This version reflects
various changes to the background information, including:
❑ Additional emphasis on native Northwest trees
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
❑ Removal of references to any specific "opportunity planting area"
❑ Removal of specific dollar amounts to represent the benefits of tree functions (while still
recognizing that trees provide important benefits)
❑ More information about tree values and issues, including how city regulations address
trees.
The City's website has a link to the draft plan at:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/PI
anninR Division/Plans/UFMP/EdmondsWA-UFMP-2019 06 3-1.Ddf. It is scheduled for
consideration and potential action by the City Council on June 18.
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
On June 5, the Architectural Design Board held the first phase of a two-phase public hearing on
the new Graphite Arts Studios proposal. Graphite 1, at 202 Main Street, would be an 11,000 sq.
ft. one-story wood frame art studio with a gallery, cafe and parking. Graphite 2, at 117 2nd Ave.
South, would be a 17,000 sq. ft. two-story wood frame building with eight apartments over
commercial space and parking. The Board took testimony about the project from staff, applicant
and the public and provided the applicant with some design guidance to take away and make
refinements. The hearing was continued to August 7.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission met on June 3, with an agenda that included:
❑ Concerts
❑ Tourism Promotion Awards Review Committee
❑ Public Art
❑ Creative District Advisory Committee
❑ Student Representative
❑ Capital Projects
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met May 2 to discuss potential measures for Edmonds to
track progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The next round of discussion on this topic
will be at the Committee's June 6 meeting.
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on June 5. Items of discussion included:
❑ Update from the City
❑ Recap of Retreat
❑ Storytelling Project update
❑ Native land acknowledgement
❑ U funds Policy
❑ Subgroup Reports
❑ Arts and Youth commission partnerships
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC meets next on June 19. An agenda will be posted online when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner presided over a public hearing on May 23 and June 6 to consider permits
for: redeveloping the Edmonds Senior Center site, along with its associated parking and beach
access, and constructing an overwater walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums.
Consideration also included an appeal by the Ebb Tide Condominiums of the City's threshold
determination for the project under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
❑ The proposed building is approx. 26,300 square feet. The proposed overwater walkway
would connect two existing portions of the Edmonds Marine Walkway to provide a
continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. Approx. 1,424 cubic yards of fill and
36 creosote -treated timber piles that make up the existing bulkhead would be removed,
and a new beach access point with pile -supported concrete stairs and ramp would be
added within the existing footprint. The parking lot would be reconfigured to include a
bio retention planter for water quality treatment and infiltration.
❑ The Hearing Examiner's decision was issued on June 7 to approve the development
permits, subject to certain conditions, and to deny the appeal.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission meets next on June 13. An agenda will be posted online
when available.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met on June 6. Attendees discussed:
❑ McLellan garden tour ❑ Team for Tree ID Tags
❑ Dangerous trees on 91" Ave ❑ Arbor Day
❑ UFMP status ❑ City tree plan review
❑ PUD tree topping ❑ Hiring contractor for Tree City USA
❑ Farmers Market booth
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission meets next on June 12. An agenda will be posted online when available
City Council
The June 4 City Council meeting included:
❑ "Orca Action Month" proclamation
41
❑ Public hearing & action on Nonconforming Building Code Amendments (Council adopted
code amendments —as recommended by the Planning Board —to allow nonconforming
multifamily buildings that are damaged more than 75% to be rebuilt to the same
dimensions, density, etc., as they were permitted originally)
❑ Approval of resources for recording Housing Commission events
❑ Approval of target timeframe for the City Council to begin review of Housing Commission
applications — Council decided on June 21
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• May 5 —June 9: Garden Market, Bell St., 9 am — 2 pm
• June 14: Edmonds Art Festival
• June 19: Sea Jazz at Port of Edmonds public plaza, 1— 3pm
• June 20: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown Edmonds, 5pm
• July 3: Low -Tide Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor Station, 10 am
5 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 14
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/12/2019
Legislative Update
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Planning issues have frequently been included in state legislative considerations. However, in 2019, the
number of active bills on planning issues was notably high.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Some of the initial language in 2019 planning -related bills shifted quite a bit during the session. For
example, language that would have required specific rigorous actions by cities was softened to provide
much more flexibility.
Bills from 2019 that are likely to have the greatest interest to the Planning Board focus on the following
topics:
- Housing
- Land Use
- Climate
- Transportation.
More detailed information on key 2019 bills will be presented at the Planning Board's June 12 meeting.
Packet Pg. 15
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/12/2019
PSRC VISION 2050 Planning Process
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The four -county area (Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap), which comprises the central Puget Sound
region and includes the City of Edmonds, plans together for certain issues through the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC). The City of Edmonds is a PSRC member. The broadest current regional plan
that applies to our area is VISION 2040, adopted in 2009 through the PSRC process. (See online at:
https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents.) It is being updated to become VISION 2050. For
background information, see Attachment 1. The update process includes issuance of a draft and final
supplemental environmental impact statement.
On March 5, 2019, the City Council reviewed the VISION 2050 update process, including highlights of the
draft environmental impact statement.
On March 21, two local government organizations (Snohomish County Tomorrow and Snohomish
County Cities and Towns) sponsored a countywide event about the update process. Over 100 people,
including various local elected officials, participated.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the information and ask any questions
Narrative
An open house on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for VISION 2050 was
held at the Edmonds City Hall Brackett Room on Tuesday, March 12. Public comments around the
region continued through into early May, 2019. They included a letter from the Edmonds Mayor. (See
Attachment 3.)
The DSEIS for VISION 2050 reviewed the environmental effects of three regional growth alternatives for
distributing growth in unique patterns throughout the region. In all alternatives, by 2050, about 1.8
million more people and 1.2 million more jobs are expected in the central Puget Sound region. The final
Supplemental EIS will help in the selection of the best alternative --or a combination of alternatives,
which will be incorporated into VISION 2050 to help effectively guide planning for our region's future.
VISION 2050 is expected to build on and update VISION 2040 but is not a complete re -write. (An
example of an intended update topic for VISION 2050 is more attention to climate change.) While the
Packet Pg. 16
8.6
drafting of some components of VISION 2050 has begun, more work is needed including a decision on
the preferred regional growth pattern. All components will be fleshed out and presented as a draft for
public comment this summer.
An update on key 2050 growth pattern choices, along with the DSEIS process, will be presented at the
Planning Board meeting on June 12. (See Attachment2.)
Adoption of the completed VISION 2050 is expected to occur in spring 2020.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: V2050-dseis-execsummary
Attachment 2: PSRC Vision Overview
Edmonds —VISION 2050 DSEIS
Packet Pg. 17
8.B.a
Source: PSRC
Executive Summary
VISION 2050 is a shared and integrated strategy for how and where the central Puget Sound
region should grow. Population in the region has grown to 4.1 million, with more than
376,000 new residents added since 2010. More growth is coming. Forecasts show the
region needs to plan for 1.8 million additional people and 1.2 million new jobs by 2050
(Figure ES-1).
Figure ES-1. Historical and Forecasted Regional Population and Employment
5.8 Million People
3.4 Million Jobs
Actual Forecast
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
• Population • Employment
Source: PSRC
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-1
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 18
8.B.a
VISION 2040 is the region's current plan for managing growth forecasted through the year
2040. The plan includes overarching goals, an environmental framework, a strategy to
sustainably guide growth in the region, and multicounty planning policies as required by the
state Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36A.70.210). The plan also includes
implementation actions at the regional, county, and local levels. VISION 2040 policy chapters
address the environment, development patterns, housing, the economy, transportation, and
public services.
The region has had important successes implementing VISION 2040, which helps fulfill the
goals of the GMA. Considerable economic gains in recent years have made the region among
the fastest -growing in the country. The plan has helped coordinate state and regional initiatives
and support local decisions. Regionally, growth is shifting toward more compact, sustainable
development occurring within urban areas and cities, with cost-effective and efficient services,
reduced impacts on the environment, and positive health outcomes.
At the same time, the region continues to face challenges, including the climbing cost of
housing. Congestion from rapid growth is reducing access to jobs, services, and housing.
While recent economic growth has been strong, prosperity has not benefited everyone or all
parts of the region. Finally, pressing environmental issues such as climate change, the health
of Puget Sound, and open space preservation require more collaborative, long-term action.
PSRC is updating the region's vision to reflect changes since it was adopted in 2008, and to
consider new information and changes that have occurred in the growing region. Local
governments have been implementing the region's growth strategy through population and
employment targets and comprehensive land use planning. As the region plans for another
decade of growth:
• How should it accommodate new population and employment through 2050?
• Should the region's long-term strategy for growth change?
VISION 2050 is an opportunity to refocus the region's long-range plan to address these
concerns and prepare for future growth. This plan will guide anticipated growth in ways that
support regional objectives for thriving communities, a strong economy, and a healthy
environment.
What is the Regional Growth Strategy?
Under GMA, counties, in consultation with cities, are responsible for adopting 20-year growth
targets. These population and employment growth targets are a key input to local
comprehensive plans, ensuring that each county is accommodating population and
employment growth. Jurisdictions use growth targets to inform land use, transportation, and
capital facilities in their 20-year comprehensive plans.
The Regional Growth Strategy defines roles for different types of places in accommodating the
region's population and employment growth, which inform the countywide growth target -
setting process. The Regional Growth Strategy also serves an important role as a coordinated
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-2
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 19
8.B.a
regional statement of the long-range land use development assumptions that underlie the
Regional Transportation Plan, required by both GMA and federal transportation planning
regulations.
Counties, cities, and towns implemented VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy through
their countywide growth targets and local comprehensive plans following the adoption of
VISION 2040 in 2008. The Regional Growth Strategy Background Paper, which is included in
Appendix E, outlines data trends since 2000 and the adoption of VISION 2040 in 2008
(PSRC 2018a).
This Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) reviews the
environmental effects of three distinct regional growth alternatives that are being considered
for VISION 2050:
• Stay the Course
• Transit Focused Growth
• Reset Urban Growth
Each of these three alternatives is
intended to help preserve
resource lands, protect rural
lands from urban -type
development, and promote infill
and redevelopment within urban
areas to create more compact,
walkable, and transit -friendly
communities. However, they
distribute growth in unique
patterns that have different
trade-offs. This Draft SEIS shows
a range of land use,
transportation, environmental,
and other impacts that would
likely occur with each of these
alternatives and identifies
opportunities to mitigate them.
Source: Parametrix
PSRC is seeking feedback on
these alternatives during the public comment period, which runs through April 29, 2019.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-3
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 20
8.B.a
Why is PSRC doing an environmental review of
the plan?
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that public agencies identify
environmental impacts likely to result from plans and projects. PSRC will use the environmental
review process to analyze the effects of continued growth in the region, and alternative ways of
responding to and accommodating that growth. Just as VISION 2050 will build upon VISION
2040, the VISION 2040 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides a foundation for
the environmental review of VISION 2050. This Draft SEIS updates the VISION 2040 FEIS and
provides additional information for consideration. The information presented in this Draft SEIS
will help with the selection of a preferred growth alternative.
The scoping process for VISION 2050 in early 2018 provided an opportunity to have a
conversation with the public about how the region should grow. PSRC staff had contact with
many individuals, organizations, and local jurisdictions throughout the region during the
comment period, and received more than 1,300 individual comments. The top five categories
of comments included land use and development patterns, transportation, Regional Growth
Strategy, environment, and housing. The engagement process and comments received during
scoping are summarized in the VISION 2050 Scoping Report (PSRC 2018b) and are reflected
in the following desired outcomes for the plan:
• Climate. Meaningful steps have been taken to reduce carbon emissions and minimize
the region's contribution to climate change.
• Community and Culture. Distinct, unique communities are supported throughout the
region, cultural diversity is maintained and increased, and displacement due to
development pressure is mitigated.
• Economy. Economic opportunities are open to everyone, and the region competes
globally and has sustained a high quality of life. Industrial and manufacturing
opportunities are maintained.
• Environment. The natural environment is restored, protected, and sustained,
preserving and enhancing natural functions and wildlife habitats.
• Equity. All people can attain the resources and opportunities to improve their quality of
life and enable them to reach their full potential.
• Health. Communities promote physical, social, and mental well-being so that all people
can live healthier and more active lives.
• Housing. Healthy, safe, and affordable housing for all people is available and
accessible throughout the region.
• Innovation. The region has a culture of innovation and embraces and responds to
change.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-4
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 21
8.B.a
• Mobility and Connectivity. A safe, clean, integrated, affordable, and highly efficient
multimodal transportation system reduces travel times, promotes economic and
environmental vitality, connects people, and supports the Regional Growth Strategy.
• Natural Resources. Natural resources are permanently protected, supporting the
continued viability of resource -based industries such as forestry, agriculture, and
aquaculture.
• Public Facilities and Services. Public facilities and services support local and regional
growth plans in a coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner.
• Resilience. The region's communities plan for and are prepared to respond to potential
impacts from natural hazards and other adverse events.
• Rural Areas. Rural communities and character are strengthened, enhanced, and
sustained.
This Draft SEIS will help inform how regional planning can best achieve these outcomes.
Chapter 1 contains more information on the purpose and need for this SEIS.
How has the region changed since VISION 2040
was adopted?
The central Puget Sound region continues to be a desirable major metropolitan area, attracting
new residents, employers, and visitors. It is known as a clean, healthy, safe, and diverse place
with a vibrant economy
and temperate climate.
The region has a
remarkably beautiful
natural setting, including
snowcapped peaks,
abundant waterways and
shorelines, and lush
forests and greenery. The
natural environment
provides habitat for a wide
variety of fish and wildlife,
and at the same time
creates economic
opportunity through
industries such as fishing
Source: Parametrix
and timber harvest, and
provides numerous recreational and tourism opportunities. These features have all made the
region a magnet for growth.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-5
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 22
8.B.a
Key changes in the last decade:
• Technology industry employment is experiencing rapid growth, particularly in Seattle
and central King County
• Job growth has been strong in recent years but has been uneven across the region and
by industry
• Population and housing growth continues at a rapid pace
• Regional demographics are changing as the population is becoming older and more
ethnically and racially diverse
• Rent and home prices have been increasing dramatically, causing a crisis of housing
affordability
• Transit infrastructure around the region is expanding, and transit ridership is increasing
• Climate change is of growing urgency, and intersects with many resources including air
quality, ecosystems, and water
Chapter 2 details changes to the environmental baseline since the publication of the
VISION 2040 FEIS in 2008. VISION 2050 will address these issues through the Regional
Growth Strategy and regional policies and actions.
The current regional population is 4.1 million, an increase of 376,000 people —or 10 percent —
from 2010 to 2017 (Figure ES-1). The VISION 2040 FEIS forecast a population of 5.0 million by
2040, whereas current forecasts have updated this to 5.3 million in 2040. By 2050, it is
estimated the regional population will have grown to 5.8 million people.
Consistent with VISION 2040, the vast majority of the region's population, employment, and
housing is contained inside the region's designated urban growth areas. From 2005 to 2017,
the percentage of population within the urban growth area increased from 85 to 87 percent
and the percentage of employment remained constant at 96 percent.
VISION 2040's Regional Growth Strategy focuses growth not only in urban areas, but more
specifically in regionally designated urban centers. Between 2010 and 2017, 12 percent of the
region's population growth occurred in centers. From 2010 to 2017, 37 percent of regional job
growth was located in regional growth centers and 8 percent was located in
manufacturing/industrial centers. Chapter 2 contains information on existing conditions for
land use, population, employment, housing, and other resources.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-6
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 23
8.B.a
Alternatives evaluated in this SEIS
At the heart of VISION 2040 is a shared vision of how
and where the region should grow. The Regional
Growth Strategy provides a description of a planned
physical development pattern that the central Puget
Sound region will evolve into overtime. This
environmental analysis includes three distinct
alternative patterns of future growth that were
developed after a public comment and scoping
process, extensive review by PSRC's Growth
Management Policy Board, and input from regional staff
and other stakeholders. These three alternatives allow
the environmental analysis to consider the effects of
extending the current growth strategy to 2050 and the
potential effects of changes to that strategy.
The strategy for accommodating growth asserts that the
Source: Parametrix
region will sustain and grow a variety of places such as active centers and central cities, small
towns, and rural areas into the future. Other than in natural resource lands and military
installations, all growth alternatives assume that all types of communities will grow and
accommodate forecast growth (1.8 million additional people and 1.2 million additional jobs by
2050), though at different rates by geography and by county.
The Regional Growth Strategy uses "regional geographies" to classify cities and
unincorporated areas by roles and types. Grouping cities and other place types provides
flexibility to counties and cities to identify appropriate growth targets for individual cities in each
category, while acknowledging differing roles for accommodating growth. Based on scoping
comments and discussion with the board, PSRC identified changes to the VISION 2040
regional geographies and developed updated classifications for cities and unincorporated
urban areas. The proposed updated regional geographies are:
• Metropolitan Cities
• Core Cities
• HCT(High-Capacity Transit) Communities
• Cities & Towns
• Urban Unincorporated Areas
• Rural
• Resource Lands
• Major Military Installations
Locations of regional geographies are depicted in Figure ES-2. Proposed regional geography
changes are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, in addition to the three alternatives
summarized below.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
ES-7
Packet Pg. 24
8.B.a
Figure ES-2. Regional Geographies
0
W
Snohomish County v
Event p
L
a
0
o
N
o Z
O
06 N
Seattl '
U
tY
N
a
King County E
r 3
® to
U
C5
q
unty
Source: PSRC
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
• Regional Growth Center
Manufacturing Industrial Center
- Metropolitan Cities
- Core Cities
HCT Communities
Cities & Towns
Urban unincorporated Areas
Rural
Resource Lands
Tribal Land
Major Military Installations
ES-8
Packet Pg. 25
8.B.a
Stay the Course (No Action) Alternative
The Stay the Course alternative is a direct extension of the VISION 2040 Regional Growth
Strategy and assumes a compact growth pattern, focused in the largest and most
transit -connected cities in the region within the region's 29 designated regional growth
centers. This alternative serves as the required no action alternative that must be evaluated
in accordance with SEPA.
This alternative continues to direct the largest share of future growth to the region's five major
Metropolitan Cities: Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Bremerton, and Tacoma. Growth is also
focused in the region's Core Cities —those other cities with regional growth centers that are
concentrations of growth and serve as economic and transportation hubs for the region.
Compared to historical trends, this alternative allocates less growth in urban unincorporated
and rural areas and more growth in cities. Growth in urban unincorporated growth areas is
envisioned as occurring in areas affiliated with cities for annexation, and growth in rural areas is
minimized when compared to past trends.
This alternative maintains the current Regional Growth Strategy allocation of shares of growth
For this analysis, Stay the Course and subsequent data measures use the revised regional
geographies. PSRC developed model inputs for Stay the Course using the existing
VISION 2040 regional geographies and then calculated inputs and results based on the
revised system of regional geographies.
Transit Focused Growth Alternative
The Transit Focused Growth alternative considers a compact growth pattern based on the
VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy that assumes accelerated growth near the region's
existing and planned transit investments.
The Transit Focused Growth alternative assumes an explicit goal for 75 percent of the region's
population and employment growth to occur within a quarter- to a half -mile from current and
planned high -capacity transit station areas, including light rail, bus rapid transit, commuter rail,
ferries, and streetcar. This would result in the largest shares of growth to Metropolitan Cities,
Core Cities, and HCT Communities.
The alternative also assumes a greater role in accommodating future growth for areas served
by high -capacity transit outside of Metropolitan and Core Cities. Growth in unincorporated
urban growth areas with existing or planned high -capacity transit and planned for annexation
or incorporation would be similar to cities with high -capacity transit.
The remaining share of population and employment growth would be distributed largely within
the urban growth area among areas not served by high -capacity transit based on the broad
objectives for the Regional Growth Strategy. Growth in rural areas and unincorporated areas
without access to high -capacity transit and unaffiliated unincorporated areas is the lowest in
this alternative.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-9
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 26
8.B.a
Reset Urban Growth Alternative
The Reset Urban Growth alternative shares similarities with actual growth patterns that
occurred from 2000 to 2016 and assumes a more dispersed growth pattern throughout the
urban area.
The Reset Urban Growth alternative assumes a more distributed pattern throughout the urban
area. This alternative would continue to allocate the largest shares of growth to Metropolitan
Cities and Core Cities, although the overall growth to these geographies and HCT
Communities would be less compared to Stay the Course or Transit Focused Growth.
Growth allocations for Cities & Towns and Urban Unincorporated areas are based on land use
capacities identified in currently adopted comprehensive plans. Growth in urban
unincorporated areas without access to high -capacity transit and unaffiliated urban
unincorporated areas is the highest in this alternative. Growth in rural areas would be slightly
higher than Stay the Course.
Comparison of Alternatives
A high-level summary comparing the distribution of growth between the alternatives is
presented in Table ES-1. It describes the Stay the Course (no action) alternative, and then
compares the Transit Focused Growth and Reset Urban Growth alternatives to Stay the
Course. Following the table, maps of each alternative's distribution of population growth
throughout the region are shown in Figures ES-3 through ES-5.
Table ES-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives to Stay the Course
TopicStay
What would the
growth pattern
look like?
the Course
Compact growth focused in
Metropolitan and Core cities
with regional growth centers.
Extends current growth plan.
Transit Focused Growth
More compact growth focused
in high -capacity transit areas
in Metropolitan, Core and HCT
Communities. Less growth in
outlying areas.
Reset Urban
Growth is more distributed
throughout the urban growth
area, while still assuming a large
share of growth to Metropolitan
and Core cities. More growth in
outlying areas.
Where would
Metropolitan Cities: 35%
Metropolitan Cities: 361/6
Metropolitan Cities: 3111/o
population
growth go?
Core Cities: 281/a
Core Cities: 29%
Core Cities: 25%
HCT Communities: 181/16
HCT Communities: 230/c
HCT Communities: 18%
Cities & Towns: 9%
Cities & Towns: 61/o
Cities & Towns: 8%
Urban Unincorporated: 5%
Urban Unincorporated: 4%
Urban Unincorporated: 12%
Rural: 5%
Rural: 2%
Rural: 6%
Where would
Metropolitan Cities: 44%
Metropolitan Cities: 440/c
Metropolitan Cities: 41
employment
growth go?
Core Cities: 361/o
Core Cities: 35%
Core Cities: 321/a
HCT Communities: 12%
HCT Communities: 13%
HCT Communities: 121/D
Cities & Towns: 5%
Cities & Towns: 4%
Cities & Towns: 6%
Urban Unincorporated: 3%
Urban Unincorporated: 2%
Urban Unincorporated: 6%
Rural: 1 %
Rural: 1%
Rural: 2%
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-10
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 27
8.B.a
Figure ES-3. Stay the Course: Population Growth Distribution 2017-2050
L
Source: PSRC
d Snohomish County
• •.�° ' %6
sewn �
9ellevu h•
s
King County
a
Pierce County
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
n
Population Growth
2017-2050
90 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
1001-2000
- 2001 - 5000
- 5001+
ES-11
Packet Pg. 28
8.B.a
Figure ES-4. Transit Focused Growth: Population Growth Distribution 2017-2050
d
Snohomish County
D
+ (/
s•�,
x King County
r
Pierce County
Source: PSRC
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Population Growth
2017-2050
90-250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
1001-2000
- 2001 - 5000
- 5001 +
ES-12
Packet Pg. 29
8.B.a
Figure ES-5. Reset Urban Growth: Population Growth Distribution 2017-2050
a
Snohomish County
r
4i�
v ,q
K i t s a p �•
County q. King County
rij � • iy
• i� e ~ ~ ~
F
Source: PSRC
In
Pierce County
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
O
12,
Population Growth
2017-2050
s0-250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
1001-2000
- 2001 - 5000
- 5001 +
ES-13
Packet Pg. 30
8.B.a
All alternatives assume the same amount of regional growth in population and employment
from 2017 to 2050-1.8 million additional people and 1.2 million additional jobs. As described
above, the difference between alternatives is how the growth is allocated among the regional
geographies —Metropolitan Cities, Core Cities, HCT Communities, Cities & Towns, Urban
Unincorporated, and Rural areas —and among the region's four counties. This distribution of
additional growth throughout the region results in environmental impacts. Some impacts are
similar across all alternatives, and some impacts show differences between alternatives. Key
impacts common to all alternatives are summarized in Table ES-2. Key differences between
alternatives are summarized in Table ES-3. Comprehensive discussion of all impacts can be
found in Chapters 4 and 5. See Appendix C for discussion of the modeling process and results.
The results summarized here are the result of analysis of the growth distribution patterns for
each alternative. Local plans that will be updated in accordance with GMA are not included.
These results also do not include planning and improvements that may occur at transit station
areas or the effects of other upcoming subarea plans.
Table ES-2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Resource
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Population,
Population and employment growth directed toward built areas will increase density
Employment,
and encourage infill and redevelopment
Housing, and
• Population and employment growth in less -developed and rural areas would result in
Land Use
lower -density land uses and potential development pressures on natural resource lands
• There is potential for displacement unless affordable housing opportunities and/or
other support is provided
Transportation
Compared to current conditions:
• The average distance people drive and the amount of time spent in a vehicle each day
would be reduced
• The average time people spend in congestion each year is forecast to increase
• Overall transit ridership is forecast to more than double
• Generally, the percentage of trips made by driving alone would decrease, while walking,
biking, and transit use would increase
• Substantially more jobs would be accessible by transit, walking, or biking
Air Quality
• There would be a marked reduction in all pollutants, including COze (a measure used
for reporting greenhouse gases)
Ecosystems
0Activities associated with development, including clearing, grading, vegetation removal,
and conversion of land to impervious surface would have adverse impacts to ecosystem
resources such as fragmentation and degradation of habitat
Water Quality
• Amount of impervious surface would increase as a result of added development, which
and Hydrology
may alter stormwater hydrology, reduce aquatic habitat, and degrade water quality
Public Services
• Demand for additional utilities including energy, solid waste, sanitary sewer, water, and
and Utilities
stormwater would be anticipated
• General service expansions of fire and police services, health and medical services,
and schools would be anticipated
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-14
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 31
8.B.a
Table ES-2. Impacts Common to All Alternatives (continued)
Resource
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Parks and
0For both local and regional parks, recreation, and open space resources, growth would
Recreation
lead to increased use, which could lead to degradation of the recreational experience,
potential degradation of natural and open space resources, and increased conflicts
between users
Environmental
• Development or redevelopment could occur in contaminated areas and expose
Health
construction workers or people living near construction activities to contamination or
pollution; however, growth in contaminated areas would result in a beneficial impact
through cleanup activities
• Human health would experience beneficial impacts from increased walking, biking, and
transit and increased access to open spaces
• Increasing density of the urban environment could cause localized air quality and noise
impacts if not properly planned for and mitigated
Historic,
• Development could alter landscapes and properties with archaeological, cultural, or
Cultural, and
historic resources through damage and destruction
Archaeological
Resources
Visual Quality
• Development in existing urban areas would result in an increase in density, height, and
scale of new and redeveloped areas, which could impede viewsheds and increase
shading but may provide beneficial impacts through redevelopment of aging
infrastructure and poorly maintained properties
• Development in existing outlying and rural areas would potentially convert undeveloped
spaces to other uses and may not be consistent with community visual character
Earth
• Impacts from earthquakes, landslides, volcanic activities, and floods could result in
damage to buildings and infrastructure, disruptions to utilities, economic losses, and
injuries and loss of life
Noise
• Growth in urban areas would likely increase localized noise impacts through the
replacement of vegetation with paved surfaces and buildings, an increase in the
number of noise sources (e.g., vehicles, construction equipment, and emergency
vehicles), and an increase in population density
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 32
8.B.a
Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Impacts
2050 Growth Alternatives
Topic
.
. .
.. r
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING
What would the balance of
jobs and housing be?
Generally improves job-
housing ratios compared
Improves jobs housing
ratios compared to
Improves jobs housing
ratios compared to
In 2014, King County
to baseline (2014).
Stay the Course.
Stay the Course.
subareas: 1.19 to 1.32.
In King County subareas:
King County subareas:
King County subareas:
Kitsap, Pierce, and
1.12 to 1.37. Kitsap,
1.03 to 1.29.
1.02 to 1.27.
Snohomish counties: 0.71
Pierce, and Snohomish
Kitsap, Pierce, and
Kitsap, Pierce, and
to 0.78.
counties: 0.65 to 0.77.
Snohomish counties:
Snohomish counties:
(jobs -housing ratios indexed
0.80 to 0.81.
0.79 to 0.81.
to the regional average)
How dense would housing
Less moderate -density
More moderate
Less moderate density
be?
housing compared to
density housing
housing compared to
Regional housing stock in
baseline (2017).
compared to Stay the
Stay the Course.
2017:
Moderate -density
Course.
Regional housing
16% high -density
g y
housing tends to provide
Regional housing
g g
stock growth
o
20 /o moderate -density
more affordable housing
stock growth
(2017-2050):
64% low-densitychoices.
(2017-2050):
o
44/o high -density
(regional housing stock by
Regional housing stock
57% high -density
13% moderate -density
density)
growth (2017-2050):
19% moderate -density
43% low -density
46% high -density
24% low -density
15% moderate -density
39% low -density
LAND USE
How close would growth
be to rural and resource
9% of growth (2017-2050)
throughout region occurs
6% of growth
throughout the region
10% of growth
throughout the
lands?
in proximity to the urban
occurs in proximity
region would occur
Population and employment
growth boundary.
to urban growth
in proximity to urban
growth in proximity to urban
boundary, a decrease
growth boundary, an
growth boundary
compared to Stay the
increase compared to
(2017-2050)
Course.
Stay the Course.
How much land would be
needed for development?
322,000 acres of land
developed.
285,000 acres of
land developed, a
331,000 acres of
land developed, an
Acres of developed land
decrease compared to
increase compared to
(2017-2050)
Stay the Course.
Stay the Course.
How close would transit
48% of population and
75% of population and
44% of population
be?
employment growth
employment growth
and employment
Population and employment
(2017-2050) occurs near
occurs near high-
growth occurs near
growth in proximity to high-
high -capacity transit.
capacity transit, an
high -capacity transit,
capacity transit service
increase compared to
a decrease compared
(2017-2050)
Stay the Course.
to Stay the Course.
Increased impacts
KEY: compared to
Stay the Course
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Similar impacts to Reduced impacts
Stay the Course / compared to
_ Neutral Stay the Course
ES-16
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 33
8.B.a
Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Impacts (continued)
2050 Growth Alternatives
Topic
•
TRANSPORTATION
How much would the
average person drive?
35 minutes, 13.4 miles,
in 2050, a decrease
33 minutes, 12.8
miles, a slight
35 minutes, 13.6
miles, similar to Stay
38 minutes, 16.1 miles in
compared to baseline
decrease compared
the Course.
2014 (average daily drive
(2014).
to Stay the Course.
time and drive distance, per
person)
How long would the
average person be stuck
31 hours in congestion
in 2050, an increase
III���III
29 hours, a decrease
compared to Stay the
32 hours, an increase
compared to Stay the
in traffic each year?
compared to baseline
Course.
Course.
21 hours in 2014 (average
(2014).
annual time spent in
congestion, per person)
How many transit trips
would be taken?
476 million trips in 2050,
a substantial increase
502 million trips in
2050, an increase
490 million trips in
2050, an increase
194 million trips in 2014
compared to baseline
compared to Stay the
compared to Stay the
(annual transit boardings)
(2014).
Course.
Course.
How many jobs would be
In 2050, substantial
Increases number of
Reduces number of
accessible by walking,
increase in number of
4
jobs accessible by
jobs accessible by
biking, or transit?
jobs accessible by transit,
u
transit, walking, and
transit, walking, and
Job accessibility varies by
walking, and biking
biking compared to
biking compared to
county and mode (jobs
across all four counties
Stay the Course.
Stay the Course.
accessible by walking,
compared to baseline
biking, or transit)
(2014).
AIR QUALITY
What would be the
contribution to climate
Reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions compared
Slight reduction in
greenhouse gas
Slight increase in
greenhouse gas
change and air pollution?
to baseline (41,000 tons
emissions compared
emissions compared
Pollutant emissions:
per day CO2e).
to Stay the Course
to Stay the Course
47,200 tons per day CO2e
Substantial reduction
(39,600 tons per day
(41,400 tons per day
in 2014, see Section 4.4 for
in emissions of other
CO2e).
CO2e).
other pollutants.
pollutants compared to
Slight reduction in
Slight increase in
(CO2e is a measure used for
baseline (2014).
emissions of other
emissions of other
reporting greenhouse gas
pollutants compared
pollutants compared
emissions)
to Stay the Course.
to Stay the Course.
ECOSYSTEMS
How much land would be
needed for development?
322,000 acres would be
needed for development.
285,000 acres needed
for development, a
331,000 acres
needed for
Development and land cover
Some would occur on
decrease compared
development, an
(2017-2050)
previously undeveloped
to Stay the Course.
increase compared
lands where ecosystem
to Stay the Course.
impacts would be likely.
Would important habitat
Growth would occur in
n
Less growth to
Increased growth to
be harmed?
areas with regionally
J L
areas with regionally
areas with regionally
Development in areas of
significant habitat.
v
significant habitat,
significant habitat,
regionally -significant habitat
Development to
reduced impacts
increased impacts
accommodate this growth
compared to Stay the
compared to Stay
would impact regionally
Course.
the Course.
significant habitat.
Increased impacts
KEY: 1 compared to
Stay the Course
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Similar impacts to Reduced impacts
Stay the Course / compared to
Neutral Stay the Course
ES-17
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 34
8.B.a
Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Impacts (continued)
2050 Growth Alternatives
Topicnnp�rowth
WATER
How much hardened
surface would be added
23,200 acres impervious
surface added to region
n
I I
19,600 acres, less
impervious surface
24,300 acres, more
impervious surface
by growth?
(2017-2050).
v
added to region
added to region
New impervious surface
compared to Stay the
compared to Stay the
added to undeveloped areas
Course.
Course.
(2017-2050)
How much would
redevelopment improve
Redevelopment of 22,800
acres of impervious
n
J L
Redevelopment
of 17,200 acres of
Redevelopment
of 26,000 acres of
old stormwater systems?
surface in areas with
v
impervious surface in
impervious surface in
Redevelopment
outdated stormwater
areas with outdated
areas with outdated
(2017-2050)
controls by 2050, resulting
stormwater controls.
stormwater controls.
in potential water quality
benefit.
PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND ENERGY
How much new
infrastructure would be
Strong growth focus in
urban areas would require
F�
J L
Less growth in
outlying and rural
Greater growth
in outlying and
needed?
service expansion or new
v
areas may reduce
rural areas may
infrastructure. Additional
the need to construct
increase the need to
growth in outlying and
or expand facilities
construct or expand
rural areas may require
near open spaces,
infrastructure in areas
new infrastructure.
decreasing impacts
not currently served,
compared to Stay the
increasing impacts
Course.
compared to Stay the
Similar service
Course.
expansion anticipated
Similar service
in urban areas as Stay
expansion anticipated
the Course.
in urban areas as Stay
the Course.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Would parks be nearby?
59% of population was
55% of population would
be near parks in 2050.
59% of population
would be near parks
55% of population
would be near parks
located near parks
in 2050, an increase
in 2050, similar to
providing local urban access
compared to Stay the
Stay the Course.
in 2017 (urban population in
Course.
proximity to parks providing
local urban access)
VISUAL QUALITY
How would areas change
visually?
Some development in
outlying and rural areas
F�
Less development
in outlying and rural
More development
in outlying and rural
could result in negative
areas would slightly
areas would slightly
visual impacts in these
reduce negative
increase negative
areas.
impacts to these
impacts to these
areas.
areas.
Igilk Increased impacts Similar impacts to Reduced impacts
KEY: compared to Stay the Course / compared to
Stay the Course Neutral Stay the Course
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-18
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 35
8.B.a
Table ES-3. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Impacts (continued)
2050 Growth Alternatives
Topic
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE'
How would communities
Communities of color and
Compared to Stay the Course,
Compared to Stay the Course:
of color and low-income
low-income communities
for communities of color and
_ Worsened balance of jobs
communities be affected
compared to the region as a
low-income communities:
and housing for low-income
by changes in jobs and
whole:
- Improved balance of jobs
communities; improved
housing?
- Jobs -housing ratios indicate
and housing
balance for communities of
housing may become more
_ Moderate -density housing
color
unaffordable or unavailable
growth is similar to Stay
- Moderate -density housing
- Moderate -density housing
the Course and reduced
growth is similar to Stay
growth is reduced compared
compared to the region as
the Course and reduced
to the region as a whole
a whole which may reduce
compared to the region as
which may reduce the
the availability of affordable
a whole which may reduce
availability of affordable
housing stock
the availability of affordable
housing stock
housing stock
Would communities of
color and low-income
Greater proximity to
high -capacity transit for
Greater proximity to
high -capacity transit
F� Reduced proximity to
high -capacity transit
communities benefit
communities of color and
for communities
for communities
from changes to land use
low-income communities
of color and low-
of color and low -
and transportation?
compared to baseline.
income communities
income communities
compared to Stay the
compared to Stay the
Course.
Course.
Would access to parks
change for communities
Slightly greater access to
local parks in communities
Greater access
to local parks in
Greater access to
local parks in low -
of color and low income
of color and low-income
communities of
income communities
communities?
communities compared to
color and low-
compared to Stay
the region as a whole.
income communities
the Course. Similar
compared to Stay the
access to local parks
Course.
in communities of
color compared to
Stay the Course.
Would the risk of
displacement increase?
18% of population growth
would occur in areas of
23% of population
growth would occur
16% of population
growth would occur
Displacement has been
higher displacement risk.
in areas of higher
in areas of higher
occurring in the region
displacement
displacement risk,
(2017-2050 growth
risk, an elevated
a slightly reduced
in areas of higher
displacement
displacement risk
displacement risk)
risk compared to
compared to Stay the
compared to Stay the
Course.
Course.
1 Communities of color are census tracts that are greater than 50 percent people of color. Low-income communities are census
tracts that are greater than 50 percent people with low incomes (households earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level).
Increased impacts Similar impacts to Reduced impacts
KEY: compared to Stay the Course / compared to
Stay the Course Neutral Stay the Course
VISION 2050 1 February 2019
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 36
8.B.a
Multicounty Planning Policies
VISION 2040 includes the multicounty planning policies for the four -county region. Multicounty
planning policies provide a common, coordinated policy framework for local plans and other
large-scale planning efforts in the region. They are designed to support implementation of the
Regional Growth Strategy, including concentrating growth within the region's designated urban
growth area and limiting development in resource and rural areas. The policies provide an
integrated framework for addressing planning for the environment, land use, housing, the
economy, transportation, and public services.
For each topic area, Chapter 7 of the VISION 2040 FEIS summarizes the multicounty planning
policies and describes their purpose and environmental effects. Input to date indicates that
VISION 2040's policies provide a strong foundation and should be largely retained, with select
updates for emerging policy areas and changing conditions. Some changes are also proposed
to strengthen or clarify policies. The multicounty planning policies will be revised to be
consistent with the preferred Regional Growth Strategy alternative selected by the Growth
Management Policy Board and will be included with the draft plan when it is released in
summer 2019. Environmental effects of the multicounty planning policies will be included in the
Final SETS.
VISION 2050 1 February 2019 ES-20
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Packet Pg. 37
V S ON 2050
Growth Management Planning Council
February 27, 2019
Packet Pg. 38
VISION 2040
VISION 2050 j
Irv•
lent
r 1
lr�n.00el 3 `'
farms,1 NortM19 a I(irklMtl1Jn51
�J
S hertlale Ifn-rersaY
can ��nm, a
• • r�`� per ,
p i s HiIY and Overlak[i
aoad Nalr � ire
er_�-eno- s m cao F
T r �
f
D 3N, e N
Jj HIII I �f" ( s
� � � -Re�onalfzomM �e•:er
� ,/�. _ MameFstui®Ind�stra Cen[=.
- � Otlibsi GaoxaiArea
8.B.b
4 yn
I.L
m
o F
�.
202
U
N
l
c =
max. E
-
— t
a
Y
Packet Pg. 39
2050 Population Forecast
The long-range forecast is for continued growth
- The region is projected to grow
by about 1.8 million people
between 2017 and 2050
The region is projected to add
about 1.2 million jobs between
2017 and 2050
2000 2010
Actual Forecast
2020 2030
• Population • Employment
8.B.b
5.8 Million P'eol o
C
0
U
3.4 Million Jc N
C
a
c
a�
2040
w
r
Q
Packet Pg. 40
Who will be living here?
In 2050, the region's residents will be:
Older
i:m
18% of the region"s
population will be over the
age of 65 by 2050, up from
14% today.
More diverse
Between 2000 and 2016,
81% of the region"s
population growth was
people of color.
In smaller households
In 2050 there will be 2.36
people per household on
average, down from 2.50
today. I
Packet Pg. 41
4A
4N
4y— 7
rig&
Alk
F 7--
PW
A W-,
SEPA
hV,'r�f
-,E
,� r,iew
1, 44
W.,
A'
.., xi
Packet
A
Environmental Process 8.B.b
a
VISION 2050 SEPA Process
0
Final EIS ``� .N
issued for Scoping for process to i Issue Draft I '>
VISION 2040 Supplemental select ' SEIS w
EIS , � , Select �,
alternatives , comment I preferred Issue draft Issue Fina N
' period ' VISION 2050
Spring 20�8p , alternative plan SEIS, adop C'
Spring 1 ' I I
VISION 205 E
IM LY, FTM• I
I I 4 M
Packet Pg. 43
Scoping: What We Heard
• Housing supply and affordability top concerns
• Growth strategy should be ichievabie and reflect
known trends
• Address climate, access to jobs, equity, and health
• Revisit the role of urban unincorporated areas
• Perspectives on implementation
• Need accountability and incentives to
implement
• Strategy should provide local flexibility
VISION 2050QV
Scoping Report
8.B.b
10
U
U)
Packet Pg. 44
w
T.•
.ASSW
N-AN
8.B.b
rffilfl
w .
QsCO)"
A i 101
\
; i
0
C
O
y
V
IL
Packet Pg. 45
Growth Alternatives
.. If
Stay the Transit Focused
Course Growth
Growth focused in More compact growth
Metropolitan and Core cities focused in high capacity
transit (HCT) areas
Bow
r,
-AA!
8.B.b
Reset Urban
Growth
Growth more distributed
throughout the urban
growth area
U
W
N
a
Packet Pg. 46
Growth Alternatives
Stay the Cour n
Compact growth focused in
Metropolitan and Core cities with
regional growth centers
• Maintains current adopted strategy
• Largest shares of growth to
Metropolitan cities of Seattle,
Bellevue, Everett, Bremerton and
Tacoma
• Directs more growth to cities and less
growth in urban unincorporated and
rural areas
4.
Snohomish County
Pierce County
8.B.b
U
d'
U)
47
/
papc90
U
Q
25�
Packet Pg. 47
Growth Alternatives
Transit Focused Growth k `
' Sn°hn mish COUn[y
d
Accelerated growth near existing and
planned high capacity transit investments
Goal for 75% of the region's growth to Mn
occur near high capacity transit r` �,^�
Kilsao V/
county King CIIIIL, d
Less growth in rural and unincorporated `' =
areas without high capacity transit
Uses 2017 OFM population distribution, `,V•---
+5% shift of employment to Pierce, �� PI. °°°`"
Snohomish and Kitsap counties
P« w
25, Q
® SOr rOW
Packet Pg. 48
Growth Alternatives
Reset Urban Growth
U)
�a
More dispersed growth throughout the
p g g
P�"r Snohomish
COUn[y
urban growth area
Assumes a large share of growth to
s®f..
Metropolitan and Core cities
Growth for other urban areas based on.,
rJ Kitsao �''
CIIntl r Hi9 Co,,iy
U)
current land use capacity
Y k' 'i
"'
C
t E
More growth in rural and urban
r t~
unincorporated areas
Pierce Cunnty
Uses 2017 OFM population distribution,
Popc90
Populalio +..r
+5% shift of employment to Pierce,
2, aW
Snohomish and Kitsap counties
PacketPg.49
Growth Alternatives
Common to all alternatives
Average drive times and distances will be
less, but time spent stuck in traffic will
increase
Transit ridership more than doubles
Air quality will improve and greenhouse
gas emissions will be reduced
All require about 830,000 new housing
units
Redevelopment will increase the threat
of displacement, which will require
mitigation to be avoided
8.B.b
IN Packet Pg. 50
U
W
U)
Environmental Impacts
Stay the Transit Focused Reset Urban
Course Growth Growth
(plan extended)
Vehicle
31 hours -C7
delay 29 hours 32 hours
00
Job access by
biking, walking, substantial increase 1�a 1�7
or transit
.Q. YYV
Greenhouse gas
M M
emissions
41,000 tons per day CO2
equivalent
ID
39,600 tons per day CO2
equivalent
V
r
a
41,400 tons per day CO2
equival
Packet Pg. 51
Environmental Impacts
Moderate
= density housing
(moderate=townhome, triplex,
low-rise MF)
Displacement
risk
Jobs -housing
balance
Stay the
Course
(plan extended)
15% moderate -density
46% high -density
39% low -density
Elevated risk
Improved balance
Transit Focused Reset Urban
Growth Growth
4 1�7
19% moderate -density 13% moderate -density
J
Ilk
Packet Pg. 52
Equity Analysis
• Equity Analysis to accompany
release of DSEIS
• Measures impact on
concentrated low income and
minority communities
• Displacement risk analysis and
updated Opportunity Mapping
Prg County
8.B.b
F-111 P11-1e1l. MIIIle
3ntl m... q .. Ar—
O--GrOYMAR3
Access to Opportunhy
�ry iaw
Packet Pg. 53
U
W
U)
d
VISION 2050 Policies
Key themes:
• Compact, walkable places
• Leverage our transportation investments
• Promote affordable housing in all development
• Preserve open space and farmlands
• Social equity & displacement
• Four -Part Strategy to address climate change
0 0:1 a poo�m
=11
M
w
dU
rye oR77 W `
AA-
How to Comment
Draft SEIS Review: Feb 28-April 29
Open houses:
• March 12 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall
• March 13 from 4 — 6 p.m. at South Tacoma Public Library
• March 18 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Bothell Police Community
Room
• March 19 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Bremerton City Council
Chambers
• March 21 from 12 — 2 p.m. at PSRC
More info at: www.psrc.org/vision
.f��C
1.
A-rh
you-4.4
Liz Underwood-Bultmann, AICP
Principal Planner
a
LUnderwood-Bultmann@psrc.org`,_.;:
r
., V.
L,
Growth Alternatives
35%
28%
Population Growth 2017-2050
36%
18%
9%
Stay the Course
■ Metropolitan Cities ■ Core Cities ■ HCT Communities
31%
25%
18%
12%
8.B.b
IL
8% C
6% 6% d
4% V
. Q
Transit Focused Growth Reset Urban Growth
■ Cities & Towns ■ Urban Unicorp. ■ Rural Packet Pg. 57
Growth Alternatives
44%
36%
Employment Growth 2017-2050
44%
12%
35%
13%
41%
32%
12%
8.B.b
IL
z
5% 4% 6% 6% c�
03% 1/ 2% 1% 2% Q
Stay the Course Transit Focused Growth Reset Urban Growth
0 Metropolitan Cities 0 Core Cities 0 HCT Communities 0 Cities & Towns 0 Urban Unicorp. 0 Rural Packet Pg. 58
8.B.c
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
May 1, 2019
Erika Harris, AICP
Senior Planners, SEPA Responsible Official, SEIS Project Manager
Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1035
SUBJECT: City of Edmonds' Comments on VISION 2050 DSEIS
Dear Ms. Harris,
The City of Edmonds appreciates the VISION 2050 process that brings our region together to plan for the
future. Comments here are in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
("Draft SEIS") for VISION 2050.
Preferred alternative —Transit Focused Growth
Ri
Of the three alternatives, Transit Focused Growth is preferred. This alternative recognizes the value of
transit and that growth needs to be concentrated most near suitable transit stations, especially where
light rail will be located. It also recognizes the importance of planning for designated centers within
incorporated urban growth areas, a notable feature of VISION 2040 that carries forward.
Some flexibility at local level
In selecting an alternative and finalizing the SEIS, attention needs to be paid to maintaining some level
of flexibility at the countywide level, where cities and the county can work together on certain details,
yet be consistent with regional objectives and outcomes.
Maintaining urban growth areas
a
The final SEIS should include discussion of the impacts of maintaining vs. expanding urban growth areas.
Expanding urban growth areas into rural areas can negatively affect opportunities for moderate density
growth in cities and their future annexation areas, as well as exacerbating traffic problems and causing
the loss of rural and resource lands.
Climate change
The SEIS should discuss climate change and the importance of significantly reducing carbon emissions.
Selecting Transit Focused Growth as the preferred alternative is most compatible with reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The range of climate impacts needs to be considered for each alternative.
Packet Pg. 59
8.B.c
Finally...
Thank you for considering our input. The City of Edmonds looks forward to participating in VISION 2050
planning, knowing that each city and county in the central Puget Sound region has a shared future that
will be served best by adhering to regional goals, while maintaining local character.
Si rely,
David O. Ea
Mayor, City of Edmonds
cc: Edmonds City Council
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Ri
.r
a
Packet Pg. 60