2022-05-25 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
May 25, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Rosen read the Land Acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Jen Leach, Environmental Education and Sustainability Coordinator
Michelle Szafran, Associate Planner Anna Huttel, Certification Director,
Salmon -Safe
Dan Kent, Executive Director, Salmon -Safe
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Rosen referred to packet page 6 and asked if Redefining Streets and Public Spaces is the same
as Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets. Mr. Lien stated he would verify the name of the project.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 11 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-2) WITH
BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER AND KUEHN ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Pagel of 6
Margie Fields was pleased that the Board would be hearing about Salmon -Safe tonight and was interested in
hearing their thoughts about it. She appreciated the numerous detailed recommendations and timelines. She
noted, however, that she did not see what specific results they expected from the recommendations.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Salmon -Safe Certification Report
Director Feser introduced this project. She acknowledged Jen Leach, Environmental Education and
Sustainability Coordinator, who helped with a lot of this project. Salmon -Safe consultants Anna Huttel and Dan
Kent made the presentation. Mr. Kent gave an overview of Salmon -Safe and discussed their work with various
parks systems and municipalities. Ms. Huttel discussed the City of Edmonds' certification process and provided
an overview of the Salmon -Safe certification report which gives a system -wide evaluation of watershed impacts.
This includes an analysis of programming, a series of site assessments, a report of team findings and
recommendations, certification upon acceptance of recommendations, and an annual review of project activity.
The Salmon -Safe Science Team has recommended that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon -Safe subject
to 3 preconditions, 12 conditions, and 6 recommendations that address topics ranging from habitat protection
and restoration to stormwater management, integrated pest management, and de-icing products.
Board Comments and Questions:
Board Member Campbell commended the team for this work and the report. She asked for a clarification about
how the term pesticide is used. Ms. Huttel explained that it includes pesticides and also herbicides and
fungicides. Board Member Campbell referred to Precondition 3 and the recommendation to phase out High
Hazard Pesticides. She asked for clarification about what level of communication is needed in terms of the
justification memos and requests and if these needs to happen for each instance. Ms. Huttel replied that they
provide variances typically as part of the Integrated Pest Management plan. These can be provided on an
ongoing basis for targeted use on a specific species.
Board Member Gladstone was very pleased that the City is pursuing this certification. She asked about the
difference between preconditions and conditions. Ms. Huttel explained that preconditions are items that have to
be addressed before certification can be finalized. Conditions are things that the City works on after the
certification cycle has started. Board Member Gladstone asked where the City is at in meeting the preconditions.
Director Feser stated that the City does have an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan but it could use some
updating which will include some public process. Board Member Gladstone asked about the impact of the
conditions on the budget. Director Feser replied that this is part of the work that is being done with staff members
from other departments before taking this report to Council.
Board Member Rosen asked about expected results. Mr. Kent stated it is very difficult to quantify the outcome
of the conditions. They have seen significant improvement over the years of working with the City of Portland
in terms of water quality and fish presence. Board Member Rosen asked about prioritizing the conditions and
recommendations. Ms. Huttel thought that was a possibility with the involvement of the Science Team. Board
Member Rosen asked if there are any other benefits to having this certification aside from the environmental
benefits. Director Feser thought it was another way to demonstrate community support for a project. It helps
with grant applications and funding requests.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Board Member Cheung asked if the recommendations and conditions all have equal weight. He also wondered
about the impacts on the budget.
Board Member Cloutier asked if there is a funding source required and if there is a fiscal ability to actually do
this. Director Feser thought this was manageable through Parks. Public Works and Engineering is having some
questions about the scope of the work and what it may cost. This is still being evaluated; it will then go before
Council who will have to decide if they are willing to commit the resources. Board Member Cloutier suggested
a chart showing what can reasonably be done versus what they would like to get done.
Board Member Campbell referred to Condition 9 regarding upgrading containment for the waste oil tank. She
recommended expanding the timeframe to attempt to do this due to supply chain issues. She then referred to
Recommendation 6 related to educational signage. She supported this but suggested more development on how
the public can become involved because most of the land in the City is not held by the City. Mr. Kent
commented that the scope of this project is assessing the City's impact on the watershed. They are not looking
at private land or individual citizen actions but are very interested in any opportunities to influence public
behavior.
Board Member Gladstone asked how the list of conditions compares to what Shoreline had, both in the type
and number. Ms. Huttel thought that it was similar but noted it was hard to compare. She offered to follow up
on this if desired. Mr. Kent commented that there was a lot of consistency between the cities in terms of
application of standards. Board Member Gladstone wondered if Salmon -Safe has any sort alliances with
funding partners. Mr. Kent replied there are not any direct connections, but many government agencies have
reviewed and been supportive of Salmon -Safe standards and even funded Salmon -Safe. He was not sure about
private funding sources. Board Member Gladstone commented that there is a mention in the report of
coordinating with Ronald Sewer, but they don't exist anymore.
Board Member Rosen stated he was not ready to move this on to the Council.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG,
THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GET A SECOND PRESENTATION THAT WOULD REFLECT:
1. PRIORITIZATION OF THE 12 CONDITIONS ALONG WITH CRITERIA USED TO
PRIORITIZE THEM
2. ESTIMATION OF COSTS FOR EACH OF THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING STAFF
COMMITMENTS
3. TIME ESTIMATES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
4. ANY PRIVATE LANDOWNER REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
MEET THE STANDARDS
5. CONFIRMATION THAT THE CITY WOULD MEET PRECONDITIONS 1 AND 2
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLN2022-0009 Rezone 9516 & 9530 Edmonds Way
Chair Crank opened the hearing and read the script for the quasi-judicial hearing reviewing the purpose and
procedures of the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communications with
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 3 of 6
opponents or proponents regarding the issues of this rezone application outside of the hearing process. Board
members stated they had not. She asked if there were any Board Members who had conflict of interest issues in
this matter. There were none. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to her participation
or any Board Member's participation as a decision maker in this hearing. No one objected. Chair Crank swore
in those intending to testify.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Michelle Szafran made the staff presentation regarding the rezone
application. She gave an overview of the request from Multiple Residential (RM 1.5) to Multiple Residential —
Edmonds Way (RM-EW) including site context, rezone criteria and staff recommendation. Staff concluded that
the rezone is consistent with ECDC. 20.40.010. The rezone would allow the option for a height increase from
30-35 feet for any building fronting on Edmonds Way provided that sustainability, low impact development
and/or inclusion of affordable housing are provided. Design standards and development regulations will ensure
that public health, safety, and welfare are protected. Staff proposed that the Planning Board make a
recommendation to City Council to approve the rezone from RM 1.5 to RM-EW.
Applicant Testimony:
Matt Driscoll concurred with staff s presentation. He explained the reason they asked for the rezone was because
it would give more flexibility with the roofline. The benefit to the City would be affordable housing and
sustainability by through LEED and Low Impact Development (LID).
Public Comments:
Luke Distelhorst, Edmonds, commented on the lack of multifamily housing and affordable housing in the City.
He spoke in support of this rezone.
Shaun Leiser, developer for the project, stated he was looking forward to doing another development on
Edmonds Way. He clarified that the rezone only allows additional height, not more density. The unit count stays
the same. They are looking forward to building affordable units and a low impact development. It is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, and the development standards. He added that this future
development would be a great addition to the community.
Board Questions:
Board Member Pence asked if this would be considered a spot rezone. Mr. Lien replied that this is a site -specific
rezone, not a spot rezone. Spot rezones are illegal and would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Rosen had the following questions:
• Is access to 9520 between the two parcels? Jake Lyon, one of the applicants, replied that there is a 20-
foot easement access through his parcel, 9516.
• By doing this zoning, would there be any other properties on Edmonds Way that would now be eligible
for a height increase. Ms. Szafran explained they would have to go through the rezone as well.
• Will there be anybody whose view would be impacted by this? Ms. Szafran noted there is quite a bit of
elevation change between the proposed rezone and other properties up on hillside. Mr. Driscoll added
that there is a property that was rezoned RM-EW further down to the east of the site. The property across
the street was rezoned BN-EW. Because of the steep slope towards the back, the building would be
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 4 of 6
located more towards Edmonds Way. Right now, it is heavily wooded towards the back; several trees
will be retained which are already in front of the houses. The applicant will also be adding more
landscaping. He believes that the view would be relatively unchanged.
In meeting two of the three criteria, are there minimum standards? The applicant referred to code section
16.30.030 which gives site development standards along with specific criteria as to how the RM-EW is
to be developed. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the requirements don't specify size relationship
between the units and other units in the building. Mr. Driscoll added that Snohomish County has
standards as to what is affordable. They would be subject to those standards.
Board Member Campbell asked for clarification about how much the height would be changing. The packet
mentions a change to 35 from 25 feet, but the staff report mentioned a change to 35 feet from 30 feet. Ms.
Szafran replied that the current maximum height in the RM 1.5 would allow up to 30 feet with the portion above
25 feet required to have a roof slope pitch requirement. The RM-EW would allow the applicant to go to 35 feet
without the roof pitch requirement but with the other requirements. Mr. Driscoll added that increasing the height
to 35 feet allows them to bring the building a little further out of the ground and be more generous with the
floor -to -floor distance.
The public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO
FORWARD THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda. The Board made comments about various upcoming topics and
scheduling of items. Director Feser indicated she would send out a survey regarding availability for the
upcoming park tour.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Gladstone said she went to the public meeting on streets and public spaces. It was interesting to
see what they are thinking about and to hear what the public had to say.
Vice Chair Pence expressed concerned about the magnitude of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan work which
necessarily includes work beyond the normal scope of the Planning Board. He hopes that the Planning Board
can be put in the loop on some of those projects so they are prepared for discussion.
Board Member Rosen also participated in the streets meeting and was confused that it took place. The Board
has been talking a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and that it would be driven by a vision and values. It
seemed that things were done out of order, but there were a lot of participants. He also expressed concern that
they asked participants about barriers to success since they haven't defined success yet. He felt this set up an
unnecessary push-pull dynamic. He cautioned staff to be careful about how they word questions. He thanked
Chair Crank for giving them the opportunity to weigh in on how they feel about meeting in person. He also
started he really enjoyed the parliamentary procedures meeting and found it very useful. Vice Chair Pence
concurred.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Board Member Kuehn also appreciated being able to give input on meeting in person.
Board Member Cloutier asked about the BD2 summary that Mr. Lien gave to Council last night.
Mr. Lien stated they would be required to go back to in -person meetings in June. The City doesn't have the
capacity to do a hybrid option for all the boards and commissions like they do for Council. Chair Crank asked
if the public would be notified that they would not have access to the virtual meetings anymore. Mr. Lien thought
they would be doing a press release. Board Member Rosen asked if the meetings would still be broadcast live
on Channel 21. Mr. Lien stated that was his intent to broadcast the meeting as they had done in the past. Chair
Crank stated she was concerned about losing the level of accessibility they have had with the public. She noted
there may be some members who have health concerns and are not ready to meet in person yet. She also
wondered about the equity factor of which boards and commissions are able to be broadcast and which are not.
She expressed concern about what would happen for those who do not feel comfortable returning to in -person
meetings. Board Member Rosen asked who has the authority to allocate the resources to provide hybrid
meetings and suggested they talk with them. Vice Chair Pence concurred and noted that the quality of the video
also needs to be upgraded. Board Member Gladstone asked about health protocols such as adequate spacing,
masking, and testing prior to meetings. Board Member Campbell asked for statistics about participation changes
with the different forums. Mr. Lien did not think they had any statistics but informally observed that there are
more people via Zoom than when they met in person. Chair Crank encouraged Board members to share their
thoughts by responding to her email and cc'ing Mr. Lien. Board Member Kuehn noted that having the option
to participate online played a big part in his decision to participate on the Board.
IWW.101►1lot" :Tl7_\s17I1:/\ItKIII7ulUIDOOM
Chair Crank noted it had been a hard week and encouraged everyone to be kind and patient with one another.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 6 of 6