2023-04-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
April 26, 2023
Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds
City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Martini.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbell,
Vice Chair (online)
Nick Maxwell
Board Members Absent
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Chair Gladstone announced that Todd Cloutier had submitted his resignation due to work conflicts. Nick
Maxwell has now moved into a permanent board member position. She expressed appreciation to Todd Cloutier
for his many years of service on the Board. Staff will begin recruiting for a new alternate member.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED (4-0) WITH BOARD MEMBERS GOLEMBIEWSKI, KUEHN, AND MARTINI
ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Gladstone reviewed the agenda and noted that staff is requesting that the Hurst Property discussion under
New Business be moved to a future meeting.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Pagel of 8
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Theresa Hollis commented on the opportunity for the City to purchase property from the Hurst family for a
future park. She commented that she believes the use of that land for hiking and as a small green belt is redundant
with the existing set of trails and green belt abutting the Madrona School property. She does not think it is a
good use of city funds. The City needs more funds to purchase parkland for general recreation purposes. She
discussed the status of the former Woodway Elementary school and suggested it might be feasible for it to
become parkland for south Edmonds.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — Q 1 Accomplishments
This item was included in the packet. Chair Gladstone solicited feedback.
Board Member Maxwell said it appears that the responsibilities are well -matched to the budget. He referred to
the Perrinville Creek restoration project that was brought up recently and asked if there is some way that the
Parks Department could share some responsibility for that for the purpose of protecting natural resources.
Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could check in with Parks about that. Board Member Golembiewski
commented that as a public works contractor they are doing work on a project in Bellingham. It is a public
works project but the parks department has some funding they are funneling into that project. They have also
organized replanting events and gotten some grant funding in conjunction with this.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell responded to Board Member Maxwell's comment about the budget and noted that
it is important to recognize that this report from Director Feser is a list of accomplishments, not a holistic report
on the status of the department. It is not showing the tremendous amount of backlog that exists in all parks
departments or other projects they are not able to get to. They are accomplishing an incredible amount of work.
She cautioned against "scope creep". If they are going to request that the Parks Department take on more of the
Perrinville Creek project, they also need to be prepared for what is going to be taken away.
In her experience as a former parks staff member, the backlog of deferred maintenance always gets larger and
not smaller. Also, in terms of species management, historically, staff in parks departments are responsible for
invasive species removal like ivy. In terms of projects addressing wildlife that might be living within the natural
resources, directives are generally given by state or federal agencies which are implemented at local levels. She
doesn't want to expect that Parks can add in a large scope project to their responsibilities.
Board Member Golembiewski suggested it would be nice to see some of the major planning items coming up
as part of the Parks report in the future. She is interested in seeing the prioritization of projects. Chair Gladstone
agreed and suggested that seeing what they are not able to get to would be helpful.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued public hearing to consider ADB recommendations on permanent amendments to Chapters
16.60, 20.01, and 20.12 ECDC regarding design review processes and building step back requirements
for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone to replace Interim Ordinance 4295
(AMD2022-0008).
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 2 of 8
Senior Planner Clugston introduced this item and summarized the public hearing process to date. Due to some
absences on April 12 the Board had decided to continue the hearing to tonight. The public portion comment
period was closed at the last meeting. He noted that since the last meeting the Planning Board put together a
subcommittee of members who had some several options to present. The subgroup was comprised of Chair
Gladstone, Board Member Golembiewski, and Board Member Mitchell.
Board Member Mitchell reviewed the subcommittee's work and recommendation. He explained that their goal
was to come up with options for what to maintain from Interim Ordinance 4283. He summarized that if the city
is not planning to upzone the adjacent RS zones in order to effectively transition from the higher intensity uses
that are happening along Highway 99 by virtue of the CG upzone to 75 feet, it needs to explore ways to mitigate
the bulk or massing of certain elements. The current emergency ordinance that is in place now leaves a lot of
uncertainty for applicants which puts a lot of risk into the project. It also puts uncertainty into the adjacent RS
zones not knowing what to expect. The group wanted to remove the uncertainty and ambiguity that could come
with the ADB review and keep with the essence of what the planned action was really for - to view the whole
planned action area as one component. He stated that the old zoning map had a certain amount of transition area
along the perimeter where the CG zone abuts the RS zones.
The subcommittee came up with options for the Board in considering Emergency Ordinance 4283. They
included the following:
l . Recommend Ordinance 4283 be vacated.
2. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be made permanent as written (with modification recommended by ADB
possibly).
3. Recommend Ordinance 4283 be revised to eliminate ADB review. Suggest a public notice or meeting
but staff decision.
4. Recommend revising the ordinance to require 10' step back at 25 feet and 30' step back at 55 feet for
buildings over 55 feet adjacent to or across the street from RS zones. Buildings 55 feet and under are
exempt from step back requirements. Step backs would not eliminate requirements to use other massing
techniques in code. Eliminate ADB review but require public notice and/or meeting.
He reviewed a table showing which goals are achieved with each of the options. There was some discussion
about how buildings under 55 feet would still have setbacks but would not be required to have step backs.
Graphics of the various options were reviewed. Board Member Golembiewski pointed out that in reviewing the
planned action, what was envisioned for these parcels was four-story buildings. Board Member Mitchell
commented that the parcels they are talking about next to RS zones are more than likely going to be all
residential, with no commercial on the bottom. Board Member Maxwell asked about design requirements for
the ground floor. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is a list of design components that developers can
pick from, and articulation and modulation is one of them. He pointed out that there would be an additional 10-
foot setback from the back of the sidewalk than is noted in these graphics.
Chair Gladstone commented that the current ordinance is a little bit taller than what was stated in the vision for
the planned action in that it would allow for five stories, not three to four. The step backs are intended to provide
some relief for that.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed strong support for Option 4. Her biggest concerns were equity and
consistency within the process. Having two different options that would be acceptable is a very good
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 3 of 8
compromise. It would eliminate the requirement for the ADB review and could streamline the process. It gives
the developer flexibility and clarity.
Board Member Kuehn concurred. Option 4 is thorough and gives two good options to keep things equal for
applicants. He commended the subcommittee for the work they did.
Board Member Martini thought this would make things simpler.
Board Member Golembiewski noted that the intention of the subarea plan is to spark development in the area
and produce more housing choices. The two-step review really delays the process and makes it more difficult
to get things actually built.
Board Member Mitchell noted that this would remove a lot of the risk, waiting time, and uncertainty for
developers.
Planning Manager Levitan clarified that if the process were to shift to a Type 2, to remove the ADB review, it
would be a staff decision. There would be public notice to properties within 300 feet and an opportunity to
appeal the staff decision to the hearing examiner. Chair Gladstone asked if there is a way to expand the 300-
foot notification area. Planning Manager Levitan stated that the 300-foot notification is for both Type 3 and
Type 2. This is the norm but they could consider options. Board Member Golembiewski commented that the
public notice signs for Edmonds are very small compared to surrounding cities. She recommended having larger
signs. Other board members concurred. Board Member Martini asked if someone could look up public notices
online. Planning Manager Levitan responded that they are all on the city website and postcards are mailed out
to neighbors within 300 feet.
Chair Gladstone noted that time is an issue with this matter. Since Council will be having their own public
hearing, she recommended not reopening public comments for this hearing. There was consensus.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 4 AS PROVIDED BY THE
SUBCOMMITTEE: RECOMMEND REVISING THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE 10' STEP
BACK AT 25 FEET AND 30' STEP BACK AT 55 FEET FOR BUILDINGS OVER 55 FEET
ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. BUILDINGS 55 FEET AND
UNDER ARE EXEMPT FROM STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS. STEP BACKS WOULD NOT
ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS TO USE OTHER MASSING TECHNIQUES IN CODE.
ELIMINATE ADB REVIEW BUT REQUIRE PUBLIC NOTICE AND/OR MEETING.
Board Member Maxwell commented that this recommendation is in the spirit of what citizen comments have
been.
Planning Manager Levitan stated that an introduction on this item is scheduled to be presented to the City
Council at next Tuesday's meeting (May 2). If the Council is comfortable a public hearing would be scheduled
for Tuesday, May 16 with potential adoption on Tuesday, May 23.
Board Member Martini asked about the recommendation to provide bigger signs. Planning Manager Levitan
responded that they could potentially look at it as part of the code modernization effort.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 4 of 8
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She
explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase I) to achieve the goal of reducing
development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree
removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential
lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable
but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided.
Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini
asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would
just be a secondary use.
Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She
explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12
months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree
removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that
shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about
equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist.
Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals
if it is evident in a photograph.
Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact
is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree
canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be
very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five
or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments
in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was
going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different
specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in
looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact
of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy
loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no
account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or
requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time.
Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there
are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest
accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate
assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8
Should tree removal on private property be limited?
• Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two
canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the
methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others.
• Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If
there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees.
• There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to
remove the last two trees on their property.
• Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying
to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy
has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as
fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction.
Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be
working in Edmonds for the tree canopy.
• Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers
noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about
enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general
on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on
private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed
tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week.
• Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is
happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is
appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent
assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover?
What kind of loss are they trying to avoid?
• Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used
similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the
analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the
same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted
in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered
until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method.
• Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing
some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH
(diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6"
DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member
Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many
landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually
providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the
exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate.
• Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish
single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He
commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden.
• Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that.
He gave an overview of the process.
• Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8
• Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private
property. They just don't know what it needs to look like.
Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time?
• Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree
they were talking about.
• Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period.
Does the Planning Board feel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance
trees)
Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size?
Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees?
Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees?
• There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees.
• Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He
thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate.
• Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more
inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited
per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be
accepted politically.
• Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is
every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for
much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more
frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend.
• Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful
metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are
thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about
taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree.
• Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are
talking about because it is difficult to visualize.
• Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of
prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities
have larger trees designated as heritage trees.
• Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making
decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy,
sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size.
• There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers
cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are
invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native.
Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of
native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed.
Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas?
• Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical
areas. The current code is confusing on this topic.
• There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8
Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas.
• Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they
are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas.
• Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He
doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill
neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree
removal in critical areas.
With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland
buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited?
• Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit.
• Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers
explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A
nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot
be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo
of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and
especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides.
She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10"
DBH would be a good starting point.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting TBD)
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings proposed in June. Staff is proposing to invite
the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree Code. They are also looking at having a joint
workshop with the City Council on some of the current housing -related topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14
meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could be too much for that meeting. Planning Manager
Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added that Multifamily Design Standards is a potential topic
for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board.
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8