2023-07-12 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
July 12, 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 Golembiewski.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair
Richard Kuehn (online)
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JUNE 28, 2023 MEETING MINUTES
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
David Levitan, Planning Manager
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28 MEETING WITH THE
CORRECTION TO THE FIRST AND LAST SENTENCE IN THE 5TH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 6
TO REPLACE "TREE BOARD MEMBER FAGERSTROM" WITH "PLANNING BOARD
MEMBER MAXWELL". MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI AND
CHAIR GLADSTONE ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 1 of 7
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Draft Code Language for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the PowerPoint Presentation. He reviewed what was covered in the
introduction of this topic back in May and discussed the draft Critical Aquifer Recharge Area CARA code as
contained in attachment 4. CARAs are a required element of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and are
established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies from potential contamination and to ensure adequate
groundwater availability. The current code (from 2016) states that there are no CARAs in Edmonds. Last year,
the City learned that there are actually two CARAs in Edmonds (Olympic View Water & Sewer District
Wellhead protection areas — 228th Street Wellhead and Deer Creek Springs).
The City has been working with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to make refinements to the initial draft
code amendment. Several Olympic View concerns have been addressed in the draft code. These include
codification of a local consultation process; use restrictions and prohibitions; and hazardous material handling.
The stormwater code is also being looked at now for potential updates. The use of UICs will be part of this
review.
Chair Gladstone asked if there is any reason UIC wells regulations could not be incorporated into the draft
CARA code. Planning Manager Levitan stated they could be referenced or mentioned. Chair Gladstone thought
they should discuss how specifically it gets referenced in this code. She said when she looked at the list of things
being prohibited or managed, UIC wells is the one area in which there is the biggest problem. Having to go look
at another code feels disjointed. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could incorporate a revised version
that would be presented at the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell suggested still having a link to the other
code, but saying clearly here what is being talked about. Mr. Levitan agreed. Because they are still making
changes to the other code, they need to come up with something that will sufficiently cover anything that should
or should not be prohibited in the interim.
Chair Gladstone commented that the deep UIC wells have been the most problematic for water sources in
general. This was an issue for Issaquah who had a serious problem with their UIC wells that were contaminated
with PFAS (per fluorinated alkylated substances) as a result of firefighting foam getting into the stormwater and
seeping into the aquifer. She pointed out that PFAS and firefighting foam are not on the list of things that are
being controlled in any fashion.
Mr. Clugston reviewed draft code sections:
• Purpose and Intent — Establish CARAs and groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from
degradation and depletion. The intent is to minimize the loss of recharge quantity, maintain the
protection of supply wells for public drinking water, and prevent contamination of groundwater.
• Administration — Mapping; classification (Class 1 — 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years; Class 2 —10 years;
Class 3 — Buffer); applicability; and local consultation process with Olympic View of certain City
projects in CARAs.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 2 of 7
Regulated Activities — Table of Restricted and Prohibited Uses: Existing uses can continue; many new
uses listed as prohibited will never occur in Edmonds anyway due to existing zone and parcel sizes.
Should they be included? Hazardous materials facilities will have to apply Best Management Practices
(BMPs); provide a Hazardous Materials Inventory; and Hazardous Materials Management Plan. He
reviewed existing zoning and uses in the CARAs and discussed the possibility of requiring pollution
liability insurance (PLI) for certain uses in certain locations.
Definitions for CARAs
Board Questions and Feedback:
Board Member Maxwell referred to regulations regarding wood preserving products and asked for clarification
that this is referring to commercial activities. Mr. Clugston indicated they could clarify this. Board Member
Maxwell wondered about the grey water because his understanding is that it is environmentally helpful. Mr.
Clugston explained this was in both Issaquah's and Olympic View's codes. Board Member Maxwell asked staff
to look into this. Since we don't get a much rain for 3-6 months of the year, it would be helpful to try to preserve
water. Chair Gladstone explained that grey water can contain contaminants. Board Member Maxwell agreed
but noted that as it goes through the ground it gets processed.
Chair Gladstone asked for clarification if the irrigation and infiltration of gray water and the reclaimed or
recycled water use language is intended to be commercial also. Board Member Maxwell clarified he was not
talking about the kind of quantities that one would have for a commercial use.
Board Member Maxwell referred to reclaimed or recycled water and also was curious if this refers to
commercial use only. He hopes that collecting rain would be allowed in residential uses in the CARA. Chair
Gladstone agreed that this could use more clarification.
Board Member Mitchell referred to the matrix and asked if it could be tied to International Building Code (IBC)
occupancy classifications. Mr. Clugston stated they could look into that.
Board Member Golembiewski referred to the Administrative section. There are two Group A Wellhead
Protection areas but she doesn't see a definition of Group A. She also referred to the definition for class under
Definitions and asked if that is different than the City's Class 1, 2, and 3. Chair Gladstone explained that Group
A is a Department of Health reference for the type of water system it is. She didn't think she had seen it apply
to wellhead protection areas before and wasn't sure it needed to be in there. Mr. Clugston indicated they could
look into eliminating the Group A verbiage. Mr. Clugston replied that the Class 1, 2 and 3 refer to the
classification of CARAs. Wetlands are defined by class as well. The defined term class is specifically talking
about wetlands.
Chair Gladstone asked about regulating firefighting foam because it is a big source of PFAS. She thought it
would be good to see how Issaquah handled this in their code because their water sources were contaminated
by it. She asked if Edmonds currently has a source control program. Mr. Clugston replied that there is source
control through the Stormwater Program. Staff doesn't feel it would be too time intensive. Chair Gladstone
asked if there is a downside to including the things that seem like they would never happen in Edmonds because
zoning codes change. Mr. Levitan didn't think there was a downside.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 3 of 7
Chair Gladstone commented that in the world of water supply they are extremely risk averse because they go
on the premise of protection, protection, protection because once it is contaminated it is really hard and
expensive to clean up. She noted that it sounds like staff has been having really good conversations with
Olympic View. She expressed appreciation for this collaboration.
Board Member Maxwell recommended keeping the verbiage from the old Introduction explaining what
CARAs are. He thinks that should be used at the beginning of 23.60.10.
Board Member Golembiewski spoke in support of speaking with the City Attorney about the pollution liability
insurance (PLI) to see if this is something that could be added to regulated uses. Board Member Maxwell agreed.
B. Comprehensive Plan Update and Highway 99 Proposed Approach
Mr. Levitan gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan scope and contract. He reviewed the consultant RFP
and selection process and reported that the interview panel unanimously selected VIA Architecture Team. The
City negotiated the scope of work, budget, and schedule including Highway 99, waterfront issues, environment
and natural resources, economic development plan, and scale of community outreach. VIA's proposal includes
production of the Comprehensive Plan document, including EIS; additional focus on the Highway 99 subarea,
including dedicated community outreach, potential plan/code refinements, and SEPA review; development of
an Economic Development Plan; an illustrative waterfront vision; a heavy focus on inclusive engagement and
graphic -rich materials; and numerous touchpoints with boards/commissions and the public.
Mr. Levitan stressed that all the work from the visioning statement done last summer and fall will be carried
forward in this process as an important resource. Staff is committed to having the community vision tie back
into the Comprehensive Plan update. He discussed the decision to do a complete EIS in order to get a
comprehensive look at all of the inputs that go into an EIS such as land use, transportation, natural resources,
and environmental protection. This will enable the City to better address the growth targets and the number of
units they are going to need to provide. He discussed how the consolidated approach — completing supplemental
environmental review and enhanced community engagement for the Highway 99 subarea as part of the
Comprehensive Plan EIS - will allow them to identify specific issues of concern within the subarea and analyze
that within one single EIS document; however, staff is still exploring options and working this out.
Chair Gladstone asked if the consultant is talking about doing another alternative to analyze as part of the whole
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Levitan explained that as part of the whole Comprehensive Plan they have proposed
the no -action alternative and then at least two additional alternatives citywide, but that would include specific
assumptions within different parts of the city.
Board Member Maxwell asked if the body of work that would be the Highway 99 SEIS would be covered in
the comprehensive citywide EIS. Mr. Levitan confirmed it would. Board Member Maxwell thought some of
the concerns of the public were because they thought the Highway 99 SEIS was not going to happen. Instead,
it appears to him that it is being expanded. Mr. Levitan concurred.
Board Member Maxwell also commented that another concern people had about this was thinking that money
budgeted for the Highway 99 SEIS was being taken away. In reality that money is part of what is covering the
citywide plan. Mr. Levitan agreed and added that it is basically the same level and amount of work they would
do if they were scoping a Highway 99 specific SEIS. Board Member Maxwell encouraged staff to make it clear
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 4 of 7
to the public that they are not taking away the SEIS but just incorporating it into the citywide EIS. Mr. Levitan
agreed and noted there were other areas of confusion that need clarification. He stressed that they are not looking
to eliminate any of the analysis that people want done in this area, but they want to do it in the most
comprehensive and most streamlined way.
Chair Gladstone explained that having a lack of alternatives was one driver for the SEIS, but there were several
other issues including the inadequacy of looking at the mitigation and of the impacts that are adjacent to that
particular area as well as changes to conditions in that area. How this scope is defined in terms of whether or
not those kinds of issues will actually be looked at for that area is very important. Right now, it is hard to tell
what is going to happen. It appears that it is going to get lost in the big city. For example, if they are talking
about adding on an alternative which was neglected on the original EIS that is great because then they would
also be looking at the potential impacts of what that alternative is and the appropriate mitigation.
Board Member Golembiewski referred to Chair Gladstone's comments and added that the fact that the Planned
Action Area had a delineation may be an argument to have it consolidated. While it may or may not have
addressed the mitigation efforts in that it didn't necessarily address the mitigation for the buffer around it or
how the transportation ties in, it was a symptom of having a hyper -focused EIS. She thinks the consolidated
approach will address this. Chair Gladstone said this could potentially happen but it depends on how broad or
narrow the scope is. Part of the concern about consolidating is that the mitigation gets diffused because it's part
of a much bigger area.
Mr. Levitan acknowledged the concerns, discussed issues they are facing, and noted these issues are not
exclusive to the Highway 99 area. The challenges need to be taken care of at the citywide level but they can still
have the additional scope that really does zero in on Highway 99. These are things that still need to get worked
out with the consultant. He summarized that they need to do a much better job of ensuring that the funding that
was provided in the budget was based on the feedback provided by community members and that there are
assurances that everything they requested to be done is still going to be done. He assured them that is what the
intent of the overall EIS is.
Board Member Maxwell referred to the five meetings the consultant is intending to have with the Planning
Board and noted that the consultant should be aware that they will have to do revisions in light of what happens
at the meetings.
Chair Gladstone referred to the slide listing the negotiated scope of work, budget, and schedule and wondered
why housing wasn't listed. Mr. Levitan explained that housing, land use, and transportation were a given. This
was a list of special items highlighted for the presentation.
Chair Gladstone expressed concern that the some of the community engagement seems heavily reliant on
virtual. She recommended doing at least hybrid because of the differences in human interactions in person. Mr.
Levitan agreed they could focus more on that if desired. The City can also add in more in -person opportunities
to the master scope of work outside of the consultant's work. Chair Gladstone agreed but noted that staffing is
very lean, and they may be spread too thin. She referred to her experience on the Housing Commission and
noted that part of the frustration of the citizens was that most of the process was online. People just don't engage
in the same fashion online as they do in person; and bridging the challenges of differences is not going to happen
online. Mr. Levitan expressed appreciation for the feedback.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 5 of 7
Chair Gladstone also expressed concern that every survey that has been done recently has been self-selected.
She feels it's hard to give a lot of credence to self-selected surveys. Unless there are random surveys, they are
not going to get the robust kind of feedback from the community as a whole that they are looking for. Mr.
Levitan agreed and noted there was a request at the Council committee meeting for a statistically valid survey.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if any engagement efforts are aimed at public forums not initiated
necessarily by the City such as My Edmonds News. Chair Gladstone urged some caution about this approach.
She suggested going out and talking to various community groups. Mr. Levitan agreed and explained that is the
concept of the Community Champions during committee to utilize those liaisons and resources within the
community. Chair Gladstone asked if they had considered paying the liaisons like they do in Seattle. Mr. Levitan
replied they are looking into the logistics of that.
Board Member Golembiewski noted that the task for project understanding came after community engagement.
She thought it made more sense for project understanding to come first so that community engagement can be
as effective as possible. Mr. Levitan agreed and noted there would be some interaction between these two. He
indicated he could work on a Gantt chart showing this.
Board Member Mitchell expressed support for the consolidated approach, which would still allow the city to
complete a separate SEIS for the subarea if deemed necessary at the conclusion of the Comp Plan EIS process.
He feels this makes the most sense and will force the City to look at capacity elsewhere and focus on other
subarea neighborhood centers to level out density. Chair Gladstone pointed out that if they go forward with the
consolidated approach, it wouldn't necessarily shut the door on a supplemental EIS if it doesn't get at what the
concerns are for the Highway 99 area. Board Member Mitchell concurred and said that was all laid out in the
Washington State Department of Ecology SEPA handbook scenarios. He encouraged everyone to read that.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. There was discussion about holding a meeting on August 23
(previously scheduled as a summer break meeting) and switching the break to August 9 because Deb Powers
will be gone on the 9t". It appeared that there would be a quorum on the 23rd, and the Planning Board agreed to
cancel the August 9 meeting and hold a meeting on August 23.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Mitchell said he was excited to get this going.
Board Member Golembiewski said she was happy to see the consultant team on board and generally supports
their approach but the way it is communicated or laid out in their proposal could be demonstrated a little better.
Board Member Maxwell clarified that he and Board Member Mitchell both frequently comment on My
Edmonds News and they both value comments, especially from people they haven't heard from before. Also,
he reiterated Chair Gladstone's concern about what is covered in the Comprehensive Plan. They are required to
have 11 elements, but they have 12. He is a little anxious that it will all get covered by the end of next year. Mr.
Levitan replied they would have a work plan to get all of that done.
Board Member Martini thanked everyone for the meeting.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 6 of 7
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone said it was a good discussion. She appreciated how well staff listens to what they have to say
and responds to their comments. She suggested that when Council is talking about doing a public hearing on
the vision statement, maybe they can do it in a town hall format instead of a public hearing so staff can get what
they need out of it. She thought that a public hearing on a vision statement seems incongruent. She also
commented that she didn't mean to be disparaging about people that comment on My Edmonds News; she
comments there also. It is just important to be careful about who they listen to because it can be an echo chamber.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2023 Page 7 of 7