2023-10-25 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
October 25, 2023
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell 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 (remote)
Lauren Golembiewski
Richard Kuehn
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell
Jeremy Mitchell
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Emily Nutsch (alternate)(remote)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director
Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2023 AS PRESENTED.
Chair Gladstone noted a typo on the 3'd line of the 41 paragraph on packet page 7. The extra "it" should be
deleted.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO AMEND THE MINUTES AS NOTED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 1 of 8
Chair Gladstone asked to add an item to New Business regarding having a representative from the Planning
Board serve on an advisory committee for the Transportation Plan
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN, TO MOVE BOTH NEW BUSINESS ITEMS BEFORE UNFINISHED BUSINESS. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bob Danson, General Manager, Ol)mpic View Water and Sewer District, thanked staff for the great work on
the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area updates.
Kevin Fagerstrom, resident, asked if there is a recommendation document from the Tree Board about what
changes will be made to the code.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Parkland Acquisition Purchase & Sale Agreement — Mee Property
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser reviewed this potential parkland acquisition as
contained in the packet. The property is located in southeast Edmonds adjacent to Mathay-Ballinger Park. There
would likely be a master plan done on the site in the future. There are two parcels with a long driveway which
could serve as access for maintenance vehicles and pedestrian/non-motorized access. The shared property line
is 260 lineal feet which blends right in and would expand Mathay-Ballinger by 55%. It would provide additional
access from the east and creates more access to the Interurban Trail and a trailhead. This helps to create
additional parkland in the southeast Highway 99 area by enhancing the park that is already there. Director Feser
reviewed how this would fit into the City's goals and recommendations of the PROS Plan and how it fits into
wider benefits for other jurisdictions as it relates to the Interurban Trail and non -motorized transportation. She
also reviewed the planned improvements to Mathay-Ballinger which will support the purchase of this property
to enhance the park. There is funding available in the capital program. In addition, the City was awarded 75%
of acquisition and related costs up to $880,000 through a Snohomish County Conservation Future Program
(SCCFP) Grant. The grant still has to be formalized in December by the County Council. The agreed upon price
is $925,000. She reviewed next steps and the expectation that the City would close on the property in the first
quarter of 2024.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked what happens to the funds that were previously allocated in the budget if
the grant comes through. Director Feser explained that they would be rolled forward into possible future
acquisitions and will continue to accumulate.
Board Member Golembiewski asked how acquisition of this would affect the City's goal to add three parks to
this area. Director Feser thought they would drop off to two parks instead of three after this. It is very challenging
to find sizeable property in that geographical area. The expansion of a park is just as valuable as a new park,
and in some ways a better investment of resources. Board Member Golembiewski asked about the timeline for
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 2 of 8
improvements to the existing park and if this would change that. Director Feser replied that it would not change
the timeline for improvements which will occur this year and next year.
Chair Gladstone said this is an exciting opportunity for the City, and she hopes the City will still be very
aggressive in looking for the next acquisition to be in the park desert that exists on the west side of Highway 99.
Board Member Martini asked that they make it as accessible as they did with the new Civic Park.
Board Member Kuehn was also excited about the park.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE MEE PROPERTY.
BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT THIS WOULD BE
CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF THE GRANT BY THE COUNTY.
Board Member Kuehn noted that there is money already allocated in the budget even if the grant falls through.
THE MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Discussion about the Transportation Advisory Committee representative request
Chair Gladstone discussed a request she received to have a representative from the Planning Board serve on the
advisory committee for the 2024 Transportation Plan. She reviewed the scope of the committee and the expected
commitment. Board Members Martini and Nutsch both expressed interest. Chair Gladstone indicated they could
forward both names.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MITCHELL, TO NOMINATE BOTH BOARD MEMBERS MARTINI AND NUTSCH TO THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Discussion of updates to draft Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) code (AMD2023-0004)
Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster explained that Mike Clugston was supposed to do part of the presentation
but he was out ill. Mr. Shuster presented information on the stormwater management requirements in the
proposed CARA updates. He explained the purpose of stormwater regulations in the CARA are to minimize
loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of supply wells for public drinking water, and to prevent
contamination of groundwater. They also provide flood protection for Edmonds residents and businesses and
help meet the Department of Ecology Stormwater Permit requirements. Olympic View Water and Sewer
District (OVWSD) has two groundwater sources that require protection — Wellhead Protection Areas
(WHPAS). These are the 228th Street Wellfield and the Deer Creek Springs area. He discussed how stormwater
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 3 of 8
is managed in Edmonds and explained what Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are. The intent of UIC
wells is to take water from the surface and put it into the ground. There are two types of UIC wells — a bored,
drilled, or driven shaft and a subsurface fluid distribution system (Stormwater Infiltration System). Risk factors
to consider for stormwater management in WHPAs include land use, the type of stormwater control, and the
Vadose Zone treatment capacity. The Vadose Zone is the zone from the ground surface to the top of the water
table or the aquifer. There are parts of Olympic View's WHPAs that have zero Vadose Zone treatment capacity.
The CARA proposal uses a risk -based approach for managing stormwater in WHPAs.
Mr. Shuster summarized that the 228th Wellfield is a high -risk area due to the land use. All UICs will be
prohibited here. All other stormwater infiltration BMPs will also be prohibited. They are able to do this because
they have other feasible means of managing stormwater. Deer Creek Springs area is low risk due to the land
use. All new bored, drilled, or driven shaft UICs will be prohibited because they are high risk. Low risk
stormwater controls such as infiltration trenches with pipes (UIC) will be allowed. The stormwater must be
treated to stricter levels than in the current Department of Ecology Manual before infiltrating. There are no other
feasible means of managing the stormwater in this area. The basis of these regulations is the 2019 Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual. The result is that the proposed requirements for infiltrating stormwater in
WHPAs are more restrictive than the Manual and meet the intent of the CARA ordinance.
Board Member Maxwell referred to the treatment that would be necessary when allowing UICs and asked if
that would be able to handle forever chemicals (PFAS). Mr. Shuster replied that PFAS chemicals are
everywhere. No matter how restrictive the City is with the regulations, they will not be able to stop PFAS. The
only way to keep those out of the aquifer or stormwater is to stop using the products that contain them.
Chair Gladstone referred to Deer Creek Springs and asked what kind of treatment would be stricter than per
Ecology Stormwater manual before infiltrating. Mr. Shuster replied that would depend on the treatment capacity
of the soil in the area. At one end of the spectrum, you might have a catch basin with some sort of solid settling
device. At the other end of the spectrum, a higher level of treatment would be a cartridge filter which would
take out the solids and some of the dissolved contaminants before it is put in the ground. Chair Gladstone asked
if most of these stormwater trenches are on private property or city property. Mr. Shuster replied that in
southwest Edmonds it is a mix.
Chair Gladstone commented that Ecology is currently revising the Manual. The 2019 Manual was inadequate
with respect to UIC wells, and this is being remedied with the current update. Should the language in the
stormwater code cite whatever Stormwater Manual is current rather than the 2019 Stormwater Manual? Mr.
Shuster agreed with this. He noted there is a statement in the CARA that says if Ecology should update the
requirements in the next Stormwater Manual, they will be adopted automatically if they are more protectives
than the proposed ones. Chair Gladstone was glad to hear this but thought the language in the code should also
be clear that it refers to the most current version and not just the 2019 Manual. Mr. Shuster indicated they could
look into that.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if designating different areas of the CARA as a "class" is an industry
standard or something that Edmonds has chosen to do. She wondered if it would make more sense to call them
zones. Mr. Shuster explained there are different kinds of UIC wells. The Class 5 UIC is a Stormwater Injection
Well. Regarding the zones, he recommended speaking to Mike Clugston about that.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 4 of 8
Greywater reuse: Mr. Shuster explained that greywater reuse was a question that Mr. Clugston was going to
address.
Chair Gladstone asked if greywater referred to stormwater runoff or water coming from inside the home. Mr.
Shuster commented that stormwater runoff is not considered greywater. He thought it was from inside the home.
Chair Gladstone thought this would be problematic, particularly in the Deer Creek Wellfield area or if there are
shallow infiltration wells, because greywater is apt to carry PFAS. Mr. Shuster agreed. He said he would not
recommend infiltrating greywater. He shared slides related to this that Mr. Clugston was going to talk about on
the topic.
Board Member Maxwell recalled that the Board had previously discussed this and decided against using
greywater and also against allowing rain barrels or allowing people to water their lawns with water from their
roofs. Chair Gladstone concurred and noted the draft is not reflective of their discussion. Mr. Shuster explained
that one of the slides lists greywater tiers and options; this is something the Board will need to talk with Mr.
Clugston about when he returns. Chair Gladstone explained there will be another presentation at the public
hearing. She requested that Mr. Clugston bring back the areas that were unaddressed. They can also request
information from the OVWSD as part of that discussion. She will work with Mr. Clugston on this. The Board
thanked Mr. Shuster for the informative presentation.
B. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004)
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director, explained the intent of this item was to let the Board
discuss the subcommittee recommendations. She noted that Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers had provided
feedback in the draft code of instances where staff may have concerns or conflicts. She explained that staff has
paused tree code amendments for the time being in order to understand the implications or outcomes of those
regulations in relation to an overall city policy on tree canopy loss.
Chair Gladstone asked about the work they will be doing to determine the tree canopy target. Director
McLaughlin said she didn't think it would take long, and they intend to get started right away. She thought they
would be able to pick the tree code up again in Q1 2024. Chair Gladstone asked how the work is going to get
done since the department is understaffed. Director McLaughlin noted they just hired a senior planner who will
be working on the Comprehensive Plan through 2024 and who has some capacity.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if they have any idea what a good target is. If they are at 34% tree canopy
now, is that near where they want to be or are they way off base? Director McLaughlin explained determining
that would be the first task in the process.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed concern that the citizens of Edmonds have been waiting on this for a
year. She feels like the Planning Board should continue rather than allowing the tree code amendments to be
pushed down the line. She was concerned that if they are not working on it and actively showing progress, they
will be failing in their j ob. Director McLaughlin explained that progress for her is looking at the overall outcome.
She is concerned about the potential for a cumulative tree canopy cover loss of 3-6% on an annual basis with
two trees per lot being removed.
Board Member Martini asked what has happened with the tree canopy in Edmonds in the last 15 years. Ms.
Powers explained they have had tree canopy assessments every five years since 2005. Even though there was
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 5 of 8
an overall gain in the last five years, in the previous assessments there has been a substantial loss. However,
because of a lack of detail with the assessments, they don't know what to attribute that to.
Chair Gladstone expressed appreciation for the information about the potential loss of tree canopy with the two
trees per lot annual removal proposed legislation. She also asked about the results of the attorney review of the
work. Director McLaughlin noted there is applicable legislation in the City that they are tracking in relation to
the tree code work related to development. Chair Gladstone said she could see where a canopy target would be
valuable to gauge whether the code is accomplishing what they want. In her mind, these two things can be
parallel, though a recommendation can go forward, and then you come back and see how it fits in relation to
the goal. That way they don't lose the work that's been done already, and they don't have to start at square one
in the new year. She commented that the work of the Planning Board is an attempt to navigate the tension
between environmental protection and property rights. She recommended that the Board complete their work
while staff works on the target and then they can come back and compare.
Board Member Maxwell agreed that they can be passing a recommendation now and can come back to it later
if it turns out it's not working out as well as they like. Also, they are doing this in terms of what they feel is the
compromise position that the citizens of Edmonds would support.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to packet pages 75-76 and discussed the subcommittee recommendations.
She explained that a comment they heard over and over again from the public was not to touch the largest trees.
The recommendation that they put forth is that removal of a 30" or larger tree would be prohibited. She clarified
that they were referring to non -hazardous, non -nuisance, non-invasive trees. Trees under six inches would not
be regulated. The tree sizes in between 6" and 30" are in 12" diameter increments (6-18" and 18-30"). For 6-
18", the recommendation would be to require notification but not replacements. For 18-30", the
recommendation is to require replacements. Property owners could remove up to two trees per year. Other
recommendations are to have permits without fees and to require one tree of at least six inches in diameter per
3,000 square feet.
Chair Gladstone said she liked the way they have framed this. It makes it simple. However, after further
consideration and hearing Director McLaughlin's comments tonight about tree canopy loss, she would prefer
that the total number of trees per year be one instead of two. Additionally, she likes the idea of incentivizing
certain kinds of trees, but she has learned recently that conifers may not be able to survive the climate in the
future. The City of Seattle has put together a list of climate resilient trees they may want to focus on rather than
the conifers.
Board Member Golembiewski said they need to do everything in their power to deter removal of the largest
trees. She isn't sure that prohibiting private property owners completely is within their power. Board Member
Maxwell recommended making that part of the legal review. Board Member Golembiewski concurred and
added that they should try to make it very unattractive to do. Director McLaughlin noted that they would do a
legal review of the draft code.
Board Member Nutsch asked if the intent was that replacements happen on the same property or if they would
be open to allowing them to happen elsewhere. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted the subcommittee had an
interesting discussion on that, and it is something she would support proposing. Board Member Nutsch asked
if the 3-6% canopy cover loss represents a worst -case scenario. Director McLaughlin explained that it is
conservative and represents 20% of homeowners removing the maximum of two trees per year.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 6 of 8
Board Member Maxwell noted that currently there are no restrictions on homeowners cutting down trees. They
are talking about making it more difficult to take down trees, so he doesn't expect the number to increase. Other
board members commented that there is no way to know what people are going to do since human nature is
complicated.
Board Member Golembiewski said at the very least they should be tracking tree removals. She would like to
see a notification process required for all private homeowner trees and maybe even a permit just on the big trees.
This would allow the City the opportunity to get some baseline data to make future decisions on rather than
doing nothing in the interim period.
Board Member Kuehn agreed that they should have baseline requirements and spoke in support of Board
Member Golembiewski's recommendations in the interim.
Chair Gladstone noted there is a lot more to discuss. She recommended that the Board continue the discussion
while staff goes down the path of developing canopy targets.
Director McLaughlin said she was not opposed to working in parallel on this but pointed out they would reach
a point where they would need to have something to analyze that was not a moving target. She challenged the
Board to think about equity considerations and the fact that there is a huge void of tree canopy in the Highway
99 area along with heat island impacts. If they treat all things equal, they will end up with more inequities in the
tree canopy in certain parts of the city. She also wants to develop a subcommittee for the citywide tree canopy
target so they can expedite the efforts. She will distribute more information to the Board.
Board Member Mitchell thought there should be some sort of tax or fee on the removal of trees to emphasize
the importance of retaining them. Board Member Maxwell clarified that they were thinking of permits with no
fees for just the hazard trees. Board Member Golembiewski's suggestion was to have a fee on the larger trees.
Board Member Martini raised concerns about equity. Board Member Mitchell pointed out that with the recent
property tax increases there were avenues that senior citizens could go through to get relief. They might be able
to get something like that in place.
Chair Gladstone recommended that they get a briefing from legal staff about the property ownership tree
removal portion of this so they are making a recommendation that is legally defendable.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted that a discussion on the tree code update was scheduled for November 8.
Director McLaughlin would like to hold a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission on the
Comprehensive Plan on November 8 also. This could happen before the regularly scheduled meeting. Vice
Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that staff provide material to read ahead of only a few days prior to the
meeting. She noted they would probably need to move back the detached ADU discussion since they are adding
additional items to that meeting.
Also, there is an outstanding request from the Council about reviewing the vision statement which was going
to be worked on as a subcommittee. Chair Gladstone indicated she, Board Member Kuehn, and Student
Representative Distelhorst will try to work together over the weekend so there can be something ready for the
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 7 of 8
packet for the November 8 meeting. The Board will need to add the vision statement discussion to the November
8 meeting in order to have it ready for Council in time.
Chair Gladstone recommended deferring the tree code to the November 29 meeting. The public hearing for the
CARA will also be on the 29th. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted that the report to Council had been moved
to December 5 from November 6.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Distelhorst encouraged the Board to be more respectful of city staff and their
recommendations. She has noticed that things have been very awkward with staff and the Council for the two
plus years she has served on the Planning Board. She feels that the Planning Board is making things even harder
for staff.
Vice Chair Tragus Campbell expressed appreciation for everyone taking time to listen to the recommendations.
She is looking forward to talking about them some more.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for leading the past couple meetings. She will be back
in person next time.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2023 Page 8 of 8