Loading...
2023-11-29 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting November 29, 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 Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Richard Kuehn (online) Susanna Martini Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Emily Nutsch (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent None Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NUTSCH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBERS TRAGUS-CAMPBELL AND MARTINI ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA CHAIR GLADSTONE MOVED TO ADD THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF THE TREE CODE AMENDMENT BEFORE NEW BUSINESS AND TO ADD ELECTION FOR CHAIR TO NEW BUSINESS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 1 of 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced the second public hearing on the CARA code update and reviewed some of the history of this work. He gave an overview of the CARA draft code that has been revised. Updated elements since July 2023: • Stormwater — propose approach described on October 25, 2023 • Scope — clarify purpose and intent • Administration — hydrogeologic report requirements • Regulated activities — report requirement for hazardous materials storage • Definitions — several updates based on DOH guidance • Pollution liability insurance — City Attorney to research • Greywater (direction needed from Planning Board) Greywater is currently prohibited in all CARAs in the current draft. The DOH indicated that there could be opportunities to use certain types of greywater in certain instances but only for irrigation during the dry season. This would be a fairly limited impact. There are three tiers of greywater. Should any types of greywater be allowed in any of the areas of the CARA? Mr. Clugston reviewed public comments that have been received to date. One of the concerns is about PFAS in the water supply. The EPA is currently working on standards and hopes to get them completed by the end of the year, but as of right now there are no standards for PFAS. The rule would require public water systems to monitor for PFAS, notify the public, and reduce levels if they are exceeded. He noted it is probably premature to try to consider regulations for it now since there are no standards, but they can look at it in the future. He reviewed next steps including taking public testimony, having a discussion, making any additional revisions, and making a recommendation to Council. There was some discussion about the history of PFAS and current best practices. Board Member Mitchell commented that when they talk about zoning and uses it doesn't necessarily correlate to the type of structure that is there; it is the type of use that is there. Mr. Clugston agreed. He noted that the highest intensity uses are the ones that would be prohibited and those are listed in the table of the current draft. Public Testimony Lora Petso thanked the Board for what they have done and made the following comments: • At the last public hearing she asked for protection from the many exceptions provided in the City's critical areas regulations including mitigation sequencing. Instead, mitigation sequencing has been added back in. She requested they delete the section regarding mitigation sequencing because once the drinking water is contaminated it can't be mitigated and is most likely unusable. • She asked them to keep greywater prohibited in the CARAs. • Her request that the City consider provisions on new infiltration is more or less met for the 228d' Street well, but not for the Deer Creek source. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 2 of 8 There has been no consideration that she can tell that they consider at CARA-specific prohibition on recycled tire products, recycled asphalt, and pervious parking lots and roads. Please consider the suggestion that CARAs be excluded from the middle housing density mandates. This would help to protect the water sources. She summarized that one request from Olympic View was to revert the title of the Scope section back to Purpose and Intent. Another request was to include in the Purpose and Intent statement that the intent of the ordinance was to maintain our drinking water in a drinkable condition. She would like that to be in the statute and also in their motivation for passing on the CARA ordinance. Bob Danson, General Manager, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, thanked staff and Planning Board for their efforts. He expressed the following concerns about the current draft: • The infiltration for the stormwater mitigation in the Deer Creek Springs capture zone can lead to a contaminated aquifer due to pollutants in the stormwater. Infiltration in the QVA layer that allows stormwater infiltration to be in the water -bearing layer of the soil is risky because it means that the protection is minimal. They are asking that infiltration not be allowed in the Deer Creek Springs capture zones and that stormwater in general be sent out of the capture zones. • PFAS contamination is an emerging issue that they don't know enough about yet. However, they do know that it takes an extremely small amount to be dangerous. • He agreed with the mitigation piece. There is no way to mitigate contaminated drinking water. • Greywater has pollutants and increases the risk that the pollutants will get into the aquifer. He urged the City not to allow it. Steven Schmitz, Edmonds resident, said he agrees with all the testimony has heard tonight with the exception of middle housing. He doesn't think that there's evidence to say that middle housing is a strong culprit for infiltration or pollutants in our neighborhoods. One of the things they should be considering is reducing the number of trips by automobiles and tires that may contain PFAS. This should be a pretty strong priority. Mackey Guenther expressed support for doing what they can to preserve sources of clean drinking water in Edmonds. He agreed with all testimony he has heard tonight including the exception of concerns about missing middle development or the placement of ADUs on lots in the CARA protection zones. Based on what he has heard, the risk of PFAS entering the water system is coming from automobile tires. Taking a longer term look at development in Edmonds, they need to be looking at ways to reduce the reliance on vehicles and reduce vehicle miles traveled within the city. He pointed out that the majority of non -building impermeable surfaces in Edmonds are paved areas for parking lots. They might want to think about reducing parking minimums as a way to get out of the cycle they are in. He urged them to keep scientific best practices in mind as they make their decisions. The public hearing was closed. Discussion: Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she didn't think it was necessary for them to allow greywater use for irrigation since it would only be useful during the dry season although she thought there was the possibility that it could be done in a safe and appropriate manner. Board Member Maxwell agreed with Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell. There appeared to be consensus that greywater should be on the list of prohibited uses in the CARAs. Mr. Clugston pointed out that this is how it currently reads. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Board Member Maxwell asked for clarification about Ms. Petso's comments. Mr. Clugston explained that several months ago the DOH provided some guidance about the need for an alternative to the mitigation sequencing standards that they have in the critical areas. It was his understanding that there should be a special set of mitigation standards that apply specifically to CARAs so he modified the County's code and put that in here. These can be removed, but the DOH will be taking a look at the draft and will provide comments. Chair Gladstone said she had a conversation with the DOH and was informed that it didn't belong there so she recommended taking it out. She was told that there is no mitigation for critical areas because the whole point is to avoid the problem in the first point. Board Member Mitchell referred to the development issue and noted that any new construction is required to do drainage assessment plans and onsite mitigation before it even enters the stonmwater system. He recommended leaving any exceptions or restrictions related to middle housing up to the House bills that are coming forth. There was some discussion about collection and treatment requirements for developers. Chair Gladstone commented that House Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337 both state that the requirements do not apply in CARAs so it's really already taken care of. There was consensus to not recommend any revisions related to middle housing. Infiltration/UIC wells — There was discussion about the difference between infiltration and UIC wells and also treatment/enhanced treatment options. Board Member Golembiewski said she was comfortable allowing shallow UICs and infiltration in Deer Creek because there is no other option and the infrastructure is not there to require anything else. She also thinks the UIC regulations have a requirement for pre-treatment. As they learn more about PFAS and other things she would expect that those could be updated to include treatment for those emerging contaminants of concern. Chair Gladstone said her concern was with the QVAs (grey areas on the map) because there is nothing there to provide any filtering whatsoever. Board Member Maxwell asked what would happen if they don't allow UICs in those areas. Chair Gladstone explained it would stay the way it is because it would only be triggered if someone goes to redevelop. It means that someone in those areas would not be able to redevelop. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented that it might mean those areas would have to wait for redevelopment until the City can get additional stormwater structures in place and technology improves to be able to deal with some of the chemicals. Board Member Golembiewski expressed concern that someone right outside the grey area would still be able to discharge their water into the ditch because there is no infrastructure in the area. Chair Gladstone noted that redevelopment outside of the gray area would have to meet the new standards for UIC wells with hopefully enhanced treatment. It is a way of reducing risk, but it does not eliminate the risk. Board Member Maxwell expressed concern that this would be an enormous imposition on people who live there since no changes could happen to their homes for the next 50 years in exchange for a relatively small reduction in risk. Chair Gladstone did not think the storm code was triggered if someone was just adding a bedroom or putting in an ADU. It would have to be a major redevelopment. Mr. Clugston was not certain but thought that the stormwater code was triggered with 2,000 square feet of new or replaced impervious surface. Board Member Kuehn agreed with not allowing UIC wells in the most sensitive areas. It is important to do what they can to preserve clean drinking water. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Board Member Tragus Campbell commented that Deer Creek has been used for a hundred years. They have the responsibility to make sure they are able to continue using this resource even if it means slowing down a limited sector of potential development. As technology changes and as additional infrastructure expands it can be looked at again. Most of the Board agreed with the recommendation that shallow UIC wells not be allowed in the QVA (gray) areas but that they should be allowed in other areas with the guidance that is currently in the draft code. Board Member Golembiewski had reservations about this. Chair Gladstone noted that the map of the aquifer or a link to it needs to be part of the code. Mr. Clugston noted that the City GIS is available to everyone and that is where all the critical area information lives. As Olympic View gets new mapping it will be added to the GIS. That is the place everyone looks for information about projects. Board Member Maxwell said he agreed with Mr. Guenther's comment that they don't want to encourage more cars and asphalt in the CARAs. If there are any zoning requirements that push for more parking, they should remove those from the CARAs. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS- CAMPBELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CARA CODE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH TWO MODIFICATIONS: 1. REMOVE MITIGATION SECTION IN 23.60.030(D)(1)(C) 2. DISALLOW ANY UIC WELLS — SHALLOW OR DRILLED — IN THE QV AREAS OF THE DEER CREEK AQUIFER BUT ALLOW SHALLOW UIC WELLS IN THE OTHER AREAS OF THAT WATERSHED. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI ABSTAINING. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to packet page 149: "Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations: Proposed Code Changes Adding Tree Removal Regulations For Developed Private Property". Most of the comments they heard from the public and the Tree Board were very concerned with the largest trees. There was a lack of interest in putting forth regulations for the smallest of trees. It was also brought up many times that there is no data related to how many trees are actually taken down each year. The City is interested in making sure that there are permits or notifications in order to get some data. She reviewed the subcommittee's recommendations on page 150 in the packet for healthy, non-invasive, non - hazard trees not related to development. • Under 6 inches: Not regulated or tracked at all. • 6-12 inches: o Notification would be required. o Two trees would be allowed to be removed per 12 months of that size or one tree of a size that is bigger. The exception would be if you are down to one tree per 3,000 square feet of property you need to keep the last tree and not remove all canopy from that particular lot. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 5 of 8 o No replacements required. • 18-30 inches: o Replacements would be required. o Permit would be required in order to verify replacements were made. o Maximum of one tree of this size per 12 months (unless you have already removed two of the smaller trees) 30 inches or greater: Removal would be prohibited. Hazard, nuisance, invasive trees: No limits but replacements would be required for largest trees. Permits would not have a fee associated with it in order to encourage people to do the process correctly and not put a burden on those that might have lower incomes. Board Member Golembiewski recommended having two levels of hazard trees such as "emergency" which could be taken down with photo submittal and "hazard" which would require an arborist's assessment. There was some concern that this would be a burden for staff. The Board asked if the City is currently accepting photos or requiring an arborist to determine if a tree is hazardous. Mr. Clugston was not sure but indicated they could follow up. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked the Board about their thoughts on the size breakdowns the subcommittee came up with. Chair Gladstone said she liked the way they categorized them because it puts weight on the value of the older trees. She would like to hear from the City Attorney in a subsequent meeting about prohibiting removal of the 30+ inch trees. Chair Gladstone wondered if allowing two trees per year was too much. Board Member Golembiewski thought allowing two trees per year sort of evens the playing field between different size lots. Board Member Nutsch commented that it is also more cost effective to have two trees cut down at once. Board Member Kuehn passed on a message from Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers that the City was allowing photos without the need of an arborist. He spoke in support of trying to protect the largest trees (-26 inches+) and prohibiting removal of those. He wondered about allowing two trees per two years to allow some flexibility. He wondered if they have gotten any further direction from staff about what their goal is with the canopy. Chair Gladstone said there has been no further information about this. She heard it would be done in the first quarter of 2024, but she wonders if this is actually possible. Board Member Maxwell said they have heard from residents that they want to increase the canopy, particularly in places where it is sparse. Chair Gladstone summarized that the Board thinks there is some size they think should be prohibited if it is legal and that they will come back to this after they hear from the City Attorney. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell emphasized that right now in Edmonds there are no restrictions with tree removals so anything the Council can put into place will be helpful in protecting the canopy. The longer they wait, the more risk there is that they are going to lose some of these trees that they consider to be the most important. Board Member Mitchell spoke in support of the subcommittee's proposed categories and noted that the replacements would offset a lot of this. Board Member Kuehn agreed, but commented on the significant time it takes for a tree to grow to 26 inches. Board Member Mitchell wondered about having some sort of maintenance plan requirement for the replacement trees. He noted that Kirkland has resorted to doing this because some people were letting their replacement trees die. Chair Gladstone asked if there are some sort of guidelines about Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 6 of 8 the size of tree that needs to be replacing the one removed. Board Member Golembiewski said there were some size requirements in the development code as well as maintenance requirements. There were questions about regulations that might be placed on replacement trees as far as maintenance, removal, etc. There was consensus to carry this over to the next meeting and a request to have the City Attorney come talk with the Board about legal constraints. NEW BUSINESS A. Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with HB 1337 — "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." - (continued to next meeting) B. Election of Chair — Chair Gladstone reported that at the next meeting they will need to elect both a Chair and a Vice Chair. She solicited any volunteers. Board Member Mitchell expressed an interest. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be interested in Vice Chair. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA The introduction to the Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units was continued to the next meeting. Election of officers will also be held. Mr. Clugston said they should discuss the Planning Board report to City Council which will happen in January. Chair Gladstone recommended setting a time limit for their discussions on the Tree Code because of how involved they get. Board Member Golembiewski recommended not putting the Tree Code on the agenda for the next meeting if the City Attorney is not available. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that if board members have thoughts that are different than the recommendation proposed by the subcommittee, they provide those to Mike Clugston so he can distribute them to the Board. Chair Gladstone also requested some clarity on the canopy work that is being done in terms of the timeline, how it's being done, and how it's being paid for. She suggested that if completion of this is going to be longer than expected they may want to consider giving an interim recommendation to Council. Chair Gladstone expressed concern about not having anything on the Comprehensive Plan on the agenda until they see high level alternatives in February. Board Member Mitchell wondered if this would cover all the sections or just a specific one. Mr. Clugston said he would check with the consultant and ask for more details. Chair Gladstone thought that the Board should be getting regular updates so they are prepared and informed when the consultant comes with alternatives. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell announced this would be her last meeting. She has really appreciated all of the discussions and vibrancy of the new members. She expressed appreciation to staff, especially Mike Clugston who has been the constant. She wants to stay informed and provide feedback when she can. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Board Member Kuehn expressed appreciation for the discussion today. He commented that it is sad to see more staff leave. It's a tough job when there is so much turnover. He also thanked Mike Clugston for being the constant. He thanked Board Member Tragus-Campbell for her contributions and said they would miss her greatly. He looks forward to her calling in and participating when she can. Board Member Nutsch thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service. Student Representative Distelhorst referred to a previous conversation about the interpretation of a "small town feel" and said that people see that as keeping the city the way it is and keeping the bowl the way it is. This is the way the phrase is used by residents, politicians, and governmental officials in Edmonds. She thanked them for considering her email and what she said. She also thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service on the Planning Board. Board Member Golembiewski thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for serving on the Planning Board. It has been great serving with her. She expressed appreciation to both Chair Gladstone and Vice Chair Tragus- Campbell for helping to lead and set the example for the newer members. Board Member Martini thanked Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for her service and said she will be greatly missed. Board Member Maxwell thanked everyone for the careful thinking about CARAs. It is important work, and he is glad they are taking it so seriously. Thanks to Mike Clugston for being a great support for their meetings. Thanks to Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for all of her work on the Planning Board. Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation for Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell's deep and insightful comments and questions and noted it will be tough to fill her shoes. He wished her the best. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone agreed with previous comments and said she really appreciated Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell's thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and consideration of all issues. She thanked her for helping the board accomplish some important recommendations to Council over the years. She thanked staff for their work and expressed her deep regrets about the loss of Deb Powers. She thinks it will be a real handicap for the city and that they should all be concerned about the turnover that has happened at the Planning Department. This makes it hard for everyone. She agreed that they had a great discussion today. She appreciates what everyone brings to the table. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 29, 2022 Page 8 of 8