2018-01-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2018
Vice Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Phil Lovell
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
Carreen Rubenkonig
Megan Livingston, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Board Member Lovell welcomed Megan Livingston, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, as the new Student
Representative serving on the Board.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Rubenkonig commented regarding the minutes, noting that many of the points brought up explained clearly
the Architectural Design Board's concerns and will serve the Board well in the future. Mr. Chave's comments at the meeting
were very pertinent relative to the challenges they will face when amending the Design Guidelines.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 BE APPROVED
AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mariam Gold, Students Saving Salmon, said she was present to talk about potential amendments to the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) relative to the removal of vegetation. She explained that last fall, Students Saving Salmon did a project at
Shell Creek, near the Holy Rosary Church, where they removed invasive species and planted native species. This was done
in conjunction with monthly water tests they do with Sound Salmon Solutions. She emphasized that habitat restoration is
critical to protecting the salmon and natural environment. She said their project was going well until they ran into problems
with code limitations. As per the current CAO, you can only remove invasive species from 1,500 square feet of property.
The limit is intended to prevent soil erosion in the event that someone does not replace the invasive species with native
plants. However, in their case, the project was restoring the habitat with natural species. The code limitation hampered their
ability to do more to create a healthy environment for salmon, as well as other species that live in the streams. She asked that
the Board recommend approval of an amendment that changes the limitation to exempt special habitat restoration projects.
The change will allow them to make more of an impact on the environment without the negative consequences that the
current limitation was created to protect against.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he is retired fishery biologist and a 38-year resident of Edmonds. He currently serves as a
volunteer adult advisor for the Edmonds/Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon Club. He said he was also present
to talk about proposed amendments to the CAO. He recalled that when the CAO was last updated, he made a specific request
to the City Council that they reconsider the area limit and time frame because they would restrict habitat restoration. He
recognized that the intent is to protect against potential erosion, but in the case of habitat restoration projects, native species
are also planted as part of the work. The purpose of restoration projects is to improve habitat and make the streams healthy
for salmon. The students' work was well supervised by Sound Salmon Solutions and coordinated with the Edmonds Tree
Board, City staff, and the Holy Rosary Church. Sound Salmon Solutions provided the native plantings, as well as the habitat
technicians to ensure that the work was done properly.
Mr. Scordino said he has worked with Sound Salmon Solutions, EarthCorps and others on habitat restoration projects. These
expert groups know what needs to be done. He suggested that the ordinance should be changed to acknowledge that the
restrictions are unnecessary for projects that are overseen by qualified habitat restoration experts. He asked that the Board
consider a simple fix to the ordinance that does not add complexity or increase lead time and volunteer effort for getting
habitat restoration work done. He said it is hard enough to coordinate getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat
expertise, property owner involvement and approval and volunteers. It would not be appropriate to require them to go
through additional "hoops" in order to complete a project that benefits the environment. He suggested the following
amendment to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.220(C)(8)(a):
"The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified
organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native
species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. "
Dawna Lahti, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of Edmonds for 35 years and is connected with the Students Saving
Salmon project because she belongs to the Care of Creation group at Holy Rosary Church where the stream is located. She
was able to observe the project as it progressed. She said she understands that human alteration of the environment can go
awry; and unfortunately, that is what has happened in the past along the stream. They are learning more all the time as to
how to repair these situations. She voiced concern that if the restoration project takes too long to complete because of the
code limitations, students currently in the program will graduate and move on and the next students many not care as much.
She summarized that they have a golden opportunity to do the right thing to repair the damage that was done before by well
intentioned people who planted what they wanted without regard to what a stream requires. She agreed with Mr. Scordino
that the solution should be simple so that the projects can go forward while there is the impetus and will to do them.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
There was no Development Services Director Report.
PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Board Member Rubenkonig announced that she and Chair Monroe would present the Planning Board's report to the City
Council on January 161.
HOUSING STRATEGIES UPDATE
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the City develop a Housing Strategy by the end of
2019, and a Task Force has been appointed by Mayor Earling to move the project forward. The Task Force's next meeting is
scheduled for January 25t1i at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room of City Hall. At the meeting, the consultant and City
Planning Board Minutes
January 10, 2018 Page 2
staff will bring forward a draft list of potential resources and tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and meet
diverse needs. The discussion will be geared towards different types of housing, different income levels, opportunities for
partnerships, etc. The public is invited to attend and the Board Members will receive an update following the meeting.
Mr. Chave advised that a public open house would be scheduled a few months after the Housing Strategy Task Force
Meeting to solicit public input on the tools being considered. Following the open house, the consultant will prepare a draft
Housing Strategy for the Planning Board's review in early spring. He noted that a special webpage has been created to
provide information: https://www.edmondshousin se trategy.ore/. Staff will notify the Board Members when new items are
added to the site. Another update will also be provided to the Board in advance of the consultant's presentation of the formal
report.
CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) AMENDMENT — SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL
Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), which is the allowed activities section of the City's critical areas regulations.
The section identifies certain activities within a critical area and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation
of a critical area report. The restriction in area that can be eligible for vegetation removal without a report from a qualified
professional is a new provision added in the last major update of the CAO. Since the CAO was last updated, concern has
been raised that this limitation (1,500 square feet over 3 years) is too restrictive and/or costly in some circumstances. The
City Council has asked the Planning Board to review the limitation and forward a recommendation to them.
Mr. Chave explained that the consultant who assisted the City with the last CAO update recommended the 1,500-square-foot
limitation, which is consistent with the City of Seattle's ordinance. As currently written, clearing of more than 1,500 square
feet is allowed, but a critical area report from a qualified professional is required. He further explained that the intent of the
restriction is to avoid situations of potential erosion when invasive species are removed from slopes or stream banks. It was
felt that invasive species could be removed from small areas without disturbing much of the intact buffer, but there was
concern about making sure people know what they are doing and have proper guidance when doing larger projects. He noted
that the Staff Report outlines several options the Board could consider. However, it is important to make sure that larger
projects have proper guidance. Describing the qualifications of the professional or organization will be very important. Staff
intends to further refine the options based on feedback from the Board and present them for further discussion at the Board's
January 24t1i meeting.
Board Member Lovell recalled that the Planning Board had numerous discussions relative to the CAO as part of its work on
the Shoreline Master Program. One particular item of discussion at that time was that alder trees that are 2-inch caliper or
smaller should be considered noxious plants. He asked if this was incorporated into the CAO. Mr. Chave answered that is it
likely found in the definition section rather than the section currently under discussion. He agreed to find the reference and
report back.
Board Member Lovell summarized that the language change the Board is being asked to consider makes sense on the surface.
However, if they want to allow clearing and replanting (restoration) within a critical area larger than 1,500 square feet, it
should be done under the auspice of a qualified and experienced individual or organization. He asked if is possible for the
City assemble a list of qualified individuals and organizations. Mr. Chave said the City could create a list of individuals and
organizations that have worked with the City before, but they are not going to know all that may qualify. Therefore, there
must be some sort of a process for determining whether or not a person or organization is qualified to oversee the work. It
does not have to be an onerous process, but there needs to be some measure to provide assurance that the work will be
overseen by qualified people. This could be as simple as requiring a resume or description of the organization or person that
outlines their experience. Board Member Lovell agreed that a simple process should be incorporated to avoid situations of
"weekend environmental warriors."
Board Member Lovel asked if there has been any discussion in house with respect to the City's responsibility to supervise
and inspect the projects. Mr. Chave agreed that supervision and inspection should be part of the equation. For example, the
City could ask for a simple restoration plan to ensure that the plantings and species are appropriate. After a project is
finished, City staff could inspect to make sure it was done according to the plan.
Planning Board Minutes
January 10, 2018 Page 3
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to provide more information about how restoration work is done in the City.
She noted that there are many different levels of restoration projects, ranging from small to large, on both private and public
lands. Some are required as part of a development proposal and others are done by the Parks Department. However, many
are done by individuals and groups, as well. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department does work in and around the Edmonds
Marsh each year, which can be substantial. Students Saving Salmon have done a number of projects, as well. In addition,
individual property owners have done work on their own stream frontages. Usually, they check with the City to find out
what is required and if there are any restrictions, but sometimes people clear things away from stream banks without realizing
that they need to plant something else so the stream bank does not erode. There are varying levels of projects, as well as
expertise and knowledge. Many people are watching over the streams now, so it is not unusual for the City to hear about
projects. This allows them to check in to make sure they are doing things right.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the proposed amendment would impact work done by the Parks Department. Mr.
Chave advised that the Parks Department is currently in the process of preparing a critical area report to identify all of the
projects it expects to undertake over the next year. The report will be reviewed by the Planning Department to make sure it is
consistent with the CAO before issuing approval for the range of projects. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Parks
Department is also subject to the 1,500-square-foot limitation. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and said that is why they
are doing a critical area report.
Mr. Chave advised that, oftentimes, restoration work is required as part of a private development permit. In these cases, the
developer must submit a critical area report. He cautioned that the proposed amendment must be crafted carefully so that
these types of projects do not fall under the exemption, as well. However, he can see situations where a development has a
lot of invasive species near a stream, and it may be appropriate for them to partner with a non-profit organization to
accomplish the restoration work. But most of the time, developers will be wanting to clear a site for development, and a
critical area report will be required to show how the restoration work will be accomplished.
Board Member Rosen agreed with the concerns and suggestions raised by Board Member Lovell. He suggested that the draft
amendment provided by staff should include the following elements: how the City will determine if an individual or
organization is qualified, how the City recommends that supervision take place, and how the City will validate that a group or
individual has kept its promises.
Board Member Robles voiced concern that the City is being asked to allocate resources without having an accurate inventory.
He asked what could be done to incentivize the collection of these resources.
Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed amendment would only apply to areas within the City that have been
categorized as critical area. Mr. Chave added that they usually fall on slopes or near streams.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the Staff Report, which appears to identify the following five options for addressing
the problems:
• Eliminate the area limitation for bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified
organization and/or individual.
• Eliminate the area limitation for habitat restoration projects that are managed by an organization or individual who
has a standing agreement with the City.
• Revise the area limit threshold number.
• Revise the area limit threshold limit when a restoration method is proposed.
• Retain the existing code language.
Board Member Robles felt that the code should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for vegetation removal to extend
beyond 1,500 square feet. Vice Chair Cheung asked where the 1,500-foot limitation came from, and Mr. Chave answered
that it was a standard from Seattle's ordinance and was recommended by the consultant as a reasonable number.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the process for amending the CAO is a bit different than the process used for most
development code amendments. Following a public hearing before the Planning Board, the proposed amendment must be
forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval before being presented to the City Council for final
Planning Board Minutes
January 10, 2018 Page 4
approval. The proposed amendment should also be considered as a potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program
(SMP), which triggers an entirely different process. He explained that the CAO applies to critical areas throughout the City,
and the SMP applies to properties with the shoreline jurisdiction only. At this point, staff is only proposing an amendment to
the CAO. Depending on how that goes, they could follow up with an amendment to the SMP when it is updated again in
2019.
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the Board is looking at the concept of increasing the size of the threshold. In
conjunction with this, they should consider the best way to make sure the City is comfortable with the process for vetting
individuals and organizations identified to supervise a project. The Board could also consider additional criteria that removal
of invasive species would be exempt from the area limitation as long as native species are planted to restore the area
appropriately.
Mr. Chave agreed to prepare draft language for the Board's review at their next meeting based on the feedback provided.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Cheung reviewed that the January 24t' agenda will include a final report on the Five Corners Development
Feasibility Analysis and a study session on draft language to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select
vegetation removal. The February 14' agenda will include a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) and a tentative public hearing on a draft amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation
removal. The February 281 meeting will include a public hearing on the UFMP and a discussion on code updates to permit
decision making (ECDC 20.01.003(A).
Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the last meeting, he inquired about when the Board would receive a report on the
Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. He asked that staff work to add this to the extended agenda, noting that the
consultant likely provided a timeline as part of the contract.
Board Member Lovell asked if the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis would be presented by the consultant or
staff. Mr. Chave answered that the work is being done by the consultant, but he does know if the consultant will make the
actual presentation to the Board. Board Member Lovell also asked if the consultant would present the UFMP to the Board,
and Mr. Chave said he was not sure if it would be presented by the consultant or staff. Board Member Lovell asked if the
Tree Board would be represented at the February 14r' and February 281 meetings at which the UFMP will be discussed.
Board Member Robles said he knows that the Tree Board plans to be active in future discussions, and representatives from
the Tree Board will be present at the Planning Board meetings when the topic is discussed.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell advised that he would take over the responsibility of being the liaison to the Citizens Economic
Development Commission.
Board Member Robles reported that he has met twice with the sign committee reviewing the gateway entry sign near
Westgate where the road splits to the ferry and downtown. It is an interesting group of people and the artist is brilliant. The
artist has come up with three or four designs, one of which was "out of the park." He hasn't seen the updated rendition, but
the ideas thus far as very nice. The intent is for the sign design to reflect how the road splits in this location.
Board Member Rubenkonig once again referred to the minutes from the joint Planning Board/ADB Meeting on December
13'. They contained excellent information that will be helpful for the Board when they move to the next part of the process.
It was very interesting to review what was said that evening.
Planning Board Minutes
January 10, 2018 Page 5
Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that she and Chair Monroe would present the Planning Board's report to the
City Council on January 161. At that time, she felt it would be helpful to provide information about the Board Member's
professional qualifications, as well as the neighborhoods they live in. It will be good for the City Council to see that
representation goes throughout the entire City.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
January 10, 2018 Page 6