2018-01-10 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JANUARY 10, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of December 13, 2017
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
B. Presentation to Council
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Housing Strategy Update
B. Critical Area - Select Vegetation Removal
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
January 10, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of December 13, 2017
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Board
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
Att.1: PB171213d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF JOINT
PLANNING BOARD/ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
MEETING
December 13, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig 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.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Tom Walker, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung Cary Guenther
Phil Lovell Joe Herr
Mike Rosen Athene Tarrant
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Brian Borofka
Lois Broadway
READING/APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board
Member Lovell asked if the Housing Strategy Task Force would report its progress and findings to the Planning Board. Mr.
Q
Packet Pg. 3
Chave answered that the Board would receive regular reports from the task force. Chair Rubenkonig requested more
information about the work of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee as it relates to amendments to the
Countywide Planning Polices to allow land in different urban growth areas to be "swapped" with each other. Mr. Chave said
he is not directly involved in this area, but he assumes there are some areas where it makes sense to expand the urban growth
area, but reductions would be made somewhere else. Lastly, Board Member Rosen asked if the Board would receive a report
of the findings from the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. Mr. Chave said he would submit that request to the
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director.
ELECTION OF 2018 OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ELECT BOARD MEMBER MONROE TO SERVE AS
CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Rosen explained that he recommended Board Member Monroe because he is smart, has significant
experience, is passionate about the work, and has demonstrated his abilities on numerous occasions.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ELECT BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG TO
SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Monroe has shown faith in Board Member Cheung's ability to
serve as vice chair to administer meetings in his absence, and Board Member Cheung has also proven to be a person with
great reasoning powers.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON RECOMMENDATION FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig and Board Member Lovell reported that they interviewed three candidates for the student representative o
position. All are students at Edmonds Woodway High School (2 are juniors and 1 is a senior). They were particularly 0
n
interested in selecting a junior to fill the position, hoping that the person could serve for a two-year period, including the Q
summer months between his/her junior and senior years.
M
Board Member Lovell advised that he and Chair Rubenkonig are recommending that the Board appoint Megan Livingston to cm
serve as the student representative. He explained that Ms. Livingston is a junior and currently participates in the International r
Baccalaureate Program and also plays soccer. Ms. Livingston has indicated her desire to serve for a two-year period, a
including the summer months. Her interests are in leadership, and she is particularly interested and committed to the City of
Edmonds. She was born and raised in Edmonds and indicated her desire to one day have a business of her own in Edmonds. r
Q
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPOINT MEGAN LIVINGSTON TO SERVE AS
THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PLANNING BOARD. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE m
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. E
Chair Rubenkonig commented that it was a pleasure to meet with all of the candidates and learn of their love for Edmonds. Q
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB)
Chair Rubenkonig welcomed the ADB members to the meeting and invited each of the Planning Board and ADB Members
to introduce themselves. She then invited Mr. Chave to explain the roles of the City Council, Planning Board, ADB, and the
public in design review.
Mr. Chave explained that the ADB represents citizens, architects and design professionals. Their role is to review projects in
a quasi-judicial forum, which carries a certain level of liability. The ADB meets periodically with the City Attorney to
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
review the rules for quasi-judicial hearings. The Planning Board, on the other hand, is more of an advisory body to the City
Council. Their role is much broader in scope, and much of their work involves Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
development. The Planning Board also serves as a Parks Board, meeting periodically with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Service staff to discuss issues related to parks. The only time the Planning Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity is to
consider rezone applications and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Chave explained that the ADB uses the criteria and regulations contained in the Development Code when reviewing
projects. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements, including those related to design, the ADB is obligated to
approve the project, and there is very little it can do to require an applicant to change the design. In recent months, the ADB
has had discussions about potentially increasing their involvement in the code development process. In addition, the ADB
has had discussions with the City Attorney that included the court case, Anderson vs. Issaquah, which represented a shift in
Washington State for how design review takes place. The importance of this court case is that Issaquah's design review
process and criteria was patterned after the City of Edmonds. Before the Anderson vs. Issaquah case, design review in a
public hearing setting had relatively broad guidelines. Because there was not a lot of specificity in the design standards, the
guidance given to applicants and the processes used for design review were a cause of frustration for applicants. Applicants
basically had to guess what a city wanted for design. Following the court ruling, cities, including Edmonds, have adopted
more specific guidelines and codes relative to design. However, these more stringent design guidelines and codes can result
in projects that all look the same. The goal should be to allow enough flexibility for developers to design unique and creative
projects that fit their circumstances and surroundings. At the same time, cities should provide enough specificity so
developers have a clear understanding of what is required.
Mr. Chave summarized that it is important to regulate what is important to the City, but not every little minutia or they will
end up with the same thing over and over again. Over the years, the City of Edmonds has incorporated more specific
standards and guidelines into the code, but they are not finished. As new planned areas have come about, such as Westgate
and Highway 99, they have tried to include design standards. However, there is not much in the way of design standards for
the multi -family residential zones, and they do not differentiate between the different parts of downtown. There is a lot of
language in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Development Code that supports the idea of introducing more design
guidelines than what currently exist.
Mr. Chave said the City does not do a good job of analyzing completed projects to determine whether or not the end results o
are consistent with what was anticipated when projects were reviewed from a design standpoint. Sometimes, the ADB
n
becomes frustrated when they don't necessarily like a design, but they do not have the design standards needed to require a Q
change. He recalled that, prior to the court case, the ADB tended to wing design review and require the applicant to change a
design without having any code to support the required change. Today, if there is nothing in the code, the ADB cannot insist
on a particularly idea. The intent is to come up with design standards to lead to the outcome the Board wants without
dictating how it will happen in every given case. ~
T
m
a
Mr. Chave said the ADB has expressed an interest in having more input when the design standards are being developed, but
this raises issues about how much time the volunteer ADB members have to focus on this effort. There is an opportunity in r
the coming year to think about how the ADB's role could be expanded. He referred to Resolution 1367, which was Q
supported by the majority of the City Council. The resolution called for code revisions to remove quasi-judicial decision -
making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by State law. It further
requested that that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the code that are E
consistent with this resolution. Having the City Council act on appeals to quasi-judicial decisions puts them in a bind 0
because of the strict Appearance of Fairness rules that apply. Constituents and project proponents can become frustrated Q
when they are unable to discuss their concerns about a particular project with their local representative. If the City Council
does not like the outcome of a particular project, they can amend the design standards to address the problems. The City
Council and the Planning Board have an important role to play in the process of amending the code, but the ADB has more
expertise than the Planning Board and City Council.
Mr. Chave explained that projects typically look different three to five years after they are constructed compared to when
they are initially completed. When a project is initially completed, none of the landscaping is mature enough to soften the
streetscape, etc. A lot of the design aspects will happen over time. He emphasized that the ADB can have a lot to say about
design codes, such as the type of landscaping that is important, what features make the fagade integrate with the streetscape,
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
and how this can change over time. That is something the City has not done a good job of to this point. Moving forward, he
suggested it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to solicit input from the professionals (ADB) when making code
changes so that the end result is better design. He suggested that improving existing design standards and creating new
design standards could be included in the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council relative to the design review
process.
Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there are two different processes for design review. The idea behind the two-part public
hearing, which was patterned after the City of Seattle, was to get design feedback from the ADB early in the process.
Historically, the ADB was presented with finished designs that applicants had already invested a lot of time and money to
create. The last thing the applicant wanted to do was redesign a project. From staff s perspective, the two-part public
hearing has not really worked because the ADB is still getting projects that are basically designed when presented for design
review. The two-part hearing is also awkward. He suggested that the two boards consider changing the process. One idea is
to have staff do the preliminary meeting with the applicant. At this meeting, staff could explain how the guidelines and
standards have been applied historically and provide examples of projects that have been approved in the City. This
approach would eliminate the need for a two-part hearing. In order for this to work going forward, it will be critical for the
ADB to be heavily involved in developing design standards. Ultimately, given the court's decision, the ADB will not have a
lot of discretion when reviewing applications. A project is either consistent with the design standards or not. That means
there must be strong guidelines in place to get the type of design the ADB desires for the City.
Rather than a two-part hearing, Mr. Chave suggested it would be more beneficial for the ADB to focus its efforts on the
design guidelines. He recalled that most of the time, people who testify before the ADB are concerned about zoning
requirements, which the ADB does not have any control over. Staff s experience is that the ADB gets relatively little
meaningful input related to the design of a project.
Chair Rubenkonig explained that the purpose of tonight's discussion is to develop a platform for moving forward. The
Planning Board is interested in learning about the ADB's concerns and ideas. She anticipates that additional meetings will be
needed to implement change. She noted that concern about having design review early enough in the process for it to be
meaningful was a topic of discussion when she served on the ADB in 2000, so the topic is not new.
Chair Walker said the ADB's biggest concern is how it can have the most influence and provide direction on design o
standards. By the time projects come before the ADB, the ADB does not have the power to influence the projects as much as °
n
they would like. He referred to the Point Edwards Building 10 project. The people who participated in the design review Q
hearing were mostly concerned about the large scale of the units, which is more of a zoning code issue that is outside of the
ADB's purview. The ADB could only influence very minor cosmetic changes because the project was found to be consistent
with the Development Code. The ADB members have raised concern about whether the design guidelines are working and if
their talents and expertise are being used effectively to influence projects for the better. It seems that, most times, the Board r
is left with making minor tweaks to a project near the end of the process. He suggested that having the ADB involved earlier a
in the process would allow them to have more influence over a project's design. He also felt it would be appropriate for the
ADB to have more input into the design guidelines. r
Q
Vice Chair Strauss voiced frustration with the design standards that apply in the downtown zones and proposed that they be
tightened up. When she joined the ADB, she was excited to have some influence over design in Edmonds. However, over
the past two years, the ADB's focus has tended to be on windows, bump outs, blank walls, etc. She finds herself approving s
projects that are low -quality design. They have lost some really nice buildings in the downtown area because the design
review standards currently in place focus on color, awnings, etc. rather than how a project impacts the character of the Q
downtown. She asked if it would be possible to have a separate set of design guidelines for the downtown zones that
recognize the historic character of the buildings. Totally demolishing the historic buildings changes the context of the
surrounding neighborhood. She is concerned that downtown Edmonds will end up being a lot of tall condominiums and the
quaint character will be lost. It is really important to talk about design review in the contest of the whole area rather than just
the design of a proposed new building.
Board Member Herr cautioned against moving in a similar direction as the City of Redmond, where the design standards and
codes have been tightened so much that the concept of "affordable housing" is no longer possible. There is no economy of
scale or reusing the same design, and this has resulted in $1 million homes because developers have to invest so much money
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
into each individual unit. He cautioned against implementing regulations that are too strict. At the same time, they must
keep in mind that a property owner has invested in a piece of land and expects to receive a return on his/her investment. The
City should not legislate everything they want to have or they will stymy redevelopment, which would be equally bad.
Property owners could eventually choose to stop maintenance efforts, and the buildings could become dilapidated. The City
must have effective design standards without tying the hands of developers. If the design standards are too strict, all
development will start to look the same.
Vice Chair Strauss said she is not suggesting that the City regulate all aspects of design. However, it may be appropriate to
have specific design standards that apply to certain areas, such as the downtown. She questioned how many large
developments are really desirable in the downtown.
Board Member Guenther recalled that the Planning Board was working on design standards when he first joined several years
ago. Since that time, the design standards have been amended three or four times. During the initial process of creating
design standards, some people wanted everything to be spelled out. On the other hand, there were some who wanted to allow
developers to be creative. He expressed his belief that there needs to be a balance. While he supports the idea of having
specific guidelines that apply to certain areas, he also wants to allow enough flexibility for developers to be creative.
Otherwise, they will end up with cookie -cutter development.
Board Member Guenther observed that the current design guidelines represent a broad brush that applies everywhere in
Edmonds. He supports the idea of having a different set of design guidelines for the downtown and Westgate zones.
Perhaps this could be accomplished via an overlay. The design standards should not be complicated, but need to identify
what is important for that particular area. However, they still need to maintain a separate set of design standards that apply to
the other zones in the City.
Board Member Herr referred to the City's 30-foot height limit for all residential development. He said he understands the
need to limit height in areas with a view, but he never has understood the need for a blanket requirement for homes
throughout the City. He suggested that perhaps the height limit should be different, depending on the zone.
Chair Walker said he would favor establishing separate design guidelines for certain areas of the City. He also agreed that
there needs to be a balance so that developers still have the ability to do creative design. He noted that, currently, the ADB is
the last layer of design review before a project is approved, and it is the Board's responsibility to make sure that the design
fits within the context of the surrounding area. Having good zoning in place, with appropriate and effective design guidelines
that define this balance, is needed, and the ADB could play a significant role in this process. The ADB could also maintain
the ability to make final tweaks to a design before it is approved.
Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Five Corners Subarea Plan would be a good place to start implementing more detailed
design standards, and the ADB could play a significant role in that process. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that the intent of the
Five Corners Subarea Plan is to create a separate district with unique design guidelines. He reviewed that, currently, there are
no design standards specific to Five Corners. Only the vague general design guidelines in the code are applied. However,
the plan that was prepared by the University of Washington students included some design recommendations, and that would
be a natural place to start.
Board Member Lovell recalled that a few years ago, the Planning Board forwarded a set of design standards to the City
Council related to the BDl zone. The City Council adopted the Planning Board's recommendation, which resulted in more
stringent requirements for step backs, setbacks, awnings, windows, etc. He asked if this is the type of design standards the
ADB is interested in implementing. Mr. Chave responded that the design standards in place for the BD zones are mostly
related to the streetscape, and have very little to do with actual building design. He agreed that it would be possible to have
different design standards that apply to specific areas of the City. For example, the design standards for the properties near
the fountain in downtown Edmonds could be different than those for the surrounding properties. The standards could be
tailored to meet the needs of the various zoning districts.
Vice Chair Strauss referred to a recent proposal that met the City's requirements for windows, but their placement and size
did not make sense from the standpoint of design and/or the Washington Energy Code. Rather than calling out a specific
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
requirement for the percentage of windows, they need to also consider how the windows will impact the overall design of a
building. There must be a way to adjust a guideline to improve a building's design.
Board Member Tarrant liked the idea of creating unique design guidelines for specific districts within the City. She voiced
concern that the ADB has not had the ability to significantly influence the design of any recent projects in Edmonds. It does
not do any good to have ADB review if a project is complete before it is presented to them. The ADB has a duty to
applicants to follow the City's code requirements, and it is particularly important that the ADB has an opportunity review
projects early in the design process. If the Board is to do its job, it needs to give recommendations before a project gets too
far along in the design.
Board Member Herr commented that design professionals are required to meet all of the City's design standards. By the time
a project comes before the ADB for review, it has already been reviewed by City staff for compliance with the code and the
design is nearly completed. The applicant has already made critical decisions about whether or not a project will pencil out
and meet the required conditions. The ADB's job is to ensure that all of the code requirements have been met and that all of
the Board's concerns have been addressed. He cautioned that the ADB should focus more of its efforts on creating
meaningful design guidelines. They cannot become a defacto judge and deny a project just because they do not like it. The
ADB's job is to recommend approval once it has been determined that a project meets all of the design standards.
Chair Walker said he is not sure that the current process represents the best use of the ADB's time and talents. He would like
the Board to have more influence over the design guidelines so that the outcome is better. However, this must be coupled
with the Board's ability to review projects earlier in the design process where their input can have a greater level of influence.
Board Member Tarrant agreed and noted that this early involvement could be as informal as a pre -application meeting where
an applicant shares a conceptual proposal with the Board. She suggested that if all of the responsibility for design is placed
on the design standards, they must be written to be very specific. However, she is concerned that this might result in
development that all looks the same.
Vice Chair Strauss commented that the ADB's responsibility is to the Citizens of Edmonds and not the developers. She does
not want to feel guilty for requiring design changes to meet the guidelines. Board Member Tarrant agreed, but added that
they should also avoid creating undue hardship for developers.
Chair Rubenkonig asked the ADB Members to share specific examples of what is broken in the current design guidelines.
Vice Chair Strauss commented that the design guidelines could better address the historical context of buildings in the
downtown. Even buildings that are not listed on the Register have an impact to the character of the downtown. Specific
guidelines could apply to historic buildings in the downtown, requiring developers to spend more time addressing design.
They must do something to require building design to be in character with the culture of the area. If a building cannot be
reused, perhaps the new design could include a nod to some aspect of the historic structure.
Board Member Herr recalled that Redmond used to look like downtown Edmonds, but most of the historic buildings have
been removed and every new development looks the same because the design guidelines are so strict. He cautioned that the
City must be careful not to tighten the guidelines too much.
Board Member Tarrant commented that if everyone wants to maintain the current character of the downtown, then there must
be a historic preservation provision as part of the design guidelines. While the City cannot require a developer to retain a
building, it can require them to incorporate at least some aspects of the historic building into the new design.
Mr. Chave explained that many of the design standards were put in place with an eye towards specificity, but this does not
necessarily produce good design. He suggested that one option would be to create a basic set of design standards for staff to
implement as projects come forward. Projects that meet all of the design standards would not need additional ADB review.
The design guidelines process could include collaboration between the two boards. They could also establish a provision that
allows developers to propose a departure from the design guidelines to meet unique circumstances. Departure requests could
be reviewed and approved by the ADB, and it would be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate why the departure
makes sense from a design standpoint. This type of provision would give the ADB an opportunity to use its expertise and
experience to address unique situations. He emphasized that this approach would hinge on having a good set of design
Q
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
guidelines that result in the kinds of projects the Board wants. If the guidelines do not work for a specific site, developers
would be allowed an opportunity to approach the ADB with a departure request.
Chair Walker commented that, in addition to the process outlined above by Mr. Chave, the ADB could also be a pre -
application body, which would allow them to be involved in the design at the conceptual stage where valuable input could be
incorporated into the final design. Mr. Chave said pre -application meetings work well for public projects, but would difficult
to implement for private projects. Typically, the City does not hear about a project until an application has been submitted,
and most of the design work has already been done. The concept of design departures would allow the ADB to work with an
applicant to come up with a design solution to address a particular problem.
Again, Chair Rubenkonig suggested the two Boards consider an incremental approach to implementing the ideas discussed,
starting with the Five Corners Subarea Plan.
Board Member Tarrant commented that, given the design tools and technology currently available, it would not be difficult to
prepare a conceptual design to share with the ADB. This conceptual design could be presented as an overlay without
spending a lot of money.
Chair Rubenkonig summarized that the two Board would wait to hear from staff as to what the next steps will be.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig briefly reviewed the extended agenda, noting that the topics of discussion on January loth will be select
vegetation removal in critical areas and an update on the Housing Strategy. The final report on the Five Corners Feasibility
Analysis will be presented on January 24th, and the Board will review the draft Urban Forest Management Plan on February
14th in preparation for a public hearing on February 28th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig announced that she and Vice Chair Monroe are prepared to present the Planning Board Update to the City
Council at their first meeting in January. She also noted that the Board may want to assign another Board Member to be their o
liaison to the Economic Development Commission since Vice Chair Monroe has been elected to serve as Chair of the Board n
in 2018. Q
Chair Rubenkonig said she was asked a while back how the Board got along. Her reply was the Board got along amazingly
well considering how little time they have to visit with each other and then being precluded from gathering in a group larger
than three people. She expressed her belief that camaraderie has happened as the Board Members have practiced respect and r
tolerance for each other's opinions. This has been noticed, and the Board is recognized for providing a voice for issues a
concerning the community. She thanked the Board Members for allowing her to lead in the way she is most capable.
Encouraging participation, actively listening to the public, appreciating the support and input from staff, and accepting
direction from the City Council were all priorities for her, and she values the Board's help in achieving so much in 2017. She Q
said she welcomed Vice Chair Monroe's backing and is confident in his ability to lead the Board in 2018. The Board is also
fortunate that Board Member Cheung has agreed to assist him as Vice Chair.
E
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
.r
Vice Chair Monroe thanked Chair Rubenkonig for her service as Chair throughout 2017. Q
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
Report is attached
Packet Pg. 10
5.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Presentation to Council
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Carreen and Nathan will be presenting to City Council on Jan. 16 the Planning Board end of year report.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Packet Pg. 11
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Housing Strategy Update
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan requires that the City develop a housing strategy by the end of 2019.
Since the adoption of this requirement, the Planning Board has continued its interest in affordable
housing and the housing strategy project.
In summer 2017, a task force was appointed by Mayor Earling to provide recommendations that can be
incorporated into the housing strategy. The Housing Strategy Task Force has now had three meetings.
Berk Consulting was hired in fall 2017 to assist with the project. Meanwhile, a special webpage has
been created to provide information: https://www.edmondshousingstrategy.org/.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Planning Board on the project's status.
The Housing Strategy Task Force's next meeting will be in late January. At the meeting, Berk and city
staff will bring forward a draft list of potential resources and tools to increase the supply of affordable
housing and meet diverse needs. The Task Force may discuss and modify this list.
A draft strategy should be ready for public review by early spring. The public review will include:
Planning Board meetings to result in a recommendation
Community open house
City Council meetings to result in possible action.
Packet Pg. 12
8.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Critical Area - Select Vegetation Removal
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston, AICP
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The City Council has referred an issue regarding critical areas "select vegetation removal activities" to
the Planning Board for a recommendation. See Attachments 1 and 2.
Staff Recommendation
This is a discussion/introduction of the item; no action is required at this time.
Narrative
Section 23.40.220.C.8 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) is the allowed activities
section of the City's critical area regulations. This section identifies certain activities within a critical area
and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical areas report. The
restriction in area that can be eligible for vegetation removal (1,500 sq. ft. over three years) without a
report from a qualified professional is a new provision added in the last major update of the critical
areas ordinance. A concern raised is that this may be too restrictive and/or costly in some
circumstances.
The Planning Board is being asked by the City Council to review the issue and forward a
recommendation. If the result is a code amendment, the usual process (public hearing) will need to be
followed.
Please see Attachments 1 through 3 for further information.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: City Council referral from 2017-10-17
Attachment 2: City Council Committe discussion from 2017-10-10
Attachment 3: ECDC 23.40.220 Allowed Activities
Packet Pg. 13
8.B.a
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/17/2017
Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(8)(a) - Select Vegetation Removal
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
During a meeting of the City Council when the third quarter report on critical area regulations was being
considered, a citizen commented that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area
regulations (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)) was a concern. The Council concurred this section of the critical area
regulations should be considered for amendment. The PPP Committee then discussed the issue at the
October 10, 2017 committee meeting. Committee members concurred that this section should be
reviewed for potential amendments and are recommending that the full Council refer this to the
Planning Board for consideration of potential amendments and a recommendation back to the City
Council.
Staff Recommendation
Forward to Planning Board to consider potential amendments to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(a) and provide a
recommendation back to the City Council.
Narrative
Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) is the allowed activities
section of the City's critical area regulations. This section identifies certain activities within a critical area
and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical areas report.
ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) allows for select vegetation removal activities including the removal of invasive
species and hazardous trees. This section applies to all critical areas and their associated buffers
including landslide hazard areas, streams, and wetlands. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), only 1,500
square feet of vegetation (including invasive species) may be removed in a cumulative three year period
before a critical area report is required. The reason for the threshold was to ensure that removal of
vegetation from large areas are first reviewed for consistency with the City's critical area regulations and
with best management practices by a qualified professional (dependent on the type of critical area).
However, the limitation serves as a deterrent for some restoration projects because the development of
critical area reports adds time and costs that may be excessive for the size and intent of the project.
One suggested fix has been to add the following language to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): "The restriction on
the area of work does not apply to bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work
conducted by a qualified organization and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques."
Another suggestion is that the language proposed for future restoration projects needs a more
Packet Pg. 14
8.B.a
institutional integration beyond a line in the critical area regulations. So instead of just "these
restrictions don't apply to bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these
restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or
individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate
city department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals
interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved qualified
organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it would ensure that
projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being implemented. Of course, criteria
would still need to be developed, and all this would totally depend on capacity within the appropriate
city department to evaluate the credentials of those proposing projects and create formal agreements
for participating organizations.
Another option is to use a different threshold (i.e. something greater than 1,500 square feet) before
requiring a detailed critical area review. At some point, a restoration project of a certain size may be
large enough that it should be designed and reviewed by a qualified professional to ensure the removal
of vegetation is conducted in accordance with the critical area regulations and best management
practices and to ensure any proposed replanting provides the functions and values intended to protect
the critical area.
Updates to the critical area regulations must go through a public process that includes a public hearing
and recommendation by the Planning Board, submittal of a draft proposal to the state for amending the
regulations, and public hearing and adoption by the City Council.
Packet Pg. 15
8.B.a
PUD is a public utility, different from PSE which owned by the Macquarie consortium, a large Australian
for -profit financial instruction. PSE continues to push natural gas, which is not natural; it is basically
methane which is 86 times worse than CO2 with regard to greenhouse gas. Taking into account methane
releases and leaks from the point of extraction, transportation and combustion, it is as bad or worse than
coal. Two-thirds of natural gas is fraked in the United States. He suggested Edmonds think about using less
natural gas and avoid getting electricity from gas powered plants. His house has a natural gas furnace and
he cannot afford to replace it with a more energy efficient system. Other cities including Vancouver BC
prohibit gas appliances in new residential and commercial buildings. He concluded "don't by the Kool-Aid
from PSE."
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
4. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY
MURPHY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DELORES BJORBACK (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED), BURGER KING (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND RAMON
RAMOS TINOCO ($150,000.00)
5. AUGUST 2017 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
6. PERMIT SOFTWARE SYSTEM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) AND
BUDGET APPROVAL
7. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE SECTION 23.40.220(C)(8)(A) - SELECT VEGETATION
REMOVAL
8. SR-524 SPEED REDUCTION
9. UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE
PROVIDENCE/VERDANT HEALTH & SWEDISH/STEVENS CAMPUS
10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE RECORDING OF A PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ALONG EDMONDS WAY ADJACENT TO 10032 EDMONDS
WAY
11. AUTHORIZE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS
EQUIPMENT
7. PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE GERDON HOUSE
LOCATED AT 209 CASPERS STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 17, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 16
8.B.b
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/10/2017
Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) (15 min.)
Staff Lead: Councilmember Diane Buckshnis
Department: City Council
Preparer: Sandy Chase
Background/History
Council approved the Critical Area Ordinance
Staff Recommendation
None
Narrative
Current restoration project section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) specifies only a length of 1,500 square feet can be
restored over a three year time frame. The reason for the restriction was to help ensure that large areas
or phases of restoration projects would have some governmental oversight and be reviewed for
consistency with best management practices. However, the limitation also means that some larger
restoration projects cannot proceed without special studies, which adds to the schedule and costs for
restoration.
Some language suggestions have been: "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to bona fide
habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or
individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques." Removing the limit and/or time frame allows
for the removing of invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees.
The suggested new language could help fix the CAO problem of limiting invasive plant removal beyond
1500 square feet during habitat restoration projects. Of note, is that plant removal in critical areas
needs to be restricted due to erosion and soil damage, but that concern is not necessarily reasonable for
habitat restoration projects where the invasive plants are being REPLACED with native plants. It is
believed that putting unnecessary restrictions on this type of habitat restoration projects is counter to
the CAO and SMP stated goal to encourage habitat restoration. Voluntary restoration work will not
occur if it requires people to go thru the CAO critical area permitting process, and that is to the
detriment of enhancing our critical areas in Edmonds.
Another suggestion is that the language proposed for future restoration projects, (especially by
individuals who maybe don't quite fit into the EarthCorps model of working with the City), is something
that needs a more institutional integration beyond a line in the CAO. So instead of just "these
restrictions don't apply to bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these
restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or
individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate
Packet Pg. 17
8.B.b
city department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals
interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved qualified
organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it would ensure that
projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being implemented. Of course a criteria
would still need to be developed, and all this would totally depend on capacity within the appropriate
city department (whether it be Parks or Planning) to evaluate the credentials of those proposing
projects and create formal agreements for participating organizations.
Another option is to use a different threshold, such as 3000 square feet instead of 1500 before requiring
a detailed critical area review.
Any updates to the critical area regulations must first go through a public process that includes a public
hearing and recommendation by the Planning Board, as well as submittal of a draft proposal to the state
for amending the regulations.
At this time, the PPP Committee may ask the Planning Board to consider the PPP Committee's
suggestion and bring back a recommendation to the full City Council. Alternatively, the PPP Committee
could choose to recommend that the full City Council formally ask the Planning Board to consider this
issue and provide a recommendation.
Packet Pg. 18
8.B.b
10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
development, Architectural Design Board review, lack of bicycle lanes on SR-104, and including
graphics of the development in the Development Services Update (February 2018).
Action: Councilmember Johnson supported forwarding to full Council so the public could see the
materials; Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Consent Agenda. If on Consent Agenda, include the
materials staff distributed in the packet.
4. Professional Services Aareement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the American's with Disabilities Act; requirements
of the ADA Transition Plan; curb ramp evaluation; priority chart; and maps of high, medium and low
curb ramp and sidewalk and traffic signal barrier removal projects. He reviewed the total cost of
upgrades ($151,500,000) and current annual budget ($220,000). The goal of the Plan is to identify a
strategy to remove barriers and establish a schedule and funding strategy. He reviewed a 15-year
schedule for the projects by category, highlighted elements of the funding strategy and described
public outreach.
Discussion included examples of sidewalk barriers, modifying priorities based on citizen requests,
grant funds secured to improve pedestrian crossings including upgrading curb ramps, ADA plan for
City buildings and upcoming ADA plan for Parks, cost of this Plan, how priorities are determined, cost
to have ADA ramps constructed by a contractor versus inhouse, additional staff required to do
inhouse, and prioritizing short walkways.
Action: Schedule for full Council
5. Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project
Mr. English recalled the center joint repair did not meet strength testing at the end of project in 2016.
The contractor remobilized in July 2017 including conducting bond strength tests. In mid -September
the contractor stated they would remedy the deficient repairs; the City's consultant is evaluating their
proposed method. The request is an increase in budget authority of $75,000 for inspection, testing,
etc.
Discussion followed regarding concern the proposed remedy will not meet testing standards, who
pays to remedy the deficient repair, and legal advice that the City give the contractor an opportunity to
make the repair. Ms. Hite clarified the deficient repair affects the longevity of the fishing pier; it is not
in danger of being closed.
Action: Schedule for full Council next week
6. Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a
Mr. Lien explained there were public comments regarding this section (allowed activities) at the time
of the CAO update. Allowed activities which include select vegetation removal such as hazard trees
and invasive species are not required to have a full critical areas report. Prior to the CAO update,
there was no limit on the amount of area that could be cleared. With the CAO update, a limit of 1500
within a 3-year cumulative period was established without a critical areas report. Removal of more
than 1500 requires a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional.
Revisions suggested in the agenda memo (prepared by Councilmember Buckshnis) included, 1)
adding "bona fide restoration projects," 2) establishing a different threshold, 3) City select non-profit
organizations that do restoration projects and if a group works with them, a critical area report is not
required. The origin of the1500 square foot limit was Seattle's CAO. He suggested the PPP
committee request the Planning Board consider this issue and provide a recommendation.
Packet Pg. 19
8.B.b
10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 3
Mr. Lien relayed the agenda memo refers to the SMP and CAO. The SMP adopted a specific version
of the CAO; changing the allowed activity provision in the COA does not change how the provision is
implemented in shoreline jurisdiction (which includes the Edmonds Marsh). He did not recommend
amending the SMP until the 2019 update.
Discussion followed regarding the process for review and public hearing by the Planning Board and
Council and review by the State, the recent critical areas report prepared and approved for removal of
invasive species in the Edmonds Marsh, and definition of a qualified professional in the CAO.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda to refer to Planning Board
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Packet Pg. 20
8.B.c
Edmonds 23.40.220 Allowed activities.
Page 1 of 5
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or
approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a
critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The
director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity
is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas.
B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the
best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best
management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management,
erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications.
The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to
ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or
alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's
expense.
C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and
approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or
conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the
following conditions have been met:
a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval;
b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer
since the prior review;
c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years
have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval;
d. There is no new information available that is applicable to any critical area review of the
site or particular critical area; and
e. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has
been achieved or secured;
2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural
modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a
critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or
buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or
e Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4081, passed August 15, 20,
Packet Pg. 21
8.B.c
Edmonds 23.40.220 Allowed activities.
Page 2 of 5
replacement;
3. Modifications to Existing Structures within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Modification to a
legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer shall be allowed when the
modification:
a. Does not increase the footprint of the structure; and
b. Does not increase the impact to the critical area or buffer; and
c. Does not increase risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or
replacement.
Additions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do
increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance
with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and
23.90.040). This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full
reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its footprint;
4. Development Proposals within Interrupted Stream or Wetland Buffers. Adjacent areas that
may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established
structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer widths if proven
scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The director will require the
applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis documentation report by a
qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted buffer area is functionally
isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection
potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation;
5. Activities within the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or
construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such
facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized
private roadway, except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse, such as culverts or
bridges, or result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water;
6. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical
areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not
significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are
constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided.
Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such
allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria:
e Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4081, passed August 15, 20,
Packet Pg. 22
8.B.c
Edmonds 23.40.220 Allowed activities.
Page 3 of 5
a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical
areas;
b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s)
or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and
c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet;
7. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the
following:
a. The trail surface shall be limited to pervious surfaces and meet all other requirements,
including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International
Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19;
b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of
the trail corridor, including disturbed areas;
c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in
a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an
approved geotechnical report; and
d. Trails located only in the outer 25 percent of critical areas buffers, and located to avoid
removal of significant trees. Where existing legally established development has reduced
the width of the critical areas buffer, trails may be placed in the outer 25 percent of the
remaining critical area buffer. The trail shall be no more than five feet in width and for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.
Allowances for trails within the inner 75 percent of critical areas buffers are provided within
applicable sections of Chapters 23.50 through 23.90 ECDC;
8. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when
the area of work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three
years:
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus);
e Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4081, passed August 15, 20,
Packet Pg. 23
8.B.c
Edmonds 23.40.220 Allowed activities.
Page 4 of 5
v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis);
Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal
unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for
approved biological or chemical treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant
material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear
on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be
handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that
species;
b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to
public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that:
i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered
landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for
the replacement trees;
ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified
by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address
the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags;
iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or
buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to
other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability;
iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of
two replacement trees for each tree removed (2:1) within one year in accordance with
an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby
location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new
hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that
are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one to two inches in diameter at
breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for
evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball;
v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified
wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will
minimize impacts; and
vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or
e Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4081, passed August 15, 20,
Packet Pg. 24
8.B.c
Edmonds 23.40.220 Allowed activities.
Page 5 of 5
safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be
removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city;
provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a
restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title;
c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent
with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed
vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in
accordance with an approved restoration plan;
d. Chemical Applications. The application of herbicides, pesticides, organic or mineral -
derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary, as approved by the city;
provided, that their use shall be restricted in accordance with State Department of Fish and
Wildlife Management Recommendations and the regulations of the State Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Ecology; and
e. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of
any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland
shall be prohibited;
9. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil
logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require
construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the
critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and
10. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids
and boundary markers. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
e Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4081, passed August 15, 20,
Packet Pg. 25
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/10/2018
Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Board's current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
01-10-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 26
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
pAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
"n, 790
January 10, 2018
Meeting Item
JANUARY 2018
Jan. 10 1. Critical Area — Select Vegetation Removal
2. Housing Strategy Update (#2)
Jan. 24 1. Five Corners Area — Development Feasibility Analysis —Final report
FEBRUARY 2018
Feb. 14 1. Urban Forest Management Plan Review and Discussion
Feb. 28 1. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan
2. Discussion on Code Update to Permit Decision Making ECDC
20.01.003A
MARCH 2O18
March 14
March 28
APRIL 2018
April 11
April 25
c
a�
a�
a
a�
c
a�
x
w
L
0
m
a�
c
c
R
a
c
m
a�
Q
aD
c
2
X
W
m
a
00
r
0
N
0
0
c
aD
E
t
Q
Packet Pg. 27
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 28