2018-03-14 Planning Board Packet- 0� L1UM0
Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
RqCOUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 14, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of February 28, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Amendments Critical Areas Allowed Activities / Select Vegetation Removal
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 14, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/14/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of February 28, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB180228d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 28, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Nathan Monroe, Chair
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
Megan Livingston, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Carreen Rubenkonig (excused)
Phil Lovell (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER 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 Monroe referred the Board to the written Development Services Director Report that was included in the meeting packet.
There were no comments or questions from Board members.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING: The applicant is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for property
located east of Edmonds Way, west of Highway 99, and south of 240' Street SW from "Edmonds Way Corridor" (EWC)
to "Highway 99 Corridor." The application is a Type V decision made by the City Council following a public hearing
and recommendation from the Planning Board.
Mr. Shipley advised that the proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of ten properties located between
Highway 99 and Edmonds Way (SR-104), north of the interchange and south of 240r' Street SW. The properties are currently
designated as "Edmonds Way Corridor," and the applicant is proposing a change to "Highway 99 Corridor." He emphasized
that the proposal before the Board is a land use designation change and not a rezone. Changing the land use designation would
not necessarily allow the property owners any other rights than what currently exist. While approval of the proposed change
would provide an opportunity to possibly rezone the properties at a later date, the rezone is not the subject of the current
application.
Mr. Shipley provided a photograph taken in 1964, prior to completion of the Highway 99/SR-104 interchange. He noted that
84t' Avenue was used to connect to what is now SR-104. Up to that point, the subject properties were developed with five
single-family homes and mostly forested. However, there were a lot of commercial uses along Highway 99. Next, Mr. Shipley
displayed a photograph taken in 1978, after the interchange was completed and one year before the Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums were developed. He pointed out that 84t1i Avenue was turned into a cul-de-sac and it remains that way today.
Commercial uses continued to exist along Highway 99, as well. Last, Mr. Shipley provided a recent photograph and advised
that the subject properties were annexed into the City in 1983. Prior to annexation, the properties were zoned General
Commercial (CG), but the City rezoned them to Multi -Family Residential (RM-2.4) at the time of annexation. With the
exception of the Jenna Lane Townhomes, all of the existing development was built under the CG zoning and are considered
non -conforming under the current RM-2.4 zoning. The existing commercial uses would require a Conditional Use Permit, and
only office type commercial uses would be allowed.
Mr. Shipley advised that the current development on the subject properties includes a single-family residence built in 1947,
two commercial office buildings built in 1952 and 1960, a 38-unit condominium (Edmonds Greenery) built in 1979, and a 5-
unit townhome project (Jenna Lane) built in 2015. Outside of Jenna Lane, no major redevelopment has occurred in the area
since the City annexed the properties in 1983. The applicant owns three of the four commercially -developed properties, and
each of the units in the multi -family developments are under individual ownership.
Mr. Shippen explained that the entire area is currently designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Edmonds Way Corridor, but
there is not really a strong connection to that corridor. Changes in grade make it challenging as does the nearby overpass. It
does not appear likely that access will be possible along the Edmonds Way frontage. The intent of the proposal is to enable
the properties to have a plan designation that would be more appropriate for the properties and their location. Due to the
proximity of Highway 99, a more intensive designation appears to be appropriate, particularly in light of the previous zoning
and current development on the property.
Shawn Leiser, applicant, pointed out that there is a currently a fence that separates the subject properties from SR-104. Due
to the grade change along SR-104, there are also more opportunities to create connections or orientation towards Highway 99.
He explained that the cul-de-sac has become a dumping ground for garbage because there is only one single-family home
located on that road. In addition, the Washington State Department of Transportation still owns some of the property in the
area but does not want to police it.
Mr. Shipley referred to the criteria that must be considered when reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments. He explained
how the proposal meets each of the criteria as follows:
• Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The subject
properties are adjacent to the Gateway District, which was identified in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Highway
99 Subarea Plan as an area to provide an identifying entry point into the City. There has been very little development
since the properties were annexed into the City in 1983. If approved, the new designation would allow for parcels to
be rezoned in a manner that makes redevelopment economically feasible. In addition, the CG zone has built-in
mitigation measures (increased setbacks, building step backs, etc.) for when redevelopment occurs adjacent to
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
residential zones. Streetscape improvements would also be required with future redevelopment in an area where no
sidewalks currently exist.
• Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? At this time,
nothing is proposed other than a change in the land use designation. If the request is approved, it is anticipated the
property owners would apply for a rezone from RM-2.4 to CG, which would be consistent with the zoning to the east.
Currently, the commercial -developed properties are in poor condition and redevelopment would enhance and improve
the area, particularly given the stronger development standards that have recently been adopted.
• Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City? The Edmonds Way
Corridor makes up approximately 77 acres and the Highway 99 Corridor about 265 acres. Staff does not believe that
shifting a cumulative 2.84 acres from Edmonds Way Corridor to Highway 99 Corridor would drastically disrupt the
balance of land uses within the City.
• Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use
development, including, but not limited to, access provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining and uses and
absence of physical constraints. The proposal does not require a zoning change at this time, but a traffic analysis will
be required with any future rezone. Currently, both access points from Highway 99 and SR-104 are unsignaled. There
are already utilities available in the area, but some upgrades may be needed depending on the scale of future
development.
Ms. Livingston asked if staff anticipates an increase in traffic if the property is redeveloped under the proposed land use
designation. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal is a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and
would not rezone the property. Until a rezone occurs, it is highly unlikely that anything significant would be developed. A
traffic study would be required as part of a rezone application.
Lilly Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said she owns one of the commercially -developed properties that is part of
the proposal. She currently experiences hardships because the property is not zoned properly. For example, it is difficult for
her to get financing to do repairs and remodeling work because the property is considered non -conforming under the current
RM-2.4 zoning. Banks do not want to even talk with her because of this issue. The property has been commercially used for
almost a half century, and she does not see how the proposed change would result in a negative impact. She also voiced concern
that because the property is zoned RM-2.4, more stringent sign restrictions prevent her from getting the exposure she needs to
advertise her business.
Predrag Bojic, Lilly's Physical Therapy, Edmonds, said he shares ownership of the property that is currently being used as
a physical therapy office. He said he supports the proposed amendment and asked the Board to recommend approval to the
City Council. He expressed his belief that it makes more sense to rezone the commercially -developed properties between
Highway 99 and SR-104 to CG.
Young Zeon, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds since 1982 and he is against the proposed land use designation change.
He agreed that the area has been abandoned, and he and his wife clean 84r' Street on a weekly basis. However, he does not
believe that changing the land use designation would make the situation any better. He pointed out that traffic at the intersection
of SR-104 and Highway 99 is already congested between 3:30 and 5:30 p.m. Unless some type of traffic easement is required,
it will continue to get worse. He said he is against any changes that could result in increased population in Edmonds.
Board Member Robles asked if there is potential that an outside developer could come in and change the zoning to develop
high -density units on the subject parcels or if the properties would remain an internal community. Mr. Shipley explained that
the current land use designation allows low -density type commercial development (Commercial Business, Neighborhood
Business, etc.), but these zones have their own issues with setbacks, height limits, etc. It is difficult to make redevelopment
pencil out economically under the current land use designation, and only one small development has occurred while the
properties have been zoned RM-2.4.
Board Member Robles observed that property owners will redevelop properties in their own best interests under the set of rules
established by zoning. The proposed change would allow current and future property owners to redevelop to maximize their
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
property values. Mr. Shipley agreed that the proposed change would give more opportunity for different types of zoning.
Primarily along Highway 99, it is likely that property owners would be interested in rezoning to CG. However, given that a
large portion of the area has already been developed as RM-2.4 under fee simple and condominium ownership, there will not
likely be a large turnover of property for redevelopment. In addition, the CG zone requires mitigation via step backs, setbacks,
etc. when located adjacent to residential development. It is likely that the current multi -family development will remain in
place, but the proposed change would give the owners of commercially -developed property a greater opportunity to redevelop.
Board Member Robles commented that it appears the impacts would be localized. All property owners would continue to
benefit from having services such as police jurisdictions, and residential property owners who do not want large commercial
enterprises adjacent to them are assured that any zoning that is put in place would have protections. Mr. Shipley explained that
if the commercially -developed properties were eventually rezoned to CG, a number of additional uses would be allowed, but
the zoning restrictions would also require buffers, landscaping, setbacks, etc.
Board Member Robles said he is concerned that adopting the proposed change could result in additional external investment
opportunities, which could take more out of the community than it puts in. However, if redevelopment remains internal so that
each property owner optimizes the community, the benefit would stay. He said he is strongly in favor of that, but would like
some protection against adverse industries or abuse of location. For example, this is a good location for commuting to Seattle,
and he would not be in favor of allowing the property to be redeveloped into a large number of microhomes. He asked if the
current code provides sufficient protection against this. Mr. Shipley answered that any development proposal would have to
meet the City's design guidelines. The CG zone would allow more flexibility, but it would also require a significant amount
of pedestrian infrastructure in an area where no sidewalks currently exist. He summarized that, for a long time, there has been
no economic incentive to redevelop the area and many of the buildings are reaching the end of their life. The proposed change
offers a great opportunity to build a gateway into Edmonds'
Shawn Leiser, applicant, said he was born and raised in Edmonds and recently relocated to Shoreline with his family. He
reminded the Board that the current proposal is for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and not a rezone. Any concerns
related to zoning would be addressed if and when a rezone application is submitted. He said that if he had been aware of the
Highway 99 Subarea Plan, he would have participated in the process and suggested that it include the subject parcels. He noted
that a fair amount of property along Highway 99 was converted to CG as part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, and all the
properties surrounding the subject parcels are now zoned CG. The subject parcels are a stand lone RM-2.4 zone.
Mr. Leiser pointed out that the subject parcels are much more oriented towards Highway 99 than SR-104. The properties are
located towards Highway 99 and change occurred when the interchange was developed. He said he owns the one single-family
home on the cul-de-sac, which is actually oriented towards its backyard because the front door used to access onto SR-104. He
said he has owned the property where the home is located for 15 years. It been a rental unit for a fair amount of time and is
nearing the end of its lifecycle. He also owns the property where the existing chiropractic office is located. Both properties
are ripe for change.
Mr. Leiser pointed out that the proposed amendment would not be a drastic change. The likelihood of the Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums ever being redeveloped is very slim because each of the 37 units are individually owned. In order to redevelop,
someone would have to purchase all of the units. On the other hand, the proposed change would create an opportunity to
develop the properties closer to Highway 99 into something the City could be proud of. He said he takes pride in what he does.
He has met with all of the landowners near his properties, as well as the attorney that represents the condominium association.
All have indicated support for the proposed change.
Mr. Leiser said proposed change would also benefit the condominium owners by providing an opportunity to rezone their
properties. When the properties were annexed into the City and rezoned to RM-2.4, the 38-unit Edmonds Greenery
Condominiums became non -conforming. If a fire were to destroy 75% or more of one of the units, it could not be rebuilt under
the current zoning. The proposed change would allow for a plan designation that is more appropriate for the properties and
their location.
Board Member Crank said she lives in the neighborhood near 84t1i Avenue and 236r' Street and travels the corridors a lot.
Everyday when coming home from work in Seattle, she has to make a decision about getting off at Highway 99 and dodging
traffic or taking the scenic route home. Traffic can be treacherous, especially in inclement weather, and there are no sidewalks
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
to protect pedestrians. She asked staff to share how the proposed change could hypothetically make the situation better for the
chiropractic business. She said she empathizes with the cost and restrictions involved with making upgrades to the existing
buildings under the current zoning. Mr. Shipley advised that, currently, the property owner would have to obtain a Conditional
Use Permit in order to do any upgrades, and some of the development standards have changed, as well. While he cannot speak
to some of the issues the property owners have dealt with as far as financing, he knows that signage is also restrictive under the
current RM-2.4 zoning. Changing the land use would allow more flexibility on what could be done on the site. Mr. Leiser
added that the current zoning also has restrictions on lot coverage and greater parking requirements. Changing the zoning
would offer property owners relief from some of the parking requirements and allow them signage similar to what other
commercial uses along Highway 99 are allowed to have. The change would benefit businesses that provide services for the
community.
Board Member Cloutier asked if all of the different zones currently located on the subject property would translate directly to
a Highway 99 Corridor designation or would some zoning changes be required in order to implement the land use designation
change. Mr. Shipley answered that the existing zoning is compatible with the Highway 99 Corridor designation. The proposed
change would not change any zoning or force property owners to seek a rezone at some point in the future. However, the
proposal would allow a wider variety of zoning to be considered. Any rezone proposal would be handled as a separate
application. Mr. Leiser added that, looking into the future, the proposed change would give landowners more opportunity to
develop something that falls within the City's code and creates a greater gateway into the City. The subject parcels are some
of the first seen as you enter into Edmonds on Highway 99.
Chair Monroe said it appears that the subject parcels are underzoned. He asked how many similar situations exist in the City.
Mr. Shipley answered that while it is not extremely common, it does occur sometimes, particularly in the southern part of
Edmonds. He recalled that few other locations along SR-104 were re -designated last year. He reminded the Board that the
properties were rezoned from CG to RM-2.4 when they were annexed into the City and now they are overbuilt based on the
current residential zoning. What might have been allowed under Snohomish County's zoning was not allowed under the City's
code.
Mr. Chave referred to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to point out where the Highway 99 Corridor and the SR-104
Corridor intersect. The subject property is located in the area where the two corridors connect. Part of staffs analysis was to
identify which corridor the property relates better to. Given the property's situation, the proposal seems to make more sense,
especially with the history that it was previously zoned and developed as CG. The property seems to relate more to Highway
99.
Mr. Chave cautioned that it is very speculative to talk about zoning at this point. It will be up to the property owners to decide
if and when to pursue a zoning change. The Comprehensive Plan change will open up more options for the property owners.
The record indicates there are some issues with the existing uses related to current zoning, and the zoning does not quite match
with the existing mixture of uses.
Chair Monroe summarized that it sounds like there is a list of characteristics appropriate for the subject properties, and approval
of the Comprehensive Plan change would not propagate to the rest of the City. Mr. Chave responded that this is a unique
situation, since these are the only properties that front on both corridors. The question the Board needs to consider is what
makes more sense, and staff believes the best option is for the properties to orient towards Highway 99.
Chair Monroe closed the public hearing.
Mr. Shipley invited the Board to formulate a recommendation to forward to the City Council, noting that athe City Council
would conduct another public hearing before making a final decision.
Board Member Crank explained the reasoning behind her earlier question about how the proposed change would impact the
existing businesses. Even though it sounds like the proposal makes sense on paper, it is also important to have a clear
understanding of how the change would impact existing development. It is also important to understand how existing
development and uses would be impacted if the proposal is denied.
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE TEN SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM EDMONDS
WAY CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL AREAS ALLOWED ACTIVITIES/SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL
Mr. Chave advised that this is a follow up to a previous Planning Board discussion about potential amendments to the Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO). A concern was brought to the City Council's attention that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act
as a deterrent for some restoration projects within critical areas or their buffers. As currently written, restoration work greater
than 1,500 square feet over a three-year period requires a critical area report. It was pointed out that development of these
reports adds time and cost that may be excessive for the size and intent of a project. This is particularly true with projects done
by non-profit or citizen groups who have limited resources. The City has had good experiences working with citizen groups
to remove invasive species and do appropriate planting and restoration efforts. The City Council forwarded the issue to the
Planning Board to consider, and several options were provided. Staff is in favor of amending the CAO as appropriate to
encourage restoration projects and has prepared draft language for the Board's consideration. A public hearing has been
tentatively scheduled for March 14'. He referred to Page 73 of the Staff Report, which outlines the proposed amendment,
which would add the following language to Section 23.40.220(C)(8)(a):
"For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
vegetation removed under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitations up to a maximum of 2,500
square feet annually, if
i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization approved by the City that
has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity.
ii. Provides a specific proposal identifying the scope ad location of the project, provides for project
supervision, and a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the
appropriate City department."
Mr. Chave noted that the new language would only apply to wetlands and streams and their buffers and not to steep slopes,
where life safety issues must be considered. In these situations, it is critical to have a consultant report attached to each project
to ensure that the work is done appropriately and safely.
Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to have some limitations in place so you cannot do wholesale clearing of a large property,
but the proposed new language would raise the limits fairly significantly. It also includes criteria for determining whether a
project is good or not. The notion is that staff would review the qualifications and experience of the organization or group who
is proposing the project, as well as the proposed plan and schedule to make sure what is being proposed is appropriate and that
there will be appropriate supervision.
Mr. Chave said the current language was crafted using the City of Seattle's code as a reference. Since that time, the City of
Seattle has eliminated the square foot limitation entirely. Staff is not entirely sure that the square footage limitation is necessary,
but it was included for discussion purposes.
Board Member Robles said that, as discussed previously, it would be helpful to have an inventory showing how much land in
Edmonds has been designated as critical areas. This would give the Board a better idea of how broad the proposed change
would apply throughout the City. The Board also indicated it would be appropriate to define the consultant qualifications and
how staff assesses their credentials.
Board Member Robles commented that some invasive species can represent a danger, and it might be appropriate to require a
consultant to have "error and omission" insurance for these situations. However, he would not want this requirement to apply
to all restoration projects. He commented that it would make sense to remove all of an invasive species as part of the same
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
project regardless of the number of square feet. Otherwise, it will quickly grow back. He suggested a better approach would
be to have a 2,500 square foot limitation for citizen or non-profit groups, but no limit for projects that are done by consultants
who have error and omission insurance. He said that, overall, he supports the proposed amendments and staff s efforts to seek
a solution.
Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the Board's last discussion, concern was raised about how to make sure those doing
restoration work are qualified and that they do what they say they are going to do. The Board also discussed the importance of
having someone approve the process and plan. He appreciates that the proposed language addresses all of these issues.
Chair Monroe suggested that Items i and ii seem redundant. Mr. Chave explained that individuals or organizations who clear
invasive species from critical areas have to have some knowledge to make sure the project is done right. In some cases,
replanting might be necessary, and there are experts and organizations who have done this type of work for a long time. They
can train others on how to do it properly. While restoration projects are not usually difficult, it is important to know what you
are doing. For example, there have been situations where people have removed invasive species without planting, and erosion
has occurred. There can be negative impacts if projects are not done right.
Mr. Chave said the City does not necessarily want to be in the business of cleaning and restoring critical areas, but they need
to make sure, at the outset, that people know what they are doing. The proposed amendment will streamline the process and
avoid enforcement issues later on. Enforcement issues are much more difficult to resolve than having some assurance that
projects will be done right in the first place. Chair Monroe suggested that Item ii would provide that assurance, and perhaps
Item i is unnecessary. Mr. Chave responded that Item ii does not identify who will do the work. It simply talks about what
will be done. The City needs to make sure there is some training and level of understanding about what is involved in the
project.
Chair Monroe voiced concern that the term "demonstrate experience and expertise" is not well defined and can be subjective.
Mr. Chave expressed his belief that staff would be able to apply the language as currently proposed. He agreed it may limit
some types of people who can do the work without supervision, but it only applies to projects that exceed the threshold. It will
not prohibit a property owner from cleaning up invasive species along his/her section of a stream.
Board Member Robles pointed out that the Edmonds Marsh is extremely large. If the intent is to construct walking paths
through it, it is likely that the amount of invasive species will increase. It will be important for the City to have the ability to
eradicate these species on a large scale. He asked if there is a mechanism by which a project can exceed 2,500 square feet.
Mr. Chave answered that larger -scale projects would require a critical area report. He noted that City recently approved the
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department's program for a series of activities that will take place around the marsh.
The program was prepared by a consultant and identifies how the activities will be done and who will supervise.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the 1,500 threshold would trigger additional review so the 2,500 threshold could
actually be eliminated. Any work over 1,500 square feet will be reviewed by staff, and staff will determine if it is too little or
too much. The remainder of the Board concurred.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the March 14'h agenda will include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Critical Areas
Ordinance addressing select vegetation removal as an allowed activity. It will also include a review and discussion about the
Urban Forest Management Plan. The March 281 meeting will include a presentation and discussion about the draft Housing
Strategy.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Member provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
T
0
N
0
N
M
7
L
d
LL
4-
0
d
C_
G
L
O
O
L
CL
Q.
Q
CO
N
N
O
CO
T
m
a
m
E
z
c�
Q
Planning Board Minutes
March 14, 2018 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/14/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Re port.03.09.18
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Al 14 llLei :_0 Kul Al
March 9, 2018
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"If you wait until you find something to speak up for, something that you're
passionate about that concerns you and attacks your own beliefs, then eventually,
when the day finally arrives, you might also find that you have forgotten how to
speak."
— Kamand Kojouri
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is March 14. It includes a public hearing on an
amendment to the critical area regulations that would more clearly allow vegetation
removal for environmental rehabilitation purposes. The draft amendment follows
up on a prior request from the City Council.
STATE & REGIONAL NEWS
Legislative Action
The 2018 state legislative session ended March 8. Later, we will provide you
information on planning -related bills that have made it into law. For now, the most
exciting news for Edmonds is:
The State Transportation budget has $6 million for the Waterfront Access
Project
❑ The State Capital budget has $500,000 for waterfront park improvements
and $500,000 for the planned Community/Senior Center at the waterfront.
Smart Growth Report
Downtown Seattle added 60,000 jobs from 2010 to 2017. In the same period, the
number of solo car commuters into the district dropped by 4,500 or 9 percent. This
encouraging trend was noted by Smart Growth Online and Seattle sources.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ Scoping continues under the State Environmental Program Act (SEPA) for
VISION 2050, a regional plan that would update the current VISION 2040.
Public comments are due by March 19. (See the online notice at:
1IPag,
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/v2050-scoping.pdf.) Our central
Puget Sound region is preparing for growth in the coming decades —about
1.8 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs by 2015. The region
includes the area of King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap counties.
❑ PSRC's Regional Staff Committee (which includes the Edmonds Development
Services Director) will meet on March 15 to discuss:
o Regional Transportation Plan
o Regional Aviation Baseline Study
o VISION 2050.
Sound Transit
Ridership for Sound Transit grew in 2017—breaking all past records. Light rail had
four million more trips than the year before.
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)
The Board of AHA (which includes Edmonds and most Snohomish -area cities, as
well as the county) met on February 28 to discuss optional local contributions for a
regional fund to assist with gap financing for selected affordable housing projects.
The amount of each jurisdiction's contribution would be on a per capita basis.
Council member Dave Teitzel participated in the meeting to represent Edmonds.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
SCT's Steering Committee, comprised mostly of local elected officials, met on
February 28. Council member Dave Teitzel, the alternate for Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, represented Edmonds at the meeting. The agenda included:
❑ Reports on:
o PSRC Board activities
o Economic Alliance activities
❑ Vision 2050 scope
❑ Sound Transit 2 and 3 updates.
❑ Briefings on:
o Vision 2050 (update to our region's long-range plan)
o Sound Transit projects and plans
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
No ADB meetings are scheduled for March. A valuable ADB member and citizen
Brian Borofka passed away this month and will missed by all.
Climate Protection Committee
At the March 1 meeting of the Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement, discussion included:
❑ New member recruitment status
❑ Update of Climate Action Plan related to City Council Resolution # 1389.
(Note: A consultant will be hired to help the City with this project.)
2018 work plan priorities.
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
Diversity Commission
A retreat was held by the Diversity Commission on March 7 to have an extended
time to discuss the group's vision for five years ahead and to plan for the work of
subgroups on various topics.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission meets next on March 21. An agenda will
be posted on the City website.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission met March 8 and discussed:
❑ New application for Dr. Palmer House ( 820 Maple Street)
❑ Planning for 2019 Historic Calendar
❑ Nominations for other properties
❑ Plaque presentation at the Campbell House
Housing Strategy Task Force
The Housing Strategy Task Force will meet next on April 12 at 8:30 am in the
Brackett Room. The agenda is likely to include:
o Refinement of potential housing tools/resources
o Next steps for development of Housing Strategy
For more information about the strategy and the task force, see:
www.edmondshousingstrateay.org.
NOTE: Public presentations on housing data and a proposed housing strategy will
be provided to the Planning Board this spring. After a public hearing (date still
tentative), the Planning Board may provide a recommendation on the draft Housing
Strategy to the City Council.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met March 1 and discussed:
o Finalizing a pamphlet on tree pruning
o Status of Urban Forest Management Plan
o Update on other events
o Content for Tree Board presentation to City Council
o Student representation
On April 5, the Tree Board is scheduled to have a presentation and discuss the draft
Urban Forest Management Plan. (Note: The draft plan will be issued and posted
online early in the week of March 12.)
City Council
The City Council's March 6 meeting included:
❑ Summary of transportation construction costs (2012-2017)
❑ Arts Commission annual report
❑ Ordinance establishing a fund for Marsh restoration and preservation
i i Edmonds Homelessness Response Project RFP.
31
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
On March 13, the meeting will be primarily devoted to the Council's three
committees.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• March 11: Daylight Savings Time Begins
• March 12: Ribbon Cutting ceremony at the newly rehabilitated Meadowdale
Fields at 2:00 pm. in collaboration with the City of Lynnwood
• March 15: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown, 5pm - 8pm
• March 17: St. Patrick's Day
• March 20: Historic Plaque presentation at the Ira Gerdon House (Campbell
House) 209 Casper St. at 10 am
• March 20: First Day of Spring
• March 25: Palm Sunday
4 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 15
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/14/2018
Public Hearing on Amendments Critical Areas Allowed Activities / Select Vegetation Removal
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council Planning, Parks & Public Works Committee discussed this subject on October 10, 2017
and the full Council forwarded the issue to the Planning Board on October 17, 2017. An introductory
presentation was given to the Planning Board on January 10, 2018, with a follow-up discussion on
February 28, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Narrative
Please see the attached memo from staff discussing this subject. The Planning Board's proposed
amendment language is included within the staff memo.
Note that the draft minutes covering the Planning Board's February 28th discussion are attached to the
agenda for approval and are not included with this memo.
Attachments:
1. Staff Memo
2. Planning Board minutes.
3. City Council agenda item and minutes
4. Comment letters
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Staff Memo - Select Vegetation Removal
Attachment 2: Planning Board Draft Minutes 2018-1-10
Attachment 3: Council 2017-10-10 agenda item and minutes
Attachment 4: Critical Area Comment Letters
Packet Pg. 16
6.A.a
Date:
III
MEMORANDUM
March 9, 2018
Edmonds Planning Board
From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Public Hearing:
Proposed Amendment to Critical Area Allowed Activities — ECDC
23.40.220(C)(8) Select Vegetation Removal Activities
Introduction
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. The allowed
activities section applies to all critical areas and their associated buffers including landslide hazard areas,
erosions hazard areas, streams, and wetlands.
ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) allows for select vegetation removal activities including the removal of invasive
species and hazardous trees. During the 2015-2016 Critical Area Ordinance update, the GAP Analysis
prepared by the City's consultant, ESA, identified this section for a potential amendment noting the
following:
Also add a square foot threshold for limiting invasive vegetation removal activities. Language will be
developed during code revision stage, but suggest something similar to City of Seattle
Environmentally Critical Areas Code (SMC 25.09.320), which permits restoring or improving
vegetation and trees through invasive plant removal (by hand) to "promote maintenance or creation
of a naturally functioning condition that prevents erosion, protects water quality, or provides diverse
habitat... when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area
calculated cumulatively over three (3) years..."
Following this recommendation, the 1,500 square foot limit was incorporated into ECDC
23.40.220(C)(8)(a) which states:
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:
The threshold was intended to ensure that removal of vegetation from large areas was first reviewed for
consistency with the City's critical area regulations and with best management practices by a qualified
professional appropriate for the type of critical area.
Packet Pg. 17
6.A.a
During a meeting of the City Council when a report on critical area regulations was being presented, a
citizen commented that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area regulations was a
concern. The citizen noted that the 1,500 sq. ft. limitation could act 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, particularly when the project is being done by a non-profit or citizen
group with limited resources. The City Council referred this issue to the Planning Board for
consideration and recommendation.
Potential Alternatives
Three potential amendments where identified by Councilmember Buckshnis in her memo to the
Planning, Parks and Public Works committee for their October 10, 2017 meeting (see Attachment 3).
1. The first potential amendment was proposed by Joe Scordino who recommended adding the
following language to ECDC 23.40.200(C)(8)(a) in an email:
"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."
This language was more recently updated to be proposed as:
"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."
The critical areas ordinance generally envisions habitat restoration projects to be consistent with
ECDC 23.40.005, which defines restoration as:
"Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a
state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as
possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include reestablishment or
rehabilitation."
The general concern is that the City will need to have confidence that restoration project actions
will be moving in the direction of returning the critical area or its buffer functions and values to its
unaltered state. "Allowed activities" are provided for in ECDC 23.40.220 if the activity has been
"reviewed and permitted or approved by the City of Edmonds..." and if the activity uses "best
management practices." The main problem with the above language is that there is very little
guidance as to what a "qualified organization and/or individual" is.
2. The concept in potential amendment 1 above was expanded upon in an email from Mariska Kecskes
of Earthcorps who noted:
...the language proposed for future restoration projects needs a more 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
Packet Pg. 18
6.A.a
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.
In this case, the City of Edmonds could identify some preapproved organizations that property
owners could work with on restoration projects and not be subject to the 1,500 square foot limit.
The idea is that these organizations would have experience with restoration projects and have
qualified professionals on staff or available to oversee the restoration projects. Organizations that
wanted to be on the City's list of approved organizations would submit their credentials to the City
for review and then the City would need to maintain a list of qualified organizations. This is not
unlike a qualified professionals list. It could be updated annually or bi-annually to verify the
qualifications or add new organizations, as appropriate.
There would have to be some administration of a program like this; it is ultimately a policy call as to
whether this cost should be subsidized by the City (in the interest of encouraging restoration
projects) or some proportion charged to the restoration project proponent.
3. A third 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. As noted in the introduction, the 1,500 square foot threshold
was lifted from Seattle's critical area ordinance. Perhaps that is not the appropriate threshold or
maybe there are different thresholds that should apply to different critical areas (removing
vegetation in a landslide hazard area has different impacts than removing invasive species in a
wetland buffer). Because steep slopes have potential direct effects on life/safety, keeping a
relatively low threshold for that type of critical area may be appropriate. A different level could be
set for wetlands and streams, or the threshold could be applied to one year rather than the current
three-year cumulative total.
One of the goals of the Critical Areas ordinance is to encourage protection and restoration of critical
areas. Encouraging small-scale restoration projects by non -profits and citizen groups is a worthy goal.
However, not having some criteria for who is qualified to do the work, as well as identifying a limitation
on the amount of vegetation that may be removed before requiring a critical areas report, could lead to
unintended consequences that could negatively impact critical areas.
Taking the above discussion in mind, the Planning Board reviewed the issue at its February 28, 2018,
meeting and proposed the following changes to the critical areas provisions. Note that the draft
language only changes how projects in wetlands and streams are handled. Other critical areas, such as
landslide hazard areas; have potential life/safety issues that are of more concern.
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.a
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:
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);
v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis);
For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, vegetation removal under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitation if.
i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization, approved by the OIL
that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity.
ii. The project sponsor provides a specific proposal identifying in the and location of the project,
provides for project supervision, and includes a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the
City. approved by the appropriate City department.
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;
Packet Pg. 20
6.A.b
scheduled for January 25th at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room of City Hall. At the meeting, the consultant 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 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 sg trategy.or/. 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 24th 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
Packet Pg. 21
6.A.b
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
Packet Pg. 22
6.A.b
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 24th 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 14th 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 28th 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 14th and February 28th 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
13th. 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
Packet Pg. 23
6.A.c
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. 24
6.A.c
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. 25
6.A.c
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 Agreement 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. 26
6.A.c
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. 27
6.A.c
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 Q
October 17, 2017
Page 8
Packet Pg. 28
6.A.d
Comment on Agenda Item 8.13 "Critical Area - Selective Vegetation Removal"
Planning Board Members,
I am a retired fishery biologist and 38 year resident of Edmonds serving as a volunteer adult
advisor to the Edmonds-Woodway High School `Students Saving Salmon' club with whom I've
worked for almost 3 years on monitoring stream water quality in Edmonds and projects to restore
salmon and their habitat. I am the "citizen" referred to in the first paragraph of your Attachment
1 to Agenda Item 8.13 who advised the Council "that the select vegetation removal section of the
City's critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)) was a concern."
I asked the Council to consider amending ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(8) because the ordinance does
not acknowledge that habitat restoration projects do need to occur over larger areas every year in
order to be effective in restoring stream habitat for salmon. The restriction was added during the
2015/16 CAO update apparently over concerns about erosion from vegetation removal, but such
concern should not apply to restoration projects whose objective is to replace invasive and non-
native plants with native vegetation. This restriction placed on habitat restoration work by
23.40.220(C)(8) is counter to CAO and SMP goals to encourage habitat restoration.
ECDC 23.40.220 (C) (8) only allows "the removal of [invasive and non-native] 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." An amendment that removes the area limit and time
frame will allow bona fide habitat restoration projects to proceed to remove invasive or non-
native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. Such change is essential for
habitat restoration work in Edmonds. Students Saving Salmon had to cease plans to restore to
habitat to benefit juvenile salmon in an area of Shell Creek on Holy Rosary Church property.
Please consider a simple fix to the Ordinance that doesn't add complexity or increase lead time
and volunteer effort for getting habitat restoration work done. It is hard enough to coordinate
getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat expertise (such as Sound Salmon Solutions
or EarthCorps), property owner involvement and approval, and volunteer (students, in my case)
logistics coordinated without having to also go through additional `hoops' in the Critical Area
Ordinance. Students Saving Salmon coordinated their last habitat restoration project with the
Edmonds Tree Board, Sound Salmon Solutions, City staff, high school administrators and Holy
Rosary Church, and it was a great success!
After talking to many about this CAO problem, I recommend the following sentence be added to
ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(a) so that habitat restoration projects are not unnecessarily restricted.
"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."
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Joe Scordino
Packet Pg. 29
6.A.d
January 8, 2018 Comment by Val Stewart
Dear esteemed Planning Board members,
I am aware that the January 101h Planning Board meeting has a
scheduled item for discussion regarding allowed activities in the CAO;
23.40.220.C.8.a. Having spent nearly a decade working on restoration
projects in Discovery Park for the City of Seattle and also with
Students Saving Salmon along with Sound Salmon Solutions, I wanted
to offer my perspective on criteria for invasive plant removal.
As you know, under the current CAO 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.
Both the size of the area and the 3 year period are extremely limiting
given the extent of restoration work that needs to be done in the City.
Planting of native species also needs to occur in a timely manner after
invasives removal. Having to go through the process of getting a
critical area report along with added expense will likely discourage
many projects from getting underway or continuing.
I agree with the proposed language: "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".
Restoration work should be conducted by a qualified organization
and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques. This
has certainly been the case with Earthcorps for instance, and Students
Saving Salmon in conjunction with Sound Salmon Solutions. Allowing
projects to be judged on a case by case basis would ensure that
projects and those leading them would have the necessary City
oversight. It is indeed important that the volunteers and supervisors
be trained in appropriate removal techniques, especially on slopes so
as not to destabilize them. Training in identification of invasives as
well as guidance in appropriate native species choices for replanting in
specific areas is also very important.
My hope is that you will take this under consideration and forward a
recommendation to City Council expeditiously. Thank you.
Packet Pg. 30
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/14/2018
Review 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:
03-14-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 31
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
pLAKIMFW� BOARD
��c. 1890
Extended Agenda
March 14, 2018
Meeting Item
MARCH 2O18
March 14 1. Public Hearing on Amendment to Critical Areas regulations
addressing Select Vegetation Removal as an Allowed Activity
March 28 1. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Review and Discussion
WRIL 2018
April 11 1. Presentation and discussion on draft Housing Strategy
April 25 1. Discussion on Code Update to Permit Decision Making ECDC
20.01.003A (tentative)
2. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan (tentative)
MAY 2018
May 9 1. Public Hearing on draft Housing Strategy (tentative)
May 23 1. Next step on Code Update to Permit Decision -Making (tentative)
JUNE 2018
June 13 1.
June 27 1.
JULY 2018
July 11 1.
July 25 1.
a
Packet Pg. 32
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 (V 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. 33