The Citizens Planning Board reviewed a near‑final draft of a wholesale reorganization and update to Edmonds' Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) on Oct. 22 and voted to forward the draft to City Council while explicitly requesting iterative follow‑up and additional refinement on specific technical topics.

Staff explained the draft replaces the older "buffer" approach with riparian management zones (RMZs): a 200‑foot RMZ around Type F (fish‑bearing) streams and a 100‑foot RMZ around Type N (non‑fish‑bearing) streams. The draft includes an option to reduce the RMZ to 150 feet for Type F streams in exchange for a documented enhancement plan demonstrating no net loss of ecological functions; staff described the approach as consistent with regional practice and as intended to incentivize restoration in already‑impacted areas.

Public commenters with the Edmonds Environmental Council and other residents told the board they support the reorganization and the use of best available science, but urged clarity on when critical area reports and mitigation are required and how public notice occurs. Arlene Williams praised tightened documentation requirements and suggested stronger language to ensure earlier public notice; Joe Scordino urged consistency with the CAO goal of "no net loss" and better organization of code sections.

Board discussion focused on tradeoffs between prescriptive standards and site‑specific critical area reports. Several board members and staff said that Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended avoiding overly prescriptive buffer reductions and that performance/site‑specific review by a qualified critical‑area report would be preferable. The board asked staff to add checklists and flowcharts, clarify grandfathering/vested‑permit rules, and better define the public notice and appeal pathways.

The board approved a motion to send the CAO draft to City Council with the caveat that the Planning Board expects ongoing, section‑level review and additional refinement; the minutes record the motion carried with one opposed vote.

What happens next: Staff will transmit the CAO draft and the Planning Board's recommended caveats to City Council. Staff told the board some specific technical revisions and citation cleanups remain; the board asked that staff prioritize items (grandfathering language, mitigation/monitoring provisions, and the public notice process) for near‑term follow up.