cmd062421 spec mtgEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 24, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Susan Paine, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Council President
Paine.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the
exception of Councilmembers L. Johnson and Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Nelson.
Council President Paine reported Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and L. Johnson had conflicts and were
excused from attendance today.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested Approval of the Agenda be added to the agenda.
Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, commenting this was a special meeting. Council
President Paine said it was her understanding the Council had to stick to the agenda but the Council could
approve it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether audience comments could be added to the agenda. Council
President Paine answered no, this is a special meeting and the agenda is set. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
said he always wants to err on the side of caution when it comes to adding things to a special meeting, so
he would not recommend it.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled audience comments had been added to special meetings in the past and
questioned why it was not allowed today. Mr. Taraday said he did not recall the specific instance that
Councilmember Buckshnis was referring to so he could not comment on the facts she was asserting. His
recommendation was made out of an abundance of caution. There is nothing in the Open Public Meetings
Act (OPMA) that specifically states the Council cannot add public comment as an item at a special meeting,
but there is language that states final action cannot be taken on anything other than what is on the agenda
at a special meeting. He was unsure what the courts would define as final action with regard to this; in doing
a risk reward analysis whether it was worth it to add public comment when it wasn't part of the special
meeting notice, he did not see a lot of upside and saw a little downside and in his opinion, the risk
outweighed the reward. However, the Council is free to make its own determination; he is providing a
recommendation.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether a general discussion about the whole housing recommendation
could be added to the agenda in the context of the materials provided and recent emails from people
concerned about the lack of context. No action would be taken, it would be just a discussion on the subject
matter. Mr. Taraday said it was his understanding that this was a special meeting to discuss the Housing
Commission recommendations. Development Services Director Shane Hope added it was to discuss five
of the Housing Commission recommendations. Council President Paine explained by limiting the scope of
the study session, she envisioned it similar to a budget retreat, offering direction regarding what to do with
these five items. If the Council wanted to have a broader, overarching discussion, that should occur at a
regularly scheduled Council meeting when all Councilmembers are present.
Councilmember Olson said with the specificity of a special meeting, she was okay with sticking to what
was on the agenda, Review of Five Housing Commission Policy Recommendations. She understood where
Councilmember K. Johnson was coming from, the public has demanded participation and transparency with
regard to housing issues. The optics weren't not great in not including audience comments on the agenda
in the first place. As she has expressed in emails and in other conversations, having more of a vision
statement and an overview of what the Council is trying to achieve with the Housing Commission's
recommendations would help guide the process. She supported Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion
to find time for the Council to discuss that if the Council was only discussing the five recommendations
today. It makes sense for the Council to have a more guiding overview of what they are trying to accomplish
with any of the specifics to be implemented.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the Council decided to set up this meeting, she specifically asked
for visioning and a Comprehensive Plan review which she acknowledged is sort of addressed although it
did not include a number of things such as the Sustainability Element. She recalled there was a
recommendation related to subareas that did not make it on this list. She asked how these five specific items
were selected for this agenda. When the Council last discussed the Housing Commission's
recommendations, it was her impression the Council would develop a vision statement, figure out how
everyone sees the City, what subareas the Council wants to see, whether there are transition zones, etc., but
now suddenly the Council is limited to these five recommendations. A lot of citizens are extremely upset
that these five elements were chosen and she was unable to tell them how they were selected. Ms. Hope
recalled a discussion at the June 1' meeting regarding which items the Council could look at, just to decide
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 2
first steps, knowing that there were a lot of other, more complex recommendations that would need more
attention and would take more time but did not need to be started now. These five items rose to the top to
look at more immediately; the intent was not to make decisions but to determine next steps on these items
that were less complicated.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adding a third agenda item to discuss process. There are five items
on the agenda and she questioned how the Council would make decisions, whether it would be unanimous
or a majority, and how the input from the two absent Councilmembers would be incorporated.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented this was only a study session to learn more about these five
recommendations and any action would need to happen at a regular Council meeting. This is an opportunity
to look at these five things that were discussed at two consecutive Council meetings, one when a
Councilmember was absent and one where all Councilmembers were present. These five items were
identified and some Councilmembers requested a study session to learn more about them. It is now 1:45
p.m. and he hoped the Council could begin the study session.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented aside from the time, it was important to set an agenda that reflected
the wishes of the entire Council.
Council President Paine said the response from Mr. Taraday about adding items to the agenda was that he
cautioned against it. This is intended as a study session on the five topics that the Council agreed on at a
previous Council meeting.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was Mr. Taraday's advice, but he also said it was the Council's
agenda and the Council could do what they want.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO,1) HAVE AUDIENCE COMMENTS, AND 2) HAVE A GENERAL
DISCUSSION.
Council President Paine commented this meeting was intended to be a deep dive on five specific topics that
were agreed upon at a Council meeting, to learn more about them and discuss whether to forward them to
the Planning Board, discuss them at Council, etc. This meeting was intended for discussion among
Councilmembers on these five topics, not to make any decisions. She urged Councilmembers to honor the
original agenda so the meeting can begin.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she respected Council President Paine's opinion. She acknowledged she
was absent from the first meeting and had attended the second meeting, but did not recall the Council
selecting or voting on these five topics. She recalled the Council and staff discussed subarea plans which
were not included among the topics identified for discussion tonight. She emphasized she did not agree
with these five items and would like to change them but couldn't because it was a special meeting. She
reiterated she did not support these five items, would not have supported detached accessory dwelling units,
and would have supported subareas.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALLING THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND K. JOHNSON
VOTING YES.
Council President Paine asked for guidance regarding how to conduct Audience Comments such as three
minutes for each audience member and establishing a timeline for the general discussion and whether those
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 3
items were added to the agenda before or after the review of the five policy recommendations. Mr. Taraday
advised the order of the agenda was also subject to approval by the Council as well as procedural matters
such as the amount of time for each speaker. He pointed out there were 32 people in attendance; if each
spoke for 3 minutes, it would take a substantial portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the June 1, 2021 meeting minutes on page 13 of the packet and
include discussion regarding how the 5 topics were selected as well as comments from all Councilmembers.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS TO TWO MINUTES INSTEAD OF THREE, AND LIMIT THE
COMPREHENSIVE CONVERSATION TO TEN MINUTES.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested the motion be divided into two motions and to vote on them
separately as she believed the comprehensive discussion would take more than ten minutes.
Council President Paine said it would be helpful to make this decision quickly and a ten minute overview
discussion was probably a good start as two Councilmembers were not present and it would be important
to hear their input as well.
Councilmember Olson said she would be fine with separating the motion into two questions. Council
President Paine preferred to keep them together so the meeting could move along. Councilmember Olson
agreed to leave the motion as it stands.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Paine suggested having audience comments first and general discussion last.
Councilmember Olson preferred to have the general discussion before review of the five recommendations.
There was no objection voiced to Councilmember Olson's preference.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bill Ogonowski, Edmonds, thanked the Council for doing the right thing and taking audience comments
as obviously this was a vital topic for the City and he anticipated there would be a lot of citizen participation.
He encouraged the Council to step back, relook, and make sure the Council knew where the City was going.
In his opinion, the policies should be linked to a vision for the City which has yet to be developed. Until
that is done, the policies are ad hoc and do not link into the plan for the City. The Comprehensive Plan is a
plan, a roadmap to somewhere, but citizens are not sure where that somewhere is. The policies should be
subservient to a vision because unless you know where you're going, any road will get you there. He
anticipated circular arguments to the consternation of the citizens until there was a vision of where the City
was going.
Kathy Ryan, Edmonds, expressed concern that the Council had only now agreed to accept public
comments, therefore she was not prepared to comment on the issues the Council was discussing today. She
would have liked to comment on those issues, but the Council was adamant there would be no opportunity
for public comments. A lot of people who would have attended this meeting were told they would not be
allowed to provide comments and as a result were not present. She summarized the Council limited the
opportunity for people to provide comments.
Kathleen Rath, Edmonds, said she was very disappointed with how this had all rolled out. There needs to
be a vision for City that reflects what the citizens want, not what developers or politicians want, but what
the residents who live here now want. As she works in real estate, she is aware many residents are leaving
due to, 1) taxes, Edmonds is one of the highest taxed communities, or 2) the opportunity to sell due to their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 4
property values. She moved to Edmonds because it reminded her of a community she might have grown up
in. She did not want density; she has lived in dense cities such as L.A. and San Francisco. People move
where they can afford and have the highest level of living. She might live elsewhere if she could afford it;
Edmonds was what she could afford and she enjoyed it. She understood change would happen but this
process should have occurred differently, in 2022 after the election.
Elizabeth Fleming, Edmonds, said she planned only to listen and was glad the Council was accepting
comments. She referred to comments she made a couple weeks ago about the decisions before the Council
regarding housing, the tree code, etc., pointing out development affects the environment. The
Comprehensive Plan speaks specifically to the environmental impacts of the City's decisions. With regard
to the Housing Commission's proposals, Edmonds is such a unique area from an environmental standpoint
and that needs to be reviewed and discussed at a scientific level. She urged the Council to take the time and
effort needed to consider the environment and the effects on the health of Puget Sound to ensure the right
decisions for the environment are made as well as for the residents who are voicing their opinions and
concerns about the Housing Commission's proposals. She asked weeks ago about a vision; that has not
been discussed or clearly laid out so citizens understand where Council is going with these
recommendations. It is important for transparency and trust to nail that down.
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Council President Paine suggested Council comments regarding the overarching vision be in a round robin
format.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she looks at Edmonds like what Sausalito is to San Francisco; the
downtown is eclectic and that and the Creative District need to be protected and there should not be any
type of upzoning. She believed the subareas are very important, noting the June Is' minutes refer to
Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning as one the topic, but it was not included on this agenda. Each
individual neighborhood is important to the residents living in them and the Council should be very
conscientious if any upzoning is done. If the Council decides to do any upzoning, there should be transition
zones. She preferred to concentrate on understanding the statistics of Edmonds, noting there is a lot of
housing stock and a lot of middle, but market forces are driving up the cost of housing. She wanted to
review the subareas in detail before making any decisions. She concluded any zoning decisions should be
delayed until 2022 until the Council has an opportunity to talk more globally about a vision for the City.
Councilmember Olson said there were only two things on tonight's list that she was excited about moving
forward on without doing a more holistic thing first. Even the low hanging fruit needs context of a holistic
subarea plan, but she understood why that wasn't moved forward even though it was a high priority for
most Councilmembers. Looking at the environment, transportation, slopes, water, etc. in each subarea will
dictate what makes sense in terms of changes that are made related to housing. She hoped the Council
would start with what would have the most impact on great outcomes and stick with the subareas plans as
the priority and only move forward on recommendations that would not be impacted by having done that
first. She understood subarea plans was a budget item and that was why it was not included in the list to be
reviewed tonight, but it was close to what should be the first step and segued into a vision.
Councilmember Olson said upzoning has become an ugly word. There will be more density in all Puget
Sound communities because so many more people are moving to the area; the projections are significant.
Regardless of whether residents want population to increase, some population increase will occur. When
discussing issues like the environment, the average house size over a 50 year period has increased from
1600 square feet to 3100 square feet. She assured she was not saying people should not live in big houses
if they wanted to, but maybe environmentally the City should offer and have smaller housing options in its
inventory such as duplexes, condos, cottage housing, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 5
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for Councilmember Olson's comments, pointing out
they were liaisons to the Housing Commission for 13 months so they have a lot of relevant context from
the resident volunteers who served on that commission and who did a lot of research and study. He looked
forward to this study session to bring other Councilmembers up to speed on the Housing Commission's
discussion, context and structure about these items. A recent report said the Puget Sound region was the
fastest growing metropolitan region in the United States. He pointed out without planning, the result is
failure. He referred to the Housing Commission's mission which two Councilmembers at this meeting and
the previous Mayor helped form, "Develop for Council consideration diverse housing policy options
designed to expand the range of housing, including rental and owned, available in Edmonds." The Housing
Commission's recommendations are a suite of options and he looked forward to evaluating them as
appropriate including discussing these five today.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed appreciation for the work of the Housing Commission and the two
elected representatives on the commission. They had a very narrow task to develop recommendations which
they did. She did not see the Housing Commission's 15 recommendations as to-do list for the Council or
that the Council should just address the low hanging fruit; there needed to be context. The numbers show
the City was on track for meeting its growth management goals and she questioned what problem the City
was trying to fix. As Councilmember Olson stated, market forces are driving development; developers
maximize the square footage to reach their gain. She appreciated the opportunity to talk globally; she
envisioned looking at sections of the City, maybe subareas or activity areas, and looking at housing,
environment, transportation, and possibly doing an EIS. She was opposed to doing global things throughout
the entire City. Her goal was to retain the City's charm and the integrity of the neighborhoods with the least
impact on trees and traffic.
Council President Paine said she did not disagree with the previous comments. There are great
neighborhoods in Edmonds and they should have input into what is going on. She did not worry as much
about the process and would like some things to go to the Planning Board for analysis and study and to
gather feedback from the public before returning to the Council for a decision regarding how to proceed.
She expressed interest in multifamily design standards which would be reviewed by the Architectural
Design Board and Planning Board. Those broader discussions will be helpful for the community. The
Housing Commission did a lot of valuable work and there is an opportunity to learn more about each topic.
She assured she did not want anyone to feel that their voice was being taken away. She looked forward to
discussing these five items today and adding discussions to future Council meetings.
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
REVIEW OF FIVE HOUSING COMMISSION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the intent was to have substantive discussion and
consideration of five of the Housing Commission's recommendations. The context of the Housing
Commission's work was affordability not only for low income, but also moderate income, seniors, young
people, families, etc. and changing needs and lifestyles and the ability to stay in the community or welcome
new residents. Ms. Hope reviewed:
• Assumptions for June 24 Process
o Based on process discussed at the June 1 Council meeting, only 5 of the Housing Commission's
15 recommendations are being reviewed now
o City Council will not adopt any of Housing Commission recommendations at this time
0 3 of the 5 recommendations being reviewed tonight would need future Planning Board
review/input; the other 2 do not
o City Council may consider whether any of the 5 recommendations should:
a. Be forwarded to Planning Board with any guidance for more work & public input before
coming back to Council for in depth consideration
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 6
b. Move forward to a future Council agenda to get more details and research for consideration
& public input (probably within next few months)
• What is purpose of today's meeting
1. First chance for City Council to review & discuss together substance of several Housing
Commission recommendations
2. Direct whether any of 5 specific recommendations should be further explored for more public
input & information
NOTE: Today is NOT to decide on whether to adopt any Housing Commission recommendations.
Detached Accessory Owellin s (Topic normally sub'cel to Planning Board review►
• Housing Commission Recommendation
o Allow either one attached or detached accessory unit on a property in the SFR area, with clear
and definitive development requirements such as size, ownership, and parking, under the
standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit.
Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement
• What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
o A separate living unit (complete with kitchen and bath) that is associated with a "main" house.
o An attached ADU is connected in some way to the main house.
o A detached ADU (DADU) is on the same lot as the main house but stands on its own.
o ADU is accessory to the main house, not equal to it.
o ADUs are different than "second units" because they are more limited in size (incl. maximum
size, such as 800 square feet maximum) AND they must be much smaller than main house
• Photograph of DADU examples
o Edmonds would set own rules after public input and Council decision
• Some Relevant Comp Plan Goals or Policies From Housing Element:
o Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families & individuals in the community
regardless of race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
o (F.1) Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns
that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
o (F.2.b) Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the needs of
extended families and encourage housing affordability.
o (H) Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government permitting
processes.
• Some Relevant Comp Plan Goals or Policies From Sustainability Element
o (A. 1) Adopt a system of codes, standards, and incentives to promote development that achieves
growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community character and charm in a
sustainable way.
o (C. 1) ... Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with
affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle...
o (A.2) ... Support and require sustainable land use & development practices, including the
retention of urban forest land, native vegetation, wildlife habitat areas...
o (Goal G) ... Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with
affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style.
o (G.1)... Provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving
housing needs and choices.
o (G.2) Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents
to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time.
• If Planning Board reviews & makes recommendations on this, what process would happen?
1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by PB (incl. in person meetings
2. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 7
3. Eventual more detailed recommendation to City Council (whether in opposition or support)
about proposal to City Council probably in early 2022
4. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation
(including minutes & public comments
5. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings
6. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed
recommendation
What kinds of things would Planning Board consider about DADUs?
o Should DADUs be allowed at all?
o What would be impact of allowing them in some locations?
o What are other communities doing about this?
o Are there some areas or sizes of lots that might be ok (or not ok) for such units?
o How would other city requirements (e.g., for stormwater)
o Possible requirements for:
• Vehicle parking
■ Owner to live in either larger or small unit
■ Limit on both size & height of accessory unit
■ Setbacks & other dimensional standards
■ Open space
■ Building appearance
■ Site plan in relationship to neighborhood
■ Other issues
• Possible next steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
■ Should Planning Board be asked to work on options for DADUs & seek more public input?
If so:
- Planning Board could aim to have ideas back to City Council by next year for Council's
consideration & other public input.
- Planning Board would consider parking requirements, ownership, size, open space,
particular locations, and other issues.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Comprehensive Plan needed to be modified to include DADUs if a
decision was made to forward it to the Planning Board. Ms. Hope said an amendment was not necessary
because the Comprehensive Plan talks about ADUs, a DADU is one type of ADU. She acknowledged a lot
of work would be required if they were allowed such as what standards would apply, impacts, how many
could be expect, whether they would be allowed only on certain size lots, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that would be added to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope that would
be a zoning regulation; the Comprehensive Plan typically did not include those specifics. It would be
different if the Comprehensive Plan said only attached ADUs are allowed, but the Comprehensive Plan
does not limit it to only attached. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Comprehensive Plan needed to be
updated because it still refers to Edmonds Crossing. She envisioned DADUs could impact the environment
or land use in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope said all that would be looked at; the question was whether
or not to look at DADUs.
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to look at DADUs but not until the subarea plans were done due to
the environmental impacts. For example, it may not be appropriate to allow DADUs everywhere such as in
sensitive areas.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is a very interesting and complex subject. She was not
convinced it was a good idea to allow DADUs throughout the City as many of the needs could be meet via
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 8
ADUs and there was a Conditional Use Process (CUP) process for that. She was not interested in moving
DADUs forward at this time. She did not want to shut the door but it was not a priority for her.
Council President Paine asked if ADUs were allowed across the entire City. Ms. Hope answered they are
currently allowed in all single family zones. Council President Paine commented DADUs change the
footprint and she would like to have the Planning Board look at this and provide information and it did not
need to be ahead of subarea planning. There are some existing unpermitted DADUs in the City. It would
be interesting to see how the Planning Board would address environmental issues, footprint size, etc. She
supported forwarding this topic to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he would like to have Planning Board evaluate DADUs. He recalled
DADUs had broad support from the Housing Commission outreach process, over 60%, and the Housing
Commission passed this recommendation 13-2. He pointed out Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Snohomish,
Stanwood, Marysville, Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, Lake Stevens and Snohomish County
(including Esperance) allow DADUs; Edmonds is one of if not the only city in Snohomish County that does
not allow DADUs. At a minimum, he would like to see the Planning Board evaluation and thought on it
compared to the Comprehensive Plan and the Housing Commission's recommendation.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not support looking at DADUs at this time. The Planning Board
could look at much more important aspects that weren't part of these five recommendations. Subarea plans
and neighborhoods need to be looked at as well as residential goals.
Ms. Hope suggested moving on to the next topic since there was not concurrence on this item.
Cluster/Cottage Housing (tome normally sub
lect to Planning Board review)
• Examples of cottage/cluster dwellings
o Idea is Subdivision with cluster of smaller homes on small individual lots & typically gathered
around a larger common open space
o May have more units than PRDs if homes are small enough & meet other special site
requirements.
• Housing Commission recommendation:
o Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multifamily housing in
Edmonds.
Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement
Some Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Housing Element & Land Use Element
o Housing
* Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families & individuals in the community
regardless of race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
x (F.1) Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
o Land Use
■ (Residential Goal A) High quality residential development which is appropriate to the
diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options
available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be
approached realistically in balancing economic, social, aesthetic and environmental
considerations.
* Some Relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Sustainability Element
o (A.2) ... Support a flexible land use system which seeks to provide accessible, compatible, and
synergistic land use patterns which encourage economic & social interaction while retaining
privacy and a unique community character.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 9
o (C. 1) ... Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with
affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle...
o (A.2) ... Support and require sustainable land use & development practices, including the
retention of urban forest land, native vegetation, wildlife habitat areas...
• If Planning Board reviews cluster/cottage housing, what process would happen?
1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by Planning Board (incl. in person meetings
2. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
3. Probably in summer 2022 Detailed recommendation about proposal (in opposition or support)
to City Council
4. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation
(including minutes & public comments
5. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings
6. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed
recommendation
• What kinds of things should Planning Board consider about "cluster/cottage" concept
o Should cluster/cottage housing be allowed at all (different from current code)?
o What would be impact of allowing cottage clusters in some locations?
o What are other communities doing about cluster/cottage housing?
o Does Edmonds have any areas or sizes of lots that might be ok (or not ok) for this concept?
o How would other city requirements (e.g., for stormwater)
o Possible requirements for:
■ Vehicle parking
• Site plan layout
• Limits on size, height, & number of cottages
• Architectural design
■ Other dimensional requirements
• Landscape/trees
• Common open space
• Private open space
■ Allowable locations
■ Other issues
Possible next steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
o Should Planning Board be asked to work on a recommendation for cottage/cluster options &
seek more public input? If so:
■ Planning Board could aim to have ideas back to City Council summer 2022 for additional
consideration & public input
• Planning Board would consider parking requirements, cottage size, open space, particular
locations, and other issues.
Councilmember Olson said she has seen some of these in Edmonds that work well, but it was an entire
street or cul-de-sac rather than a group of clustered houses in the middle of a more classic layout. Like the
DADUs, she was not opposed to this as a concept, but wanted to do the subarea plan first. If this topic
moves forward to the Planning Board, she wanted to ensure clustering did not occur in an awkward way
such as in the center of a preexisting neighborhood that was laid out differently. Ms. Hope said there are
ways that other cities deal with that, one of them is having a minimum size property so it was not just a
couple lots within a neighborhood. Determining the size and the relationship to the surrounding area would
be part of the process.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was intrigued with this concept. She suggested incorporating it into
20.75.048, conservation subdivision design. The goal is to attempt to have smaller housing units; she has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 10
seen successful cluster housing in Shoreline. A presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow illustrated
how this concept had been used successfully by ARCH in the past. She still preferred to do the larger vision,
looking at subareas, neighborhood and the environment first. She summarized cluster/cottage housing could
be advantageous to the environment if done properly.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City did not currently have cluster/cottage housing. Councilmember
Olson may be referring to planned residential developments (PRD) which locate houses closer together to
save the environment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was lukewarm on this topic and it was not
something she wanted to move ahead with but she was very intrigued. Churches in Edmonds seem to be
located on some of the largest parcels; she wondered if this would be an appropriate use of their land and
could it be zoned in a way or regulations developed in such a way that they could have their own cluster
housing to support their immigrant, homeless, or senior populations. Ms. Hope said that could be one of
the ways the City could go. There are currently have a few PRDs in Edmonds; cluster /cottage housing is
smaller units and probably some extra units that have a smaller footprint, have their own parking and open
space. It possibly could be designed to take advantage of large parcels, perhaps owned by a church or
someone else. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized this was not her highest priority but she was very
interested in learning more about it.
Councilmember Distelhorst said in addition to PRDs, there are also Unit Lot Subdivision (ULS). Some
ULS are close to cluster/cottage housing, but the lots are approximately 2400 square feet which is bigger
than traditional cluster/cottage housing. He would love to see the Planning Board evaluate this, observing
as Councilmember Buckshnis stated, this is a very popular option with non-profit housing organizations;
Housing Hope and HASCO are both involved with properties that use a cluster/cottage housing model. He
relayed this recommendation had unanimous support from the Housing Commission.
Council President Paine said she has seen examples of this in other cities and would love to see
cluster/cottage housing treated similar to multifamily design standards so there would be visuals. This could
be a way to provide flexibility, preserve large trees and native growth, and be environmentally sensitive.
There needs to be a strong environmental review of all the Housing Commission recommendations to
ensure environmental, sustainability and conservation strategies are front loaded into the process. She
supported having this recommendation go to both the ADB and the Planning Board. She agreed super large
houses were not the best use of the City's limited land.
Ms. Hope summarized there was interest in the topic, some were not ready to move it on right now, but it
could be revisited later.
Multifamily Design Standards (topic normally sub.iect. to PIan ninp, Board review
• Housing Commission recommendation:
o Enhance current design standards of new multifamily dwellings to maintain and enhance the
unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use
buildings, small multifamily building and large multifamily buildings.
Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement
• Multifamily Design Standards — Improving Design
o City currently has no design standards except in Gateway, Highway 99 or downtown)
o Examples of design standards
■ Neighborhood Focused Elements
■ Massing and Scale
• Variety of Building Materials
■ Front Entry Features
• Connections and "Presence" along Sidewalk
• Better Context for Design Approvals
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 11
■ Treatment between Sidewalk & Building
■ Weather Protection for Pedestrians
■ Garage/Parking Placement
• Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
o (Housing Goal J) Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is
an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible
with its surroundings.
o (J.1) Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring
compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
■ Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Sustainability Element
o (A.1) Adopt a system of codes, standards, and incentives to promote development that achieves
growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community character and charm in a
sustainable way.
o (A.2) Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning.
• Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Community Culture and Urban Design
Element
o (Design Goal A) Design goals and objectives (should)... guide future development to result in
high quality, well designed and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of
Edmonds (including to):
■ Improve physical appearance and character
• Improve retail and pedestrian circulation options
• Protect natural environments using sustainable design practices
■ Protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds
• If Planning Board reviews and makes recommendations on this, what process would happen?
1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by PB (incl. in person meetings)
2. Visual preference surveys/exercises
3. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
4. Public meeting(s) and input from the Architectural Design Board
5. Eventual more detailed recommendation (whether in opposition or support) for proposal to City
Council probably in spring 2022
6. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation
(including minutes & public comments
7. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings
8. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed
recommendation
• What kinds of things should Planning Board consider for multifamily design standards?
o Architectural appearance
o Windows and doors
o Location of garages & parking
o Pedestrian accessibility
o Landscaping
o Outdoor lighting
o Open space
o Orientation of building to street
o Building materials
o Placement of outdoor utility equipment
o Site plan
o Entry features
o Neighborhood context
• Possible Next Steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 12
Should Planning Board be asked to work on options for Multifamily Design Standards &
seek more public input? If so:
— Planning Board could aim to have a recommendation back to City Council by spring
2022 for more consideration & public input.
— Planning Board would consider possible design standards for townhomes and
multifamily development, including building appearance, site layout, open space, and
other issues.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were multifamily design standards for Highway 99. Ms. Hope
answered there are three areas with design standards: Highway 99 where the most work done as they were
part of an EIS, the Gateway area, and downtown has some design standards in the zoning code. There are
many other areas of the City that do not have design standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she
was very interested in multifamily design standards as they are long overdue. She recognized there would
need to be density in some areas. She referred to the two Compass buildings on SR 104 as examples of the
need for multifamily design standards.
Councilmember Olson said she was very excited about this and enthusiastic about moving it forward. She
was a fan of courtyard apartment complexes and complexes with more attention to detail would be an
enhancement to the overall look and feel of the City. She was excited to have the ADB and Planning Board
involved.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her enthusiastic support for this recommendation and moving it
forward to the ADB and Planning Board. A lot can be learned by a visual preference survey especially
examples of what works and doesn't work in Edmonds.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support, relaying that it was unanimously supported by the Housing
Commission.
Council President Paine agreed this was long overdue and she was excited about it. She asked if it would
go to the ADB first followed by the Planning Board. Ms. Hope envisioned a dual, iterative process as each
board will inform the other. Council President Paine said after working in Seattle particularly with
multifamily townhouses and unit lot subdivisions, Edmonds has dodged a huge bullet not having
multifamily design standards and has avoided some of the design problems in nearby communities. She
supported moving this forward right away.
Ms. Hope summarized there was concurrence to move this forward to the Planning Board and ADB and
with the public, to be thoughtful about the context for the local neighborhoods with better quality design.
Community and Regional Partners (topic not normally subject to Planning Board review
• Housing Commission Recommendation
o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for:
■ Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI)
• Special needs residents
■ Seniors
• Veterans ...
o This policy establishes community partnerships with for profit/non-profits to build affordable
housing...
o (Additional information is contained in the Commission's statement.)
Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Housing Element
o Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community
regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 13
o Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public
accommodation and fair housing.
o (C.1) Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal government to
assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs populations...
o (C.2) Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies ...
• If City Council reviews this further, what process should happen?
1. Public meetings (incl. in person meetings)
2. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
3. Subsequent City Council consideration of options for housing partnerships (including public
comments ), probably beginning in fall 2021
4. Council decision(s) on whether or how to participate in any housing
partnerships
NOTE: This could evolve over time as opportunities change
• What kinds of things would Council consider in exploring partnership options?
o Potential organizations
o Implication of possible partnerships and projects
o Available opportunities to achieve needed housing
o Organization's past successes
o Roles that City and partners would have
o Whether the City contributes financially or in some other way
o Availability of grants or other support
• Possible next steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
• Should Council explore specific options for housing partnerships in future public meetings,
including public comments?
Note: Exact timing, perhaps in fall 2021, but could depend on available opportunities
Councilmember Distelhorst said this was an absolutely great idea. The Council recently approved an
Interlocal Agreement with HASCO and there are other groups, non -profits and for -profits, working in
Snohomish County communities. Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) is interested in working more
collaboratively in the region, especially in South Snohomish County where growth has occurred and more
growth is coming due to light rail and other regional development. He supported talking to partners such as
the public hospital district, other agencies and other non -profits to bring people together to leverage all the
relevant stakeholders.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was on the fence on this; the Council recently approved an Interlocal
Agreement with HASCO and she would like to see how that works. Market forces will command pricing
and the housing stock. Edmonds is a coastal community and the coast needs to be protected. Edmonds is
more unique than Lynnwood, Bothell and other cities due to the water and values that go with it. She feared
by creating partnerships, Edmonds would be required to subsidize it due to the property values. She
preferred to put this on hold and concentrate on other housing related issues until the City has an opportunity
to work with HASCO.
Councilmember Olson said she has given a lot of thought to this. One of the ways Edmonds is different
from other communities is that Edmonds is built -out to a great extent. With very little land available and
most people living in houses that are bigger than they need, it would be worthwhile to explore non-profit
agencies who focus on the concept of house sharing. Citizens are protective of their neighborhoods and
maintaining their home values, but they are generous with their time, effort and money. Some people with
spare bedrooms might consider taking in a well -paired housemate for a low rental amount. She suggested
the City look at that rather than building affordable housing due to the impact on neighborhoods and the
expense of the land. With regard to cooperative projects, although the project with Edmonds School District
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 14
on the border of Lynnwood fell through, she was very supportive of projects like that. She preferred to see
how the partnership with HASCO worked out and to explore a partnership with a house -sharing
organization before pursuing other partnerships.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been involved in these types of discussions for the past six years
and has seen efforts like the Lutheran church housing and a joint effort with Lynnwood to purchase the
Rodeo Inn fall through. This topic was discussed by the Opioid Task Force and privately with other groups.
She envisioned coordination this would require a tremendous investment of staff time with few results. For
those reasons, she was not interested in pursuing this at this time. She preferred to listen, think about
opportunities that arise, but did not want to pursue a dead-end that would require a lot of effort and few
rewards.
Council President Paine viewed this as an opportunity to collaborate with partners on grants such as the
school district or neighboring cities like Lynnwood, Shoreline or Mukilteo. She has seen this done when
she was on the school board, working together to amplify outcomes. This would be an opportunity to
collaborate and take advantage of opportunities to assist the most vulnerable populations such as seniors,
special needs, veterans, and low and super low income families. She expressed support for further
exploration of this topic including the necessary staff time and bringing it to Council at some point for a
decision whether to move forward.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed this was a unanimous recommendation from Housing Commission.
The Housing Commission felt this was a very important topic and supported taking a collaborative
approach.
Council President Paine commented on a meeting she had with the new Executive Director of Habitat for
Humanities for Snohomish County, an Edmonds resident and an architect, who was excited about the
possibility of providing services in Snohomish County. There were opportunities available and she would
like to have a discussion with full Council and to have some research done by staff.
Ms. Hope summarized this was a topic worth considering; the City is working with two housing agencies,
AHA and HASCO. Things may arise, but it will depend on available opportunities.
Councilmember K. Johnson clarified this was something she did not want to move forward at this time.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated she was on the fence; the City recently signed an Interlocal
Agreement with HASCO and she feared this would be labor intensive for staff. As a coastal town, Edmonds
is more unique and although she supported looking at housing for seniors, veterans, etc., she preferred to
work with the organizations the City is already engaged with. She referred to the potential partnership with
Lynnwood to purchase the Rodeo Inn, pointing out that failed due to market forces. The property in
Edmonds is very valuable so it will be costly and she feared citizens will probably have to subsidize
partnerships. There are other issues the City can research such as MFTE although she was totally against
that based on what happened at Westgate.
Ms. Hope summarized this was not off the table but there was no rush.
Discriminatory Deeds and Covenants (not normally a subject for Planning Board review
• Housing Commission recommendation:
o Prior to the sale or transfer of any property in Edmonds, all discriminatory language in any
associated covenants and/or deeds must be legally removed from said documents.
NOTE: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement.
• Historic discrimination
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 15
o Many properties in Edmonds (and across the U.S.) had restrictions based on race, religion, and
other factors.
o Restrictions were carried out for years.
o In 1948, Supreme Court ruled such restrictions unenforceable but they were practiced long
after
o Numerous deeds and covenants still have discriminatory language in place, even if it is not
enforceable
o Federal "Fair Housing Law" in late 1960s made such restrictions illegal, though similar
outcomes have continued through financing and other controls
If City Council reviews this further, what process should happen?
1. Public meetings (incl. in person meetings with public comment time
2. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
3. Subsequent City Council consideration of options for addressing discriminatory provisions
(including public comments ), probably beginning in fall 2021
4. Council decision(s) on whether or how to address historic discrimination evidenced by deeds
and covenants for Edmonds properties
What kinds of things would Council consider regarding discriminatory provisions in local deeds
and covenants?
o Extent and impacts of past practices
o Recent state laws addressing this issue
o Information on what other cities or counties are doing
o Options for incentives, education, or requirements to address
o discriminatory provisions
o Effect of any action City might take
o Whether or how to take any action
Possible next steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
■ At future public meetings, should Council explore specific options for addressing
discriminatory provisions in local covenants and deeds?
(Exact timing TBD, but could begin in late summer 2021)
Councilmember Distelhorst said he has referred acquaintances to a program that Snohomish County has
for removing discriminatory language. He asked what documentation lives at the City versus the County;
his understanding was most of it lives at the County. Ms. Hope agreed most of it lives at the County or in
records on the property; the City does not manage those records. One recommendation was that the City
could choose to require when property is sold, that the language be expunged. It could be a requirement or
an educational process. Councilmember Distelhorst summarized the actual action occurs at the County
level. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her unequivocally support for this proposal. She asked who would
do the bulk of the work, whether it would be the City Attorney, Planning Board, or the City Council. Ms.
Hope answered the Council would determine the rules and that would determine how staff was involved.
The City may be able to rely on the new state legislation unless the Council chose to do something more
proactive after reviewing the new state regulations. Councilmember K. Johnson asked who would advise
the Council. Ms. Hope answered the City Attorney would advise the Council.
Councilmember Olson said she was in a hurry to pursue this recommendation and it would not be impacted
by the need to do a subarea plan first.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support, commenting it was long overdue
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 16
Council President Paine asked if this would cover CC&Rs and bylaws associated with existing HOA
documents. She recalled when she lived in a condo, their age restrictions did not allow children over the
age of five. She was in favor of the Council pursuing this recommendation. She asked if it include CC&Rs,
noting it may be useful to provide education to condominium. Mr. Taraday answered the same review could
apply to condominiums and subdivision homeowner documents.
Ms. Hope summarized there was consensus to move forward on this recommendation.
Council President Paine thanked everyone for attending.
Recognizing this may be Ms. Hope's last meeting before her retirement, Councilmember Distelhorst
congratulated and thanked her for her service to Edmonds and other cities in the region. He thanked
Councilmembers for attending the study session and having this discussion. He pointed out there were a lot
of resources available; the Housing Commission looked at a lot of them and he was sure Ms. Hope and
other planning staff who supported Housing Commission could share that information so Councilmembers
could see the same data that the Housing Commission considered in making their recommendations. He
encouraged Councilmembers to ask staff, Councilmember Olson or him for more information.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was Ms. Hope's last hurrah. Having known her before she was
an employee of Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis said Ms. Hope had always been a rock star. She was
happy for Ms. Hope to retire but sad for the City as her departure would leave a big hole. She wished her
the best and expressed her thanks for the help she has given her all these years. Ms. Hope said she will miss
the Council and many people in the community. She always tried to give professional advice, bring
information whether she agreed with it or not, and help the process. She expressed appreciation for the
Council's efforts and assured things will continue on and hopefully she has been a help.
Councilmember K. Johnson added her thanks to Ms. Hope for all the work she done for the community,
the City, and for the Council. She has appreciated her professionalism and that she never lost her cool in
tight spots. She asked who would be the Acting Development Services Director. Ms. Hope advised Rob
Chave will be the Acting Development Services Director. HR started the recruitment process not long after
she gave her notice. Councilmember K. Johnson said Ms. Hope has worked hard and deserves the next
phase of her life; she wished her happiness and success.
Council President Paine expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope, commenting she has known her since
before she was on Council. She has great leadership qualities and Edmonds has benefitted from them.
Council President Paine assured Ms. Hope she will be missed, but it will be great for her to spend time with
her family.
ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
f�
MI AEL NELSON, MAYOR
11�� �/
����
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 17
1.
2.
3.
4.
rUr ��tJ
Agenda
Edmonds City Council
, SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
JUNE 24, 2021, 4:30 PM
DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING
PLATFORM. TO JOIN, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS
ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART
PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Review of Five Housing Commission Policy Recommendations (110 min)
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 24, 2021
Page 1