Loading...
2024-04-09 Council Special MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES April 9, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Jeff Levy, Senior Planner and Deputy Project Mgr. Navyusha Pentakota, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Tibbott. Mayor Rosen announced there are technical problems with streaming via the City website. The public can still participate via Zoom and the meeting video will be uploaded to the City's website tomorrow. Staff will continue trying to resolve the problem throughout the meeting. Mayor Rosen reviewed the time allotted to each agenda item: 30 minutes for agenda item 3.1 (presentation and two rounds of council questions), and 10 minutes for agenda item 3.2 (presentation and council questions, followed by agenda items 3.3 and 3.4. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GROWTH ALTERNATIVES Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin introduced Senior Planner/Deputy Project Manager Doug Levy, Planner Navyusha Pentakota, and the Project Manager at VIA Perkins Eastman. She reviewed: • Planning in Washington State Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 1 GROWTH MANAGE ME AT ACT _F_Y YI610N...-TICOUNT KAMMINE POUCIEE CGAAAL GUNS NEMEM 17 PUNS Under the GMA, OFM projects 20-year population growth at the county level. Vision 2050 distributes the growth to counties through policies, and regional growth strategies. Snohomish County distributes growth based on Commerce and regional guidance. They prepare the Buildable Lands Report and CPPs (countywide planning policies) Local jurisdictions plan for the county -adopted 2044 targets. Cities must comply with HB 1110, 1337 BE 1220, along with state, regional and county Legislature. What is a Comprehensive Plan? o This is a policy document that outlines a long-term vision and provides direction for future growth and development over the next 20 years ■ How and where will our city grow reflecting the needs of residents and businesses? ■ What kinds of housing and jobs? ■ How to invest in parks, transportation, public infrastructure, and social services? ■ How to meaningfully serve a diverse and growing community? ■ How to protect Edmonds' natural features? ■ How do we manage sustainable growth? Comprehensive Plan Elements o The comprehensive plan will ■ Provide goals, plans and policies ■ Inform zoning and other development regulations ■ Decide capital projects and budget decision • How did we find `Centers' and `Hubs'? o Building Lands Report (BLR) o Redevelopable Parcels o Mixed -Use/ Multi -Family Land Use o Along Transit Lines o DT and Hwy 99 Activity Centers o Overlay Critical Areas o Isolate Remaining Clusters Centers and Hubs Perrinvi1w I lWorth Bowl East �eaview Downtownl C., .'P-. Waterfront z Activity I Center e'. :.N.........ISive Corner..... (District 99 Subarea Firdale North 'fur-i. h �...... I �' Sotith Ballinger `�rrfallfaRe- ............. 'A REHENSVVE PLAN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 2 • PSRC Displacement Risk Mapping o Identifies what neighborhoods in the region are at higher risk of displacement o Includes residents and businesses o Majority of Edmonds in low risk A ; ,y t Perri nviIIY / I MODERATE "North Bowl East 3eaview �rJ LOWER HIGHER s._. i Five Corners MeclicaV&strict r r._.____� 5 .. 010 i I rj Westgalle j • i ( A­16 irdalf North - ­tJ �.r ti MODERATE • S vtt Ballinger • Edmonds Growth Targets o 2044 — Meeting Growth Targets Housing Units Per the Growth Management Act: ;0000 Edmonds is projected to grow by 13,000 people over , the next twenty years 25000 / 14,000 f 9,000 , Edmonds currently has capacity for 2,500 jobs. oo ' 5,000 ±----, Capacity for 500 jobs must be added 15000 Edmonds has 19,000 housing units and 5,000. It must increase unit capacity 112,000 or a ,.0000 total of 9,000 5000 0 Existing Unfts Current Required Capacity Capacity • House Bills Applied — Single family zones • Increases middle housing in Requires allowing 2 accessory single family residential areas dwelling units in all single-family • At least two homes per lot zoning districts • Four per lot if located within a quarter -mile walking distance of a major transit stop (Like SWIFT BRT Stop or Amtrak station in Edmonds) • Four per lot if one of the homes is affordable. • Calculating Total Housing Need • Requires cities to differentiate between housing types, ties these types to affordability levels • Have sufficient capacity for each housing type (The capacity target by housing types is provided by Snohomish County Housing Requirements Report as per Dept. of Commerce guidance) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 3 Current Census Population 42,853 Protected Growth by 2044' + 13,113 Initial Total Population Target 2044 = 55,966 Group Quarters Population 2044' - 297 Total Household Population 20" = 55,669 Average House Size 2044* + 2.1096 Total Households 2044 = 26,388 Vacancy Rate 2044" + 6": Total Housing Units Needed 2044 = 28,073 Housing Units (Excluding Seasonal Units) 2020""' - 19,005 Net New Housing Units Needed 2020-2044 = 9,068 Existing Capacity""* * 4,946 Revised Remaining Units Required = 4,122 Capacity Already Filled per 1337 and I110"" 1,684 Revised Remaining Units Required = 2,438 Buffer + —10% TOTALS = —2,700 '2044 growth targets per countys a#ocation. W_i Report Combined Appendices Table D-1 DraR Initial Housing Growth Targets "'Commerce guidance —2020 Census data "' Buildable Lands Report • City Forum + Online Open House o Citywide Forum General Feedback ■ Request to emphasize Citizen's Housing Commission recommendations ■ Need for clarification around where growth was proposed and how guaranteed it was to occur ■ Confusion around 15 min city concept and specifically around land use designations within that 15 min boundary. ■ Interest in curating neighborhood uses — grocery store, coffee shops, etc. ■ Encouraged walkable and bike friendly developments ■ Support of the Medical District expansion ■ Expressed concerns on proposed height above five stories ■ How will infrastructure, transportation & parking b e factored into decision making ■ Several environmental concerns including critical area and urban heat island effect impacting denser areas City Forum New Ideas o Explore Hubs at ✓ 226th St. SW /15th & Edmonds Way intersection ✓ Church at 196th and 84th, east of North Bowl ✓ 76th & 205 intersection Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 4 o Explore Hubs at ✓ 226th St. SW /15th & Edmonds Way intersection ✓ Church at 196th and 84th, east of North Bowl Perrinville • ✓ 76th & 205 intersection North Bowl • East Seaview • • o Make International District a "neighborhood hub" Downtow` l WaterfrontAct with more focus on walkability and community Center benefits. o Opportunity of creating the Medical District as a "New Edmonds Uptown", making it a center for community activities. High—y 99 Subarea o Focus growth centered around schools Firdale North* I h A� New Hub ideas o Online Open House ■ Total Visitors: 1,561 ■ Total pageviews: 5,207 ■ Total survey respondents: 288 ■ Alternatives and overall approach: 291 responses ■ Downtown Activity Center: 189 responses ■ Highway 99 Subarea: 243 response ■ Demographics: 243 responses ■ Community Comment Board: 190 responses o Responses to online open house comments ■ Do you agree with the approach in Alternative A to put more density in Neighborhood Centers while keeping changes minimal in Neighborhood Hubs? - 25% yes - 58% no - 17% not sure Do you agree with the approach in Alternative B to have density more evenly distributed throughout the Neighborhood Centers and Hubs? 40% yes 45% no 15% not sure Which alternative best aligns with comprehensive plan vision statement? Alternative A: Focused Growth: 2 1 % Alternative B: Distributed Growth: 37% Not sure yet: 42% Do growth alternatives meet the intent of the vision statement? Total responses: 291 Positive Neutral, s Negative* Improve access to the natural beauty of our Community: 70% 10'0 20% Preserve Parks and Open Space. Safe Streets: Design and manage roadways to prioritize the 59% 14°� 27°� safety of all users. Promote Healthy Lifestyles: Emphasize mixed -use development 54% 12% 34% within neighborhoods where residents can live, work and play. Promote Climate Resiliency: Prioritize pedestrian -friendly 52% 15% 33% streets and improve transit connectivity. Support Thriving Arts Scene: Create opportunities for live -work 53% 23% 24% in Arts District and Downtown. Vibrant Diverse Neighborhoods: Equitable distribution of 43% 13% 44% housing affordability levels. neaD.<: now epee. Kam. s«,K.w,« uvel «uncemn: reeiDrer agree «Disagree 38 •nega4ve: Drsagree, ID«OV Dwgree • Existing Policy Framework o PSRC's Multi County Planning Policies Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 5 Development Patterns Goal: The region creates healthy, walkable, compact, and equitable transit - oriented communities that maintain unique character and local culture... MPP-DP-1 Develop high -quality, compact urban communities throughout the region's urban growth area that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use MPP-DP-3 Enhance existing neighborhoods to provide a high degree of connectivity in the street network to accommodate walking, bicycling, and transit use, and sufficient public spaces. MPP-DP-22 Plan for densities that maximize benefits of transit investments in high -capacity transit station areas that are expected to attract significant new population or employment growth. o Snohomish County Planning Policies Goal: The cities, towns, and Snohomish County will provide livable communities for all residents by directing growth into designated urban areas to create urban places that are equitable, walkable, compact, and transit oriented, preserve and create open space, and protect rural and resource lands. DP-16 Jurisdictions should encourage the use of innovative development standards, design guidelines, regulatory incentives, and applicable low impact development measures to provide compact, high - quality communities. DP-36 Jurisdictions should develop high quality, compact urban communities that impart a sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. o Existing Comprehensive plan policy direction Land Use Element: Commercial Land Use Goals & Policies A.3 B.3 B.4 The proliferation of Create mixed -use, Improve strip commercial walkable, compact, connectedness for areas along Edmonds economically viable, pedestrian and streets and highways attractive, and bicycle users in a and the development community -friendly. transit -friendly of commercial uses environment. poorly related to surrounding land uses should be strongly discouraged. o Climate Action plan 303. 962 MT CO, l2 Mt CO:e per capita Fiq-1_Lind Eiw hi Edl-1-I1,2— e Defining Centers & Hubs DP-10 ...... promote well -designed and transit -oriented developments that enhance economic development opportunities for all residents, address environmental goals, and reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. The most effective steps the City can take are: C.3 Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed -use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. (#3) to support mixed use and transit -oriented development in neighborhood commercial centers" - A Call to Action: Edmonds Climate Action Plan 2024 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 6 o Centers 1. Redevelopment to meet community goals + enhance public realm 2. Has retail and other commercial businesses 3. Moderate scale multifamily residential land uses 4. Increase maximum heights to 4 floors by right, and possible 2 floors with incentives in some select areas (5 floors max) 5. Good multimodal access with existing transit service o Hubs 1. Redevelopment to meet community goals + enhance public realm. 2. Smaller scale. Includes some mixed land uses, e.g. retail or commercial businesses 3. Low rise apartments or missing middle housing. 4. Increase maximum heights to 3 floors by right, and possible incentives in some select parcels (4 floors max) 5. Good multimodal access with existing transit service. • Draft Conceptual Alternatives Downtown/ Watertront Activity center Five Corners Me ica District Westgate Highway 99 Subarea Firdale Village( Perrinville North Bowl East Seaview Downtown/ Watertront Activity Center Yay99 a Firdale North, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 7 Neighborhood Residential (Housing gips C—Phis—) Middle housing: Duplexes. Triplexes. ADUs townhomes, quadplexes (only with one affordable unit), stacked flats, cottage style and courtyard apartments rhoodCenter Mid-1. Mitl-scale misretl-use: Apammenis or condos vath reta iU -coutnaemialioffices, on ground floor in select locations • Neighborhood Hub Low -scale mixed-useApnrhnen s or condos with retail/ comrnemiaU offices on ground floor in select locations OTransit Oriented Housing ... n.rsls lbUbU cannactlnpd. Canlm antl NUM • eUU Nap ' �.r NIpN eapedty BIII Route J J 4 Floors' Max. 3 Floors Max. ' In select locations, Cormlunity Benefit Incentives will allow +1 floes- for 5 Floors Max. CNeighborhood Residential - (H ..1.9811b C_Plierace) Middle housing: Duplexes. Triplexes. ADUs. tuwnhumes. quedplez: (only w h one affordable unit). slacked ems, collage style and courtyard aparpnents Neighborhood Center Mid -scale mleed- ra, Apanmentsorcondoswilh relal0 3Floors' Max. _ommerciaVeR es on gmund floor in selecr locations • Neighborhood Hub Law scale mired -use: Apartments or condos withretaA! 3 Floors' Max. commerciMl offices on ground floor in select lacatioin OTransit Oriented Housing Mrocni antrict r { A ' �-n..n rlvuw aeaaeadap lM Conran ant lNpa • eua Mop • rxp.a. J NOM Boca M.Plewaaa' po..mow�r IN— akmn) !e qo _ A — YaM Mmeida Yrry N ) i Pe�nMra 9s supaeree `In select locations, Community Benefit Incentivallowes will allow +1 floor for 4 Floors Max. �� trx _____________________________________________ r�roa. rw.m _ u•wr <oMapewoad Nw Donor � urn towards GMA capacity �aN canape • How do the alternatives differ Areas of Change Alt A: Focused Growth Alt g: Distributed Growth No of Units No of Units 1 1 Hubs 150 !fig Medical Center Expansion 1000-1200 1850-2000 TOTAL 2700-3000 3600-4000 Higlway 99 suaaes Total numbers for Alt B, Distributed Growth represents unit count ifADUs are limited to 1 per lot based on HB 1110 & HB 1337 interaction. Perrinville, 6% Seaview Eas' 2% 1 Iter n Perrinville, 11% Seaview East 1896 Westgate, 17% Firdale North, IS% 6 Comers,17% Medical Center Expansion ;;JOSO-2000 Planning Board Chair Jeremy Mitchell introduced Vice Chair Lauren Golembiewski. He emphasized all planning board members are Edmonds residents and represent a diverse set of opinions with an overall goal of representing residents and the City. The existing conditions analysis illustrates the City's population is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 8 slightly under 43,000 which represents 43,000 different opinions. Two of those 43,000 are his 4 year old and 6 year old; tonight his daughter asked him to put her bed on the roof so she could sleep under the stars. He listened and thought that would be great, but probably not a good idea or sustainable for her own health. In considering the opinions of 43,000 residents, key themes need to be identified and those need to be sustainable, concrete ideas that get the City to a point of sustainability for 20-50 years. Chair Mitchell explained the planning board first reviewed the draft growth alternatives on February 14; the background and evolution of that decision is in the planning board's memorandum in the council packet. The commission's deep dive into the themes regarding how comprehensive plan goals were established occurred at the joint meeting with the economic development commission (EDC) on November 8, 2023 where the public engagement such as Porchfest, popsicles in the park, etc. was described which identified themes. Those themes were then extrapolated into goals which were used to create criteria to drive alternatives. Following the neighborhood public engagement in December 2023, the planning board was provided the first draft alternatives on February 14, 2024. Chair Mitchell explained, for the most part, the planning board understood why centers and hubs were selected and the initial feedback at that meeting and the March 6 meeting was commissioners would have liked to have seen more variability between the two growth alternatives such as expanding into corridors, should the bookends be larger to provide more flexibility. After the open house and gaining some public feedback, he felt a lot of people were against the alternatives, some were for the alternatives and a lot of people were indifferent. Again, there are 43,000 opinions in identifying a good path forward for the City. Given the time constraints, the planning board supported Alternative A, focused growth, as the high intensity bookend and the revised Alternative B as the low intensity alternative. That follows good City planning, provides a degree of flexibility related to building heights, and from a long range planning perspective, gives the City the opportunity to build on those hubs in the future and to place -make. The planning board's vote was 4-2 in favor of Alternative A and 5-1 on Alternative B. Ms. McLaughlin recommended reviewing the planning board minutes to learn about their robust discussion. The EDC has been working on economic development goals in partnership with the planning board and staff and leveraging the hubs and centers strategy and seeing value in centering growth in that way. Ms. McLaughlin continued: • FEIS and Final Plan o EIS is not a decision document o Final EIS includes all public comments o EIS discloses potential environmental impacts that help city council making an informed decision o The Final EIS may or may not contain the preferred alternative o The City's comprehensive plan can be adopted after the Final EIS is issued o The final plan will only increase zoning to accommodate the required number of units, but we the EIS studies more so when environmental impacts are too great in one area, we have others to fall back on • Finalizing the Alternatives for the Draft EIS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 9 o The EIS team needs bookends of alternatives to analyze o April 13 "Pens down" ■ The EIS team will begin the analysis of environmental impacts ■ Any changes may result in additional analysis, delays in schedule and budget increases o August 22 DEIS issued by the City with a discussion of potential impacts for the No Action Alternative and Two Action Alternatives o The Preferred Alternative results from the comments of DEIS "Pens Down" For Growth Alts" April 13-20 Transportation Final Alternatives �WMTJI� Env. analysis I I May - mid June Alternatives assessed for DEIS I by Herrera I I Mid June -July City to review Env. analysis DIFIRRIRMDEIS Issued I Aug 22 - Sept 20 DEIS Comment period •� DEIS Public Hearing Notice issued 10 days prior Final EIS in Nov with the final plan. Preferred Alternative based on comments. Mayor Rosen advised council questions would be in a round robin format where each councilmember asks a question. Councilmember Eck thanked the planning board for their leadership, recognizing the amount of work that went into this effort and the community engagement over the past few months. She relayed she has heard there is a perception that people aren't being listened to. She asked staff to recap their comments about the critical area at Firdale north and Perrinville and how the buffer in the numbers provides flexibility to protect critical areas. Ms. McLaughlin explained Firdale north is in the CARA; it is only a few parcels, but it met the criteria when considering centers and hubs (existing development, impervious surface, previous used as a gas station) and Perrinville in its existing location and development and allowing the height increase. The planning board discussed whether to pull those areas now, but determined allowing that level of environmental analysis will be helpful to understand whether development will be a negative factor; redevelopment in Firdale north with the potential for cleanup may be a positive. Yielding information like that via an EIS may help elected officials make a decision; studying it is not a foregone conclusion and the buffer allows those areas to be eliminated and not impact compliance with meeting the numbers. Councilmember Chen thanked staff and the planning board for the countless hours they have spent and their hard work, especially the volunteers. He referred to the calculation of housing units, the growth target of 9,000 units, observing that considers the 5,000 banked capacity. He asked why the 5,000 units was not 6,000 units. Ms. McLaughlin responded the 5,000 units are allowed today; if the City did absolutely nothing and added up what is allowed by the zoning, the result is 5,000 units. For example, the Highway 99 subarea has about 4,100 units. Councilmember Chen observed that included the 2017 Highway 99 subarea upzone. Ms. McLaughlin agreed it did. Councilmember Chen asked if it included the Landmark project. Ms. McLaughlin answered it does because it is zone capacity. Landmark is a project, but that is different from the zoning that allows it to happen. Council President Olson commented there seemed to be preference in the community for the more distributed option. She asked if there two distributed models could be used as bookends. Ms. McLaughlin recommended reviewing the planning board's conversation. Even though it is a distributed model, there is still height gain in neighborhood centers. In Alt B, growth is distributed, but it may be more broadly distributed in the same hub or center. Mr. Levy explained the hubs in Alt B potentially encompass more parcels in an expanded area, versus Alt A in which the hubs are smaller and more localized. Council President Olson asked if there would be value in considering the environmental impact of Alt B and another more distributed option to allow selection of a more preferable distributed approach which seemed to be what the community preferred. Ms. McLaughlin said 288 is not a great response to a survey and she cautioned against generalizing what the community prefers based on that response. At the City forum, a lot of people were nervous about five stories and in looking at that option and due to the buffers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 10 and other considerations, staff believes it may ultimately be possible to lower the heights across both alternatives. Just because it is being studied in the EIS, it actually affords the most flexibility at the end of the day to minimize growth in the neighborhood centers. That won't be known without studying the most impactful versus the least impactful. Council President Olson asked if staff hasn't seen or no one else had done an EIS with two different approaches to a distributed approach. Ms. McLaughlin answered in keeping with the layers that she reviewed at the beginning, meeting the criteria of being in existing areas of impervious surface, minimizing tree canopy loss, avoiding critical areas, located on transit lines, there is a good planning approach that should be considered in following all the regional, county and local policies. Staff believes neighborhood centers is a good approach from a planning perspective and at the end of the day, it may be possible to reduce five stories to four stories to address residents' concern. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding that the goal was to have realistic and distinct bookends; however, a lot of the parcels are similar in Alt A and B. If the areas of Firdale north which is in the CARA, north bowl which is below steep slopes, and Perrinville where there are issues with the creek and damage to the watershed are taken away, there is limited diversity. She recognized the growth is in the business districts and asked if consideration was given to areas beyond the business districts. Ms. McLaughlin answered due to the criteria and following good planning policies, the approach was to look at centers and hubs and create two options. The team believes they are distinct and different which the pie charts illustrate. If council decides tonight to take Perrinville out, that can be done due to the buffer. Staff is here for council feedback and can make adjustments to the alternatives in real time and still meet the April 13 deadline. Perrinville could also be removed once the environmental analysis is complete. Councilmember Paine thanked staff and the planning board for the hours spent on this. She asked about the components of the EIS and analysis that will help with decision making for selecting alternatives and how that will provide information for the ultimate decision making. She wanted to keep it as broad as possible relaying she heard over the past year that having a good, citywide EIS would inform decision making for years. Ms. McLaughlin displayed and reviewed: • What is in an EIS? o The DEIS is an analysis that contains: ■ Information about the alternatives ■ Potential impacts ■ Mitigation o This information helps decision makers choose how to do the project o The FEIS may contain the preferred alternative and will contain responses to all comments on the Draft EIS o The City's comprehensive plan can be adopted after the Final EIS is issued o The EIS provides data and research to the decision markers. It is not the final decision for the comprehensive plan, which is adopted by city council Councilmember Paine asked if the EIS considers displacement. Ms. McLaughlin answered displacement is policy based and not an EIS consideration. Councilmember Nand complimented the professionalism and work done by staff and the planning board. With regard to the draft existing conditions memo, specifically the discussion about housing displacement risk in Figure 9, it seems the highest displacement risk is around the Highway 99 corridor. There is also a very sensitive population that is lower economic scale, more young families and more ethnic diversity. She acknowledged this was not addressed in the EIS but was curious about the planning department and planning board's decision under HB 1110 about where to allocate the 25% reserve in the 75/25 split related to which parcels are protected from upzoning. The experience in Seattle has been brutal in neighborhoods like the Highway 99 International business district in that entire ethnic communities were wiped off the map due to Seattle's blanket upzoning. She asked staff to comment on that and how incorporating the 75/25 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 11 split can be incorporated, possibly undoing some of the CG upzoning and seeking to protect lower property value parcels where displacement is more likely. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Nand's reference to the 75/25 split. Councilmember Nand explained she was referencing the 75/25 split in HB 1110. Ms. McLaughlin answered the team was very cognizant about how they treated the Highway 99 subarea in considering the housing targets, wanting to be authentic in addressing the community's concern with Highway 99 where the vast majority of the City's density is located. The growth alternatives do not add any additional units to Highway 99 and in fact the buffer anticipates to some degree adjusting the transition zone. The reason that doesn't have to be studied in the EIS is because it lessens an impact that was already anticipated through existing zone capacity. The most bang for the buck with regard to displacement strategies will come when developing housing policy such as tenant protections, business protections, etc. She looked forward to the discussions about housing policy; this effort protects units in the Highway 99 for the purpose of more equitable distribution elsewhere and displacement risk will be considered later in the plan. Mayor Rosen observed there is 90 minutes of content on the agenda for 3 more items and 60 minutes remaining in the meeting. Including people in council chambers and online, there are 100 people who may want to provide comment. He asked if councilmembers wanted to do another round of questions or move to the next agenda item. It was the consensus of council to move to the next agenda item. 2. OTHER POSSIBLE GROWTH ALTERNATIVES FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATION Mayor Rosen advised this item is presentation of a white paper by Councilmember Dotsch followed by council questions. Councilmember Dotsch acknowledged the good work done by Ms. McLaughlin, her team, the consultant group and the planning board. She also thanked and was extremely grateful for the public participation and feedback so far. The decision on the bookends for the DEIS evaluation is critical to this 20-year planning opportunity to create options for council to consider later this summer. She was well aware of the state - mandated changes that must be included; the white paper includes all the housing bills and population growth numbers. The reason she included the white paper for consideration as bookends at this point in the process is, 1) expanding the bookends to allow for a thorough DEIS analysis inclusive of all the public input received over the past two years along with the Edmonds housing commission recommendations, 2) provide a wider range of alternative bookends to allow a mix and match after the DEIS analysis of merits and impacts, and 3) ensure the impacts on the environment and infrastructure costs are fully revealed for final council decision making. This includes placing growth where there are current resources. Councilmember Dotsch continued, the proposed focused and distributed alternative bookends are inclusive of most of the consultant and planning board narrower bookend alternatives. This proposal is by no means discounting or inconsiderate of their good work. It is meant to broaden the bookends further so the council can be provided as much financial wiggle room, especially if the current narrower bookends leave the City with high unfunded infrastructure costs and/or high environment mitigation impacts and costs. Land use decisions in Edmonds are critical to get right and she was very excited about the opportunities to be inclusive of wider bookend alternatives with an exciting new Medical Town Center option to stretch out the two current options to bring about a full tool belt of options and give council full information on the potential environmental and infrastructure costs. She supported placing growth where current resources exist to reduce future costs while Edmonds recovers from the financial crisis it finds itself in now. Councilmember Dotsch explained her proposal is two wider bookends alternatives. The distributed alternative will distribute growth along three state highway and major arterials including business districts and churches where the following resources currently exist: sidewalks, schools, parks, commercial businesses and services that create a sense of place, upzone large church parcels from single family to multifamily, and make modest increases in density or extent in four business districts. Firdale neighbors Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 12 were interested in something exciting and new there. One of the opportunity could be up to five stories to allow for a mix of uses with services. Five Corner residents do not want more than five stories which this alternative accommodates. Westgate district land uses and heights are unchanged, but the extent could be increased for a few parcels. Church parcels are an opportunity; the housing commission identified opportunities for cottage housing on larger parcels. Heights on corridors with transit such as SR-104, Highway 524/196tt', 212', 244t'', 84' north of Esperance to Five Corners and 76t' would increase from two- story multifamily to three story multifamily. Councilmember Dotsch explained the second alternative, a focused growth alternative, would focus growth in business centers and new Uptown Town Center based on the council's strategic decision in 2017 to site planned growth along Highway 99. There is an overlay around the Medical District of 90 feet which would allow for 2,000 units. It is adjacent to a huge job center, has a park and ride, four nearby schools and the new Orange Swift line is blocks away. There are several transportation options such as bike lanes and the ability to walk to work, a grocery store, etc. The borders are extended slightly to allow downzoning going out from the center back to 35 feet. This includes 228t' south, 208t' north near College Place, east -west Highway 99 and up to 84' which will link into Five Corners. The allowance for height, transit and density would allow a reduction in heights in some areas on Highway 99 where a height reduction from 75 feet to 55 feet such as the International District. Five Corners would remain at three stories. Growth in the business centers would be the same as the first alternative. She was passionate about neighborhood centers in Edmonds. When her office was in Shoreline, all the density was near commercial and Shoreline ended up losing commercial, businesses and jobs in those areas. The little hubs in Edmonds are what make Edmonds special; if they end up being housing first, a lot of the businesses will have less opportunity. Councilmember Eck asked Councilmember Dotsch to explain her remark about housing first, advising she was familiar with that term from the non-profit human services world and wondered if that was what Councilmember Dotsch was referring to. Councilmember Dotsch answered that was not her intent, it was more about the massing of housing versus businesses and services. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for Councilmember Dotsch proposing these alternative options. In looking at the area she described for growth, it is 228t'' east of Highway 99, the Medical District where there would be another 2,000 units. Highway 99 already has the capacity for 5,000 units. Councilmember Dotsch's proposal would concentrate 7,000 units in one area which seemed like concentrated growth rather than distributed growth. Councilmember Dotsch responded the growth would be concentrated in a much smaller area. The idea is higher heights in the hospital overlay would allow downsizing on Highway 99 so there is not the canyon effect of 75-foot building like in Shoreline. One of the goals was to reduce density along Highway 99 and have higher heights where services and transit already exist in a more concentrated manner instead of 75-foot building all along Highway 99. The proposal is also to preserve groceries and services on Highway 99 so people have options. Councilmember Chen observed the proposal would be to reduce Highway 99 from 75 feet to 55 feet and slide the growth into the Medical District. The Medical District will get the density with ambulances going up and down and schools, etc. He did not see that as distributed growth and instead saw it as centralized growth. Council President Olson observed churches were included in Councilmember Dotsch's proposal, but they were not included in staff's alternative. She read in the packet that the BLR suggested not doing that and the guidance from Department of Commerce was not to do that. There is case study/history in Edmonds where churches have subdivided and sold off portions of their land which provides the basis, knowledge and expectation that churches may be an opportunity for growth so she was pleased to see it in the alternatives Councilmember Dotsch provided. Mr. Levy relayed staff s understanding in working with the consultant that tax exempt parcels cannot be counted toward the growth alternatives. If churches voluntarily were to become not tax exempt, they could be included, but in their current condition, only taxable parcels were considered toward the growth. Council President Olson asked if that was in the guidelines or was it law. Mr. Levy believed it was in the guidelines. Council President Olson recommended pushing back on that if there is an expectation that it might happen. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 13 Councilmember Paine said she had never heard of adding or people being comfortable with heights greater than five stories. She asked where Councilmember Dotsch got that information as well as the information that it would be challenging for businesses to thrive in neighborhood commercial districts. Councilmember Dotsch answered Firdale was asking for potentially up to five stories which could be an opportunity; the proposal is not up to five stories in all business centers like in staff s proposal. Councilmember Paine asked about the Medical District. Councilmember Dotsch explained the Medical District overlay currently allows 90 feet and there is already multifamily in that area. She corrected Councilmember Chen that the proposal with the Uptown Town Center was focused distribution. Housing policies that focus on business districts and incentivize housing require businesses to fit underneath mixed use or there are fewer options available for services. The variety of heights, options and open space on Highway 99 can be built in. Councilmember Nand said although she did not agree with a lot of the options Councilmember Dotsch proposed, she appreciated her work. Like Councilmember Chen, she had concerns about putting additional housing units on Highway 99 when there is already unused zone capacity for 4,100 units. She is a huge fan of mixed use but wanted density distributed away from the overburdened Highway 99 subarea. She would be in favor of putting multifamily that does not have any green space adjacent or close to park areas. Mayor Rosen requested Councilmember Nand ask a question. Councilmember Nand said she found the format restrictive. She requested she be allowed time equivalent to other councilmembers to provide feedback. Mayor Rosen advised the format was for councilmembers to ask questions. Following audience comment, the remainder of the meeting is entirely dedicated to council discussion. Councilmember Nand said she felt singled out when everyone else was able to make their comments and questions and she was being shut off so she will turn off her mike. Mayor Rosen said he stopped other councilmembers who deterred from questions. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GROWTH ALTERNATIVES Mayor Rosen reminded comments are limited to the growth alternatives. Patti Whitmarsh, Edmonds, expressed support for Councilmember Dotsch's work and asked the council to adopt it for the DEIS. Councilmember Dotsch's framework is far superior to the two DEIS alternatives by Director McLaughlin and the consultants despite the very impressive presentation, number of staff and the PowerPoint quality. As a resident of Edmonds for the past 32 years, she has seen Edmonds become more infiltrated with the type of lifestyle and growth that exists in Seattle. Recently a friend said let's not Ballard-ize Edmonds. Staffs proposal appears to adopt the plan seen in Ballard and Seattle. She did not support the high density proposals or any other growth in Edmonds as it will result in losing the charm and beauty of Edmonds that everyone loves. She requested the council reread Councilmember Dotsch's white paper and consider it. Robin Wright, Edmonds, was happy another alternative was finally presented because throughout this entire process, the city has only presented two. She compared it to giving a small child two choices, neither of which the child wants, but the adult wants both. She was in favor of concentrating new growth in one area, on Highway 99 because there needs to be critical mass in terms of population and space to justify the expense of amenities and infrastructure improvements. Highway 99 has the space to accommodate housing and amenities. If density is distributed across the city in small pockets, it is not only cost prohibitive to add amenities for a relative small number of residents, there isn't the space to do it so existing amenities and infrastructure are overwhelmed, degrading the lifestyle for current and new residents, and promoting equality but not in a good way. Highway 99 is next to light rail, a huge asset that should be leveraged. It is irrational to intentionally place people who will use light rail further away from it than necessary; a few miles adds up to many wasted minutes during rush hour and releases unnecessary carbon into the atmosphere. Highway 99 is close to the Interurban Trail which provides safe biking, something the city has been trying to retrofit on the streets without success. Highway 99 resident have said they feel overlooked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 14 by the city and that they don't get their fair share of city resources. This is an opportunity to build up the area and make it somewhere people will be proud to live; it doesn't have to look like Shoreline or Lynnwood. For example, Totem Lake has some of the elements she liked, it is next to Evergreen Hospital, located in a former mini -mall, and in addition to housing has a Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, auto parts store, Ross, pet store, bank, pizza, and Nordstrom Rack. Councilmember Dotsch's proposal is the better choice in her view. She would like exclude Five Corners from the bookends and in order to preserve the beloved, authentic neighborhood center, she did not want it overdeveloped. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 44 year resident of Edmonds, said as a walker, he has walked much of Edmonds and in many people's backyards, looking at their streams. He lived on Highway 99 for 3 months in a motel with four kids when he first moved to Edmonds because the house he purchased was delayed which gave him a good feel of what it's like to live on Highway 99 as well as living in the rest of Edmonds. He wants to preserve Edmonds as he knows it. The council's discussions of the alternatives are missing one aspect, the SEPA guidance says DEIS is supposed to look at the merits and impacts. With regard to the comments about the merits of an alternative, rather than council saying they do not want more density on Highway 99, let the document describe and analyze the merits and impacts and after the DEIS, pick and choose how to structure the growth alternative. Trying to narrow it now to just the hubs and centers is the wrong approach, it needs to be broader. Relative to Council President Olson's comment about churches, those properties should be included and when the homework is done, the DEIS can say Department of Commerce does not allow them to be counted. He urged against using buffers and to stick with a number so all the alternatives are judged based on the number that has to be achieved and do the mix and matching after the process. It is bad governance to cut this off now; he preferred to set the bookends wide so council has all the information in front of them. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, said she started in real estate in 1971 in Seattle so she is very familiar with what happened in Shoreline. She opened her residential real estate brokerage in Edmonds and purchased the historic house at 524 Main. She has been very involved with the Chamber of Commerce and all the issues with the business community. This is a fantastic study; she served on the 2020 commission that met for over a year. Churches are selling off their land and they understand the need for housing, for example the Lutheran church just off Highway 99. She thanked the council for what they are doing and for the community input. Kim Riddell, Edmonds, a resident and homeowner in 5 Corners for 32 years, said she canvassed her neighborhood and got 80 signatures to provide input into this plan. She echoed comments made by Councilmember Dotsch to look beyond Alternatives A and B. She proposed eliminating the density footprint centered around 5 Corners for the following reasons: there is no room in the roundabout which is a confluence of five major arterials in one small area, it mixes cars and pedestrians which is not a safe situation, most residents already live within 15 minutes of transit, and she preferred a model where density is dispersed away from 5 Corners which will be safer for kids to walk to/from school. The residents of 5 Corners are very concerned about the businesses at 5 Corners being displaced and recommend development take place around 5 Corners but not in it. There is precedence in other communities who have developed using this model, Redmond in particular. She recommended considering the large church lot on 86t' Place and 220' which is on a transit route along with the three alternatives. Jerry Whitmarsh, Edmonds, a resident of the area for almost 35 years, said it seems like the city is being thrown into a crazy race and rules are being made up at it goes. With the city's budget shortfall, infrastructure needs, crazy mandates and the influx of people forced on the city, he advocated for Councilmember Dotsch's white paper, at least the fluidity and more comprehensive nature of her proposals. The EIS is a huge driver and approving things before the EIS is complete is insanity. Charlie Chapin, the hospital administrator, representing Dr. Tripp who owns the property at 8401 Main Street, BARC (Bridge Animal Referral Center), expressed appreciation for Ms. Riddell dropping off information at their property regarding the process and Councilmember Dotsch's approach. They agree Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 15 with all the comments that have been made about taking 5 Corners off and looking at Councilmember Dotsch's proposal. Mario Rossi, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds for more than 20 years, said he would like to keep Edmonds as it is because that is what attracted him and others to Edmonds. He has worked primarily in engineering and marketing where there is a saying, garbage in garbage out. The 13,000 came from some bureaucrat somewhere and apparently no one questioned it. He questioned the origin of that number as it represents much higher growth than historic growth in Edmonds. He recommended the council investigate that number, fearing if the barn door is open to developers, Edmonds will become another Seattle which no one wants. Mackey Guenther, Edmonds, a 23 year Edmonds resident, said as a young man, he may not know anything but knows three things for sure, his parents raised him in Edmonds, he is building a life in Edmonds, and if things go as planned he will probably be around for more of Edmonds' future than most of the people in the room. He was intrigued by the alternatives and the alternative options circulated to council and the community as well as by the claim the city can find a financial resilient way to accommodate growth. Mayor Rosen already did a great job outlining the basis for the city's financial woes; just in the last five years there is a street maintenance deficit of about $5 million. He displayed a map entitled Sidewalks, commenting the best place to build homes is where there are already sidewalks and drew a circle around the area with the most sidewalks. He displayed a second map of public facilities owned by the city and community buildings that serve community organizational needs and support the social vibrancy of the city. He drew a circle around the area with those facilities, commenting that is where new homes should be built to allow people to access community services. He displayed a third map that illustrated the land market value per square foot in Edmonds, explaining it started with land market value of $16/square foot and getting closer to the center of Edmonds, it is $624/square foot which illustrates where people want to live in Edmonds. In America, markets are used to distribute scarce resources so everyone can get their needs met to the extent possible. He drew a circle on the third map about where new homes should go. He summarized the circled areas are the same on all three maps. Derrick Willis, Edmonds, a 16 year resident of Edmonds, said Edmonds is the greatest neighborhood he has seen in Washington and did not want to see it changed. Alternatives A and B would destroy what makes Edmonds special, three story homes in the bowl would result in mansions instead of affordable housing. If the intent is affordable infrastructure, it should be put where infrastructure, light rail bus lines, etc. already exists. He urged the council not to destroy what makes Edmonds special as that would be self-defeating. He supported Councilmember Dotsch's white paper over Alternatives A and B. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, a long-time Edmonds residents, engineer and NEPA practitioner for many years for large federal projects, dittoed what Joe Scordino said in terms of making sure the DEIS includes a wide range of alternatives so the impacts can be considered. She recommended including Councilmember Dotsch's proposal because if not, it won't be analyzed in the DEIS. She recommended the DEIS be done based on strong foundational statistics and numbers and to question with boldness the foundation of the assumptions like they were fighting for Edmonds and the people they represent. For example, the assumption related to adding 13,000 more people which equates to 9,000 units puts the city at 1.44 humans per housing unit when the existing 43,000 people and 19,000 homes are at 2.25 humans per unit. She questioned making a change in the number of people per unit in the future. She recalled hearing as people age, they will live by themselves because their partner/spouse has passed. She argued that often as people age, they move in with their family. In her case, her mother lives with her as well as her college age student, 5 people per housing unit. She urged the council to question the numbers provided to them as decision makers and use it as an opportunity to have an accurate analysis of how much growth needs to occur. Sam Bryan, Edmonds, said while he understood the reasoning for the planning board's recommendation, he questioned why their bookends include ranges no one seems to wants, 4-story apartments. Most people think 4 stories is already too high, especially in 5 Corners as he learned when walking in the neighborhood Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 16 with Kim Riddell and talking with over 100 people. What underpinned their conversations was anything above 3 stories would not be compatible with the neighborhood and would undermine what people value most about 5 Corners. There was no interest in creating an urban center anchored by these large apartments. A lot of people felt increasing density through 3-story building would be okay. Five Corners already has 3- story buildings and they blend and contribute to shaping the charm of the neighborhood. He requested the council to be mindful and preserve this aspect of 5 Corners so current and future neighborhood can experience it. He also recommended narrowing the A and B bookends to eliminate these unpopular opinions and start molding a preferred alternative especially in terms of building heights. At the last planning board meeting someone said it is possible to keep neighborhoods quaint with 5-story buildings and 5 Corners was used as an example of why 5 stories should be kept in the proposal which is completely orthogonal to what 5 Corners residents have expressed. Given the city has overestimated its growth targets by about 150%, unless there is a very strong belief that something will wipe out a large chunk of the buffer, on behalf of 5 Corners he asked the council to narrow the A and B bookends now if they intend to move them forward or consider more parcel diversity in the environmental analysis such as Councilmember Dotsch recommended. Both those things will build into a preferred alternative that not only meets the state's mandates but also addresses the community's concerns with building heights. Erica Miner, Edmonds, a resident of the 5 Corners neighborhood for 8 years, and visitor to 5 Corners for the past 18 years, respectfully maintained that this unique neighborhood is not the proper location for high density development. Edmonds is mandated by the state to increase its density and to quote Mayor Rosen, make choices about where the density goes. However, fulfilling the legislation on Washington housing laws does not mean high density housing should be built in areas with no infrastructure to support it. The following questions address her deep concerns with regard to the 5 Corners neighborhood, 1) can the city maintain the character and unique atmosphere of Edmonds, preserve and enhance Edmonds' uniqueness while tearing apart the cozy 5 Corners neighborhood and its thriving small businesses? 2) is building a multi -story structure higher than those in downtown Edmonds the definition of "growing mindfully?" 3) can the city guarantee the safety of school children walking and bicycling to and from Chase Lake Elementary and Edmonds-Woodway High School during the inevitable heavy construction at 5 Corners? 4) traffic problems in densely populated areas are already tremendous; can small 2-lane streets such as 84' Avenue and 212 Street accommodate the kind of traffic these high density building would create? 5) has the issue of 5 Corners rainwater runoff funneling into Yost Park and the resultant potential for any new high density construction adversely affecting the ecology of the park been properly addressed? In her mind the above questions form a compelling argument against development in 5 Corners. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said in the end, what everyone is looking for is expanding the options to be considered in the DEIS. The two alternatives proposed by staff are in essence one in the same; both are centers and hubs centric. To adequately bound the problem, there needs to be something outside this paradigm, otherwise it leads to a predetermined outcome. Including concept that is not centers and hubs centric will open the solution space from which to choose once the environmental impacts are known. Not doing so will limit options at the end of the year. He supported including an option that was not centers and hubs focused, something similar to what Councilmember Dotsch has proposed rather than just one concept that is centers and hubs focused. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, a 31-year homeowner in the 5 Corners area of Edmonds, said she liked Councilmember Dotsch's plan and loved Mackey Guenther's presentation and predicted he will be mayor of Edmonds someday. Distributing housing throughout Edmonds reduces the impact on every area and everyone. Edmonds has grown since the last census; she sees a lot of new housing. She appreciated the example of lower percentages in every area which is fair; no one wants additional growth and it's not fair for some areas not to take their share. Three stories or higher if a community requests such as Firdale was acceptable. There is a lot of multifamily in 5 Corners and the side streets are very narrow. She feared with a lot of additional growth, there would not be anywhere for cars to park other than on the street which would render the streets impassable. On her street, if there is a car parked on one side, one car has to yield to let the other car pass. Additional driveways and cars parked on both side of the street will be crazy, especially Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 17 since there are no sidewalks on most of the side streets. The Medical District is three blocks from her house which is close to 80', essential the Medical District and 5 Corners are the same and combining the two percentages results in the bulk of the building in one place. She supported spreading density throughout the city and liked the idea of including church properties. She supports diversity and said 5 Corners is probably one of the most diverse areas in Edmonds other than Highway 99. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND TO 10 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RESOLUTION PROVIDING DIRECTION FOR COMP PLAN DRAFT GROWTH ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO CHOOSE AS BOOKENDS THE CITY PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE B, DISTRIBUTED GROWTH, AND THE COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH PAPER ALTERNATE A, DISTRIBUTED APPROACH, WITH BOTH HAVING HOSPITAL DISTRICT BUFFERS. Council President Olson commented it would be necessary to hear from staff and councilmembers on this. It seems most people appreciate the idea of spreading the growth out and environmental impacts of one versus the other are unknown. As long as the buffer is included when the city learns the environmental impacts are unacceptable, but the council could also chose parts of one distributed option and add it to the other distributed option after the SEPA review. That may be a way to ultimately get to a preferred alternative that would serve the community's desire to stay feeling a little smaller. Councilmember Paine said she did not understand how this broadens anything and may actually narrow things. She asked Council President Olson to explain how the two would work together. Council President Olson responded as an example, if the DEIS was working off city Alt B and things were found that were unacceptable and something was taken off, perhaps something on SR-104 in the other alternative could be added to make up for what was taken off. Once the two approved environmental impacts are done and the council mostly liked one plan and is choosing most of one plan but there were things that were unacceptable in that plan that the council wanted to take off, they could be replaced with things from the other plan that wasn't on the original Alt B to make up those units. Ms. McLaughlin explained in general the way it works is the EIS is meant to be an informational document that shows whether or not there are significant impacts anywhere throughout the plan in all the alternatives. Then basically it is an a la carte menu where the council can pick and choose what ultimately would be in the preferred plan. There is no need to have wildly different bookends; there is enough difference between the location, extent and height of the parcels to have those bookends. Council President Olson commented there are things people like and could be excited about in the two different alternatives so it would be nice to have the option to pick things from those alternatives. Councilmember Paine said it sounds like this is too narrow and she would not be able to support the two distributed options in the motion. Councilmember Nand asked who drafted the resolution, commenting she was having trouble following it. Council President Olson answered it was drafted by the city attorney. Councilmember Nand asked why there were no defined terms for Alt A and B hubs versus neighborhood centers. She was confused about Alt A, focused growth and Alt B distributed growth and five sections with different options and minor changes. It seems like it would have been more prudent for the council to have made a policy decision and then direct the city attorney to prepare a simpler resolution for council consideration. She preferred that approach to attempting to wade through this omnibus set of pre -drafted options. Mr. Taraday agreed that is normally how things are done when there is plenty of time. Due to the time pressure, staff wanted to draft something that preserved council's ability to act tonight if it chose to while not prescribing council's choices. He agreed there were a lot of options in the way the resolution is drafted. If it was confusing, he could walk the council through it. In short, the way it was drafted it was intended the council would select Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 18 only one of the five options and customize that option accordingly. Option 1 represents the planning board recommendation. The pending motion is essentially Option 3, keeping one of planning board's alternatives and replacing the other planning board alternative with one of Councilmember Dotsch's alternatives. Councilmember Nand asked if the council adopted any of the alternatives from Councilmember Dotsch's white paper, did that change the scope and a budgetary of the EIS. She was very concerned about that without fully understanding the financial impact. Mr. Taraday answered there were at least schedule ramifications. Ms. McLaughlin answered there would certainly be scope, schedule and budget implications with entirely scrapping one of the alternatives that has gone through a very intentional and public process. It would need to be analyzed against all the factors and for consistency with state, county, regional and local policies and criteria, and then go back through the planning board and public processes to ensure it was vetted as the other alternative has been. Staff has not reviewed or analyzed the alternatives in the white paper. Staff will take direction from council consensus. Councilmember Nand commented if the council went with anything other than Option 1, the city could potentially be paying more than $650,000 to the consultant for the comprehensive plan update. Ms. McLaughlin answered she was unable to provide that number because she had not done the math or the analysis. Councilmember Nand commented in this budget year with the budget crisis the city is in, she did not find it prudent to expand the scope and pay additional money to a consultant. Ms. McLaughlin pointed out there is an aggressive deadline to complete the comprehensive plan by the end of the year. She was confident that could be met with the current project plan and with an authentic and transparent public process. Going back to the drawing board would likely exceed the deadline for the comprehensive plan which also has state funding implications. Councilmember Chen said he did not support the proposal to combine Option B in the white paper with staff s Alternative B without knowing the percentage of each. If everything is unwound and restudied, a determination will need to be made regarding that combination. In addition, the white paper is not definite, it is just a high level concept. He concluded it was too vague and he could not support it. Councilmember Eck did not support the motion. She respects the time and effort put into the white paper, but agreed a white paper was a conceptual document. Public input is critical and so much work has been done by the public on the plans that have been presented by the planning department and planning board. The planning board members are volunteers and represent the public. There have been numerous outlets and listening points over the past few months in various formats and forms to ensure public input is heard. One person cannot say they speak for the community; all residents are Edmonds whether they live in Westgate like she does, downtown, or 5 Corners. Fairness and equitability is very important to her and all areas needs to participate in the evenly distributed, equitable growth that is coming. It is more than just the state mandates, it is about what is right, about the housing needed now and in the future in Edmonds and getting ahead of it. The thought, labor, intellect, and public outreach that has been put into the alternatives to get to this point represents a level of due diligence. She did not believe it was prudent at this point to start over. She relayed her understanding that the council could end up through the environmental analysis with a hybrid and it may not be necessary to zone to the heights proposed. In addition, not all this growth will happen overnight; regardless of what plan the council adopts, there will not be bulldozers knocking everything down in Edmonds. This is methodical and something that will happen over a long period of time and the council will continue to listen to the community. Councilmember Dotsch commented with the two options based on 15-minute neighborhoods, all the areas were chosen for that and now that is gone because no one understood it and many of the neighborhoods are not 15 minutes from things. The concept led to the dots on the map versus spreading out the growth. No decisions have been made, this is just information gathering in order to make good decisions and provide more tools versus just the hubs and centers that staff proposed. She was in favor of using highways, arterials and church properties to expand that scope which will provide information to make a better decision. She was concerned with unfunded infrastructure when growth is focused in certain small areas. She grew up in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 19 Edmonds and knows the area; more goes into it than placing a dot on a map. She preferred to study an option that spread growth out, noting that does not have to be the final decision, the council can mix and match when it comes back. She observed in the information provided by staff, the Medical District was up to 2,000 units and she asked how that was determined. Ms. McLaughlin referred to the AUD discussion regarding methodology assumptions based on HB 1337 which requires two ADUs per lot. Whether one or two ADUs per lot is selected significantly impacts the numbers. In the distributed alternative, the Medical District has a broader footprint and includes four stories. The decision regarding ADUs will be critical, but does not need to be made right now. Councilmember Dotsch referred to Alt B which goes up to 2,000 units as an option. If two ADUs per lot are included and the extra units in the Medical District, clearly that area has capacity for more housing according to the numbers in staff s Alt B. Ms. McLaughlin answered there are 2,000 in the Medical District in Alternative B proposal to account for the chance there would be only one ADU allowed per lot. That is done by a broader distribution of the parcels but not increasing the height. That is also proximate to 220th and the BRT Swift. It is still in keeping with the scale of the rest of the hubs and centers in terms of height. She emphasized both Alternatives A and B in staff s proposal distribute growth in all hubs and centers; it is still a distributed model, Alt B provides more density allowance in the Medical District. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the number of units in staff s Alt B, if the Medical District expansion of 2,000 is added and the number of ADUs is two, 3,600 — 4,000 total units were estimated. Going back to two per lot plus expansion would provide a lot of capacity options within the Medical Center in Alt B in the even Perrinville or Firdale north have to be removed. Ms. McLaughlin said the 10% buffer that was added was to accommodate the policy decision related to ADUs, ensure there is enough flex to make decisions based on the DEIS once it comes out. This is a good time for council to reach a consensus on any deal breakers so they can be taken out and proceed with the DEIS without them. Councilmember Dotsch said she would be interested in seeing that explored as part of the DEIS. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification regarding what she wanted explored. Councilmember Dotsch answered adding the Medical Center explanation to Alternative B. Ms. McLaughlin answered the area details for the Medical District expansion are in the slides and in the council packet. Councilmember Dotsch asked if that would be included even though the capacity staff estimated included one ADU but could be changed to two ADUs in Alt B. Ms. McLaughlin advised Alt A has two ADU unit assumption and Alt B has the one ADU unit assumption. At the end of the day, those are bookending the number of units and they can be swapped out at the end. Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for Alt B distributed growth with the Medical Center and distributed from her white paper. Council President Olson agreed the call for calm by another councilmember is appropriate. These options will not ruin Edmonds. It is about ensuring the best option are chosen and she continued to think looking at these distributed options would be the best way to proceed. She recalled another councilmember mentioned the decision about changing the combinations would hold things up, but that is what council is doing right now, establishing the bookends. The combination of the two distributed options provides the best options to choose from. She appreciated the concern with the unknown cost impacts. She asked staff about the cost impact of delaying. Ms. McLaughlin answered staff would need to analyze the white paper to understand the implications the consultant would need to factor in to understand the additional scope, budget and schedule. That has not been done at this time. Council President Olson expressed support for the motion as it is the best option. Councilmember Chen observed there were five options in the draft resolution: 1) staff recommendation, 2) staff recommendation with minor changes, 3) major changes to staff recommendations, 4) major additions to staff recommendation, and 5), major changes and additions to staff recommendation. He asked which option the council was approving with adoption of the resolution. Mr. Taraday answered the pending motion Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 20 would be most consistent with Option 3 because it keeps one of planning board's recommendations and substitutes the planning board's other recommendation with one of Councilmember Dotsch's white paper options. If the motion passes, staff will work to bring the resolution back on consent next week or make additional edits to Option 3 for Council to finalize tonight. MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADOPT GROWTH ALTERNATIVE B WITH TWO ADU ASSUMPTION. Councilmember Nand asked if he was choosing an option with the intent to select a second option. Councilmember Chen answered only Alternative B. Councilmember Nand relayed her preference for Alternative B but her understanding of the framework was to set a parameter with two options for the EIS. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA encourages the study of alternatives. Staff s recommendation was the EIS analyze two alternatives in addition to a no growth alternative which would also be his recommendation. If Councilmember Chen's motion is to only study one alternative plus the no growth alternative, he did not recommend that for SEPA compliance reasons. Councilmember Chen said he was not just proposing Alternative B, he was proposing Alternative B with the assumption that two ADUs would be allowed. Ms. McLaughlin relayed her understanding of Councilmember Chen's motion was Alternative B because it the planning board's recommendation with a minor modification to assume the two ADUs instead of one. Councilmember Chen commented that would be Option 2 in the resolution, staff recommendation with some minor changes. Councilmember Chen restated the motion: ADOPT OPTION 2 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH MINOR CHANGES. THE CHANGE IS TWO ADU ASSUMPTION. Mr. Taraday restated the motion: OPTION 2 AS FOLLOWS: ALTERNATIVE A AS PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE B MODIFIED TO INCLUDE AN ASSUMPTION OF TWO ADUS PER PARCEL INSTEAD OF ONE. Councilmember Nand clarified it would be Section 1, Option 2 and in paragraph 2, two ADUs per parcel. Councilmember Dotsch raised a point of order, the DEIS is analyzing the merits and impacts of at least two alternatives to compare to a do nothing alternative. It is not appropriate to study one alternative and a do nothing alternative. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO EXTEND TO 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained there are two alternatives proposed in the motion in addition to the no action alternative, planning board Alternative A without modification and planning board Alternative B with the modification that Councilmember Chen identified. Ms. McLaughlin commented the one versus two ADU applies to the methodology which applies to both alternatives. She asked if Councilmember Chen intended to apply that only to Alt B or to both alternatives. It could be studied differently in each alternative; assume in Alt A there is one ADU and two in Alt B. Councilmember Chen answered the intent is bookends, he was proposing allow two ADUs as the bookend, which opens the option to lower the density as two ADUs would dilute the concentration of building height and ease building height tension. Many residents are opposed to increased building heights in 5 Corners and elsewhere. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 21 Councilmember Nand expressed concern she and other councilmembers will end up voting on something they do not quite understand in terms of its budgetary impacts. She wondered if it would be more prudent to table this item and instruct the city attorney to bring something back for consideration on the consent agenda next week. Councilmember Paine described why she supported the motion; it takes in all the fixed elements from the GMA including high capacity transit, consideration of critical area, rulemaking and considerations provided by PSRC and Snohomish County. It also helps support human scale and economic equity all across Edmonds so it is a shared benefit and burden. It would allow access to nearby amenities and the potential over the next 20 years. It studies the environmental impact on already burdened areas, studies citywide resiliency and support for small neighborhood commercial areas. To the concern about the council voting on the right thing, Council President Olson said the motion is a decision regarding the alternatives first and the council can deal with the resolution second. Mr. Taraday said he could not amend the resolution without further council direction. The council first needs to give him direction on what the resolution should looks like and then whether that will be done tonight or on consent next week. Council President Olson pointed out that was a separate decision from the motion. She suggested councilmembers quickly weigh in on the motion and take a five minute recess while the city attorney finalizes the resolution. That way councilmembers would be perfectly clear what they are voting on in terms of the resolution. Council President Olson said she was not satisfied with these bookends so she will vote no on the motion. She was satisfied with one of the two bookends and although she did not feel this was the end of the world, she was not able to support it. Councilmember Dotsch clarified Alt A already includes two ADUs per single family lot. The public has indicated they are not interested in greater than three stories in most neighborhood hubs which is Alt A that creates density and height in centers such as 5 Corners and Westgate. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Nand said she honored and respected the public's energy, passion and enthusiasm. The city is legally obligated to adopt a comprehensive plan update every five years, but the zoning laws are not set in stone and adjustments can be made between the five year periods. She did not want the public to feel intimidated if the council chooses an option they did not support; there will still be a public process and elected representatives will still take public input because that is their job. The city has legal obligations related to adopting the comprehensive plan update and if not fulfilled, the state can withhold funding for vital services in the community. She has always strongly supported local control and wanted community input and community driven development and did not want Olympia telling the city what to do. However, the city must meet its legal obligations to update the comprehensive plan. Continuing to drag out this conversation is costing a lot of taxpayer money so she will vote in favor of Councilmember Chen's motion to provide direction to the city attorney, be pens down by April 13, undergo this process, and hopefully get the comprehensive plan adopted before December 31, 2024 and not jeopardize state funding. Councilmember Eck expressed support for the motion which applies principles similar to downtown to the neighborhood nodes to give them attributes of the beloved downtown. These benefits are centered community, economic prosperity, managed growth, and the inherent need for placemaking. These plans bring value. The city is obligated to plan for growth and spreading it out equitably is the right thing to do. Mr. Taraday restated the resolution version of the motion: RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET WITH OPTION 2 SELECTED, "THE TWO GROWTH ALTERNATIVES FORMULATED BY THE ADMINISTRATION ("ALTERNATIVE A - FOCUSED GROWTH" AND "ALTERNATIVE B - DISTRIBUTED GROWTH") ARE BROAD AND INCLUSIVE ENOUGH THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTAINING POLICIES THAT ARE REASONABLY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 22 CONSISTENT WITH THE RANGE OF POLICIES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE FORTHCOMING EIS PROVIDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD SPECIFICALLY LIKE TO MADE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ALTERNATIVE B SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ASSUME TWO ADUS PER LOT." MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the special council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 9, 2024 Page 23