Loading...
2024-03-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting March 13, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom noting that members of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) were joining them tonight for a joint discussion. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Kuehn. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chairs Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Nick Maxwell Board Members Absent Susanna Martini (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Development Director Todd Tatum, Economic Development Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer (online) Other: Economic Development Commission Members MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 28 MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Director McLaughlin noted that item A under Unfinished Business should be amended to indicate they would be discussing growth alternatives, not existing conditions. Chair Mitchell proposed two additions to the agenda after the discussion with the EDC - a brief discussion regarding the March 23 Open House and a brief discussion regarding Planning Board assistance with the RFP for the Landmark 99. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1 Board Member Golembiewski arrived at approximately 8:35 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 1 of 6 Bob Danson, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, referred to an email he recently sent to the Planning Board and a letter sent to the City Council. Their concern is protecting the aquifers. He noted that water rights are hard to come by in the State of Washington. Staff has been great to work with. He recommended that the Board continue to protect the QVa layer. Dawn Malkowski, Edmonds resident, commented on ADUs and DADUs. She asked the Board to reconsider the size and recommended staying with one level. She expressed concern about not requiring parking for ADUs or DADUs. She had questions about people renting out levels in their homes without making any improvements or getting permission from the City and wondered if that's okay. Diane Buckshnis (online) commented on the potential new amendments to the CARA code. She urged them not to jeopardize the Deer Creek aquifer. The new information should not change the original Planning Board recommendations. She encouraged them not to fear a lawsuit because there are many cities that deviate from the stormwater guidelines, and the State intentionally provides broad guidelines so cities can make appropriate changes. Also, the administration's argument focuses on water quantity and pretty much ignores water quality. She commented on her experience on the Puget Sound Partnership's Salmon Recover Board and the ongoing tension between growth, environmental protection, climate change pressures, and water quality. She urged them to say no to the amendments. Sam Brian (online), Edmonds resident, referred to the growth proposals and commented that the two current proposals for growth are really the same in that they analyze the exact same parcels for greater density. The only difference is whether they are five -story apartments or four-story apartments. These proposals don't address whether there are other parcels that could be rezoned for great density in conjunction with the neighborhood parcels or elsewhere. Specifically, he saw a minimal analysis of parcels along Highway 99. The analysis that was done didn't seem like it would change the capacity limits. It would only shift the building heights in a few select zones. He didn't see any analysis of rezoning parcels along State Route 104 other than the Westgate Neighborhood Center which is already part of Alternatives A and B. He asked the Planning Board to consider at least one proposal that analyzes additional parcels other than those in Alternatives A and B. He agrees that they need more housing in Edmonds. This is why he hopes that a third or even fourth alternative would be presented that analyzes rezoning new parcels in conjunction with the neighborhood ones, for example. That way, maybe two or three-story apartment buildings may suffice, rather than having four or five -story buildings. He also referred to the City's public online outreach survey and commented that he found the questions to be structured in a way that don't really allow the kind of feedback he has to be captured. There is no option to say that someone doesn't prefer either Alternative A or B. He noted that there are potential blind spots in this survey and willfully ignores a certain type of feedback. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Discussion with Economic Development Commission regarding growth alternatives for the Comprehensive Plan Update Director McLaughlin reviewed 15-minute cities where most daily necessities are hyper local and can be accessed ideally by walk, bike, or sometimes transit. The focus is a people -centered urban environment with benefits to the local economy; stronger sense of community; better health and wellbeing; lower transport emissions, better air quality; fostering active living by design; ensuring places for people; connectivity; and diverse and affordable housing. She reviewed how Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 2 of 6 many international cities are approaching this concept and how the Land Use Element of the existing Comp Plan supports this. Todd reviewed existing Economic Development Goals and discussions the EDC and staff have had about these, and the 2024 Economic Development Goals: A. Diversify and grow the City's jobs and economy to enhance local employment opportunities, strengthen the city's unique identities, build robust and differentiated employment sectors, attract spending from nearby communities, and increase municipal tax revenues to support local services. B. Revitalize and enhance the city's business districts and neighborhood hubs through placemaking and destination development approaches, while balancing the needs for housing, commerce and employment development with neighborhood character, amenities, and scale. C. Support and enhance the community's quality of life for residents of all backgrounds and incomes, workers, and visitors in order to sustain and attract business and investment to enhance economic well-being. D. Ensure that the City's zoning, permitting, infrastructure investment, and business support services facilitate economic development goals. There was a comment about the EDC's priority of infrastructure investment and a desire to look at the options in terms Sam Brian's comments and the focused versus distributed models. Board members asked clarification questions about the goals including what is meant by unique identities; the difference between placemaking and destination development approaches; and what "neighborhood hubs" means to Edmonds. An EDC member spoke to their desire to get away from business districts and move to people -focused neighborhood hubs. There was a concern that an unintended consequence of the binary choice between a focused model and a distributive model might be that of pitting neighborhoods against each other. Another question asked about asset mapping of each of the circles on the map so they don't exaggerate gaps and deficits. Director McLaughlin discussed staff s considerations when developing the options. A Planning Board member raised a concern that there might be too many goals and a suggestion to narrow it down to about five that they want to accomplish over the next five years such as protecting existing businesses. An EDC member explained that what they were looking at were mainly principles and not goals; the EDC will be prioritizing their top priorities amongst the policy pieces that come under the goals in the near future. The Comp Plan covers through 2044, so there will be many goals they want to accomplish. Anti -displacement is one focus — both from a resident perspective and a business perspective. The hubs would give existing businesses opportunities to grow and deepen because of the expanded customer base in those areas. Staff explained that the goals are intentionally broad so they can hone in on more specific policies and support the City over the 20-year period. A Planning Board member raised a question about where the City can foster community collaboration and leadership and about underscoring the importance of improving government Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 3 of 6 and the regulatory framework so businesses have more certainty. Will this long-term plan meet the needs of the next generation? EDC members pointed to common spaces in neighborhood hubs or centers as ways to support people's mental health and wellbeing. Neighborhood hubs naturally support the work -from -home climate. There was a question about regulations related to multiuse. Director McLaughlin explained this will continue to evolve. Director McLaughlin reviewed how they plan to measure success including: walkability scores; active transportation mode share, average commute times, public transit ridership, vacancy rates for commercial spaces, air quality measurements, green space accessibility, economic vitality indicators, and social equity indicators. There was discussion about the importance of being able to connect many of these successes to a public return on investment, challenges with metrics, and opportunities for Edmonds specifically. It was noted that Strong Towns has a database of cities that have amended their land use and should have some early metrics. Director McLaughlin reviewed a map showing the neighborhood hubs and centers. It was noted that they weren't necessarily planned to line up with public transportation, but they do. It turned out to be an opportunity to leverage that. Questions for discussion: • How will we define success? • What are opportunities in Edmonds that can be realized through a 15-minute city concept? • What are existing barriers to achieving this planning concept? A Planning Board member wondered why they couldn't expand the multifamily further out from the center of the hub to potentially lower the level of the buildings. There was discussion about losing the energy of the hub when development is dispersed and value to having a concentration of retail in a small area. An EDC member did not think any model is going to change the identity of the downtown core because it is already solid. There was a comment that having a North Bowl hub versus not having an identity around that area should be up to the residents. There was a question about what the pros and cons are of a distributive versus focused model with it comes to everything other than housing. Staff stressed housing is the driver for this exercise. Jobs are expected to be achieved through enabling mixed uses within the area. There were comments about one portion of the public not wanting more height while others, typically the younger demographic, have a very different opinion about this. The group debated the pros and cons of varying the building heights in hubs and centers.2 It was noted that the cost of redevelopment of some of the perimeter areas outside the hubs and centers would be so high that it would be unlikely to redevelop. There was some discussion about refining and further providing identity for the international district along Highway 99 without putting additional growth there. Chair Mitchell asked the group if they feel the bookends are sufficient enough to capture the Economic Development goals. EDC members thought that this would give a strong framework to begin to argue for all the things the City needs — transit, PUD and other infrastructure investments, and developer relationships. If the CIP starts prioritizing investments around the 2 Vice Chair Golembiewski arrived. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 4 of 6 neighborhood hubs and strategic planning starts pulling in transportation planning to that, the concept of hubs and centers is very sellable. The Planning Board thanked the EDC for their participation. B. Discussion regarding Planning Board assistance with the RFP for the Landmark 99 Chair Mitchell reviewed the request for representation with the RFP for the Landmark 99 project. He nominated Vice Chair Golembiewski to attend the Landmark 99 RFP discussion. There was consensus to approve this. C. Discussion regarding the March 23 Open House There was discussion about the structure of the open house and who would attend. The group extended the meeting at 9:00 to have the discussion on the CARA. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Planning Board's Recommendation to City Council on Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) Code Amendment Board Member Gladstone recused herself from this discussion. Planning Manager Clugston made the presentation noting that Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla was also present online. He reviewed the Planning Board recommendation and explained that the City Attorney has recommended revisiting modification 2 about disallowing any UIC wells — shallow or drilled — in the QVa areas of the Deer Creek aquifer but allowing shallow UIC wells in the other areas of that watershed. Mr. De Lilla discussed stormwater management in the Deer Creek CARA and explained that the code amendment would actually be more protective than Department of Health (DOH) requirements and the Department of Ecology (DOE) Manual. He explained that prohibiting shallow UICs in QVa in Deer Creek is infeasible. The staff recommendation is to eliminate the proposed modification #2 and to allow shallow UIC wells in the QVa soils in the Deer Creek CARA and update the Planning Board recommendation memo to the City Council accordingly. Board members asked questions about DOH requirements, potential future PFAS guidelines by the DOE, and related legal issues. A board member expressed support for allowing shallow UIC wells in the Deer Creek CARA. It was noted that there is currently no CARA code, and there are hundreds of UIC wells in the city. Water rights is a topic that is pertinent when it comes to water detention facilities. There was some discussion about the low -risk of PFAS contamination unless there are high intensity uses. The pollutant potential for a single-family area is extremely low, but the City is still treating it as if it were a medium to high risk level. There was discussion about why the Planning Board had originally decided not to allow injection wells in the QVa areas of the Deer Creek aquifer. One member wondered if there is any source data that links lower intensity single-family zoning and shallow UIC wells with increased risk for pollution. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 5 of 6 Staff explained that DOE's table does not indicate that there are and the City is going even further than what they are requiring. Motion made by Board Member Maxwell to add to the original recommendation legal language about not enforcing the CARA regulation in a manner that would be perceived as a taking. He also urged caution and suggested modification 2 be retained until Ecology issues updated guidance on PFAS. Mr. DeLilla noted that when Ecology does issue updated guidance, the draft code would automatically update to be consistent with the new guidance. There was discussion about the takings concept and about the implication of keeping modification #2 as proposed and not allowing shallow UICs in the QVa soils of the Deer Creek CARA. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion made by Chair Mitchell, seconded by Vice Chair Golembiewski, to revise the Planning Board's original recommendation to Council, per staffs recommendation, to remove the 2nd modification to prohibit shallow UIC wells within the QVa soils of the Deer Creek aquifer. Motion passed (3-1). PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA March 27 - A recommendation is due to Council following the 3/23 open house on high level alternatives. There was a question about what happens with Comp Plan work after April 13. Director McLaughlin explained they would begin work on goals and policies starting with the Housing Element. They also will begin work on the Waterfront Vision following the design charette on March 20. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Thanks to everyone for staying so late. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 13, 2024 Page 6 of 6