2024-06-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
June 26, 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.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Vice Chair Golembiewski.
Board Members Present
Jeremy Mitchell, Chair
Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair
Judi Gladstone
Susanna Martini (online)
Nick Maxwell
Steven Li (alternate)
Board Members Absent
Lee Hankins (excused)
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager
Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Director McLaughlin gave an overview of the Land Use Element requirements, relevant house bills, public
outreach efforts, and community responses. Staff answered questions about the number of responses and the
source of those comments. Director McLaughlin reviewed Land Use Element Draft Goals and Policies and
responded to a question about what the relationship with the consultant was like. A question was raised about
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 26, 2024 Page 1 of 3
the value of the time spent on public outreach which could potentially slow down projects without making any
constructive contribution.
Director McLaughlin discussed the Equitable Engagement Framework document which provided suggestions
for outreach strategies based on the scale of the project. This will ensure they are being both inclusive and
efficient. For development projects, some outreach is state mandated. Where possible, staff will be looking at
streamlining processes. There was a recommendation to clarify under Equity that the planning and development
process isn't necessarily like the private planning and development process. A question was asked about where
in the city it was that existing utilities were a constraint that could not be overcome since growth usually pays
for growth. A concern was raised that by focusing on existing infrastructure they are setting themselves up to
perpetuate legacy problems of inequities in the city and the segregation of the city.
Commissioners also debated policies related to Highway 99 development. There was discussion about how to
make Highway 99 policies consistent with the rest of the city and the need to focus on encouraging placemaking
strategies. It was noted that with Highway 99, the language related to placemaking will be different because the
scale is bigger requiring the right tools and tactics. A concern was raised about Policy LU-8 which talks about
increasing the height of the buildings along Highway 99 without talking about placemaking. The group debated
whether there should be increased heights in other areas and its relation to capacity and balancing density. Staff
clarified that there is currently no height limit in some areas along Highway 99. There was a suggestion to
concentrate the increased heights in one area as a center with lower heights in between so there isn't a canyon
of tall buildings all along the corridor. There was some discussion about using tools and incentives to encourage
creating this a sense of place and address transitions. Staff commented on how these policies eventually make
their way to the development code, sub area plans, and land use map. There was interest by several
commissioners in deconstructing the subarea plan into three separate areas.
There was a suggestion to add a reference to places expected to be flooded by sea level rise. Staff thought that
LU-23 might be the appropriate spot for this. Regarding promoting infiltration, there was a recommendation
that areas over the CARA should be treated differently. Staff concurred. There was some discussion about how
much language around "Sexually Oriented Businesses" and industrial uses needs to be included in the Comp
Plan. Staff will confer with the City Attorney about what is required. There were additional comments about
clarifying verbiage related to encouraging live work areas in commercial and retail areas.
The group debated the re-evaluation of housing goals for Highway 99 and redirecting growth throughout the
rest of the city. Staff explained how the buildable lands report and housing affordability factor into this.
Concerns were raised about equity, legacy problems, and economic segregation. Staff felt that growth of hubs
and nodes would help to address this and provide a significant difference over time with regard to affordable
units. All centers and hubs will be increasing densities with the exception of Highway 99 with the goal of
distributing growth more equitably than in the past.
There was some discussion about creating a policy statement about the need to balance downtown investment
as it has historically been with other neighborhoods as we are growing neighborhood hubs and centers. The
need for more walkability in areas outside of downtown was also brought up. Terms such as residual parcels,
underutilized or undefined impervious areas, and last -mile connections need to be defined or clarified. A
concern was also raised about underground utilities being an equity issues because people in downtown will
clamor for it but other areas will not. Staff recommended moving this language to the Utilities Element. There
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 26, 2024 Page 2 of 3
was agreement that undergrounding utilities should be a citywide policy; there was debate about whether this
should just be on new development or retroactive.
A suggestion was made to organize this document in a way that lays out overarching goals for the city and also
prioritizes area -specific goals. Neighborhood action plans and the CIP/CFP were mentioned as ways of
prioritizing projects. Another recommendation was to identify which policies are new, which are existing, and
which are significant changes.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
There was agreement to move the draft DEIS to July 24 and pick up the Housing Element at the next meeting
along with a site -specific rezone request. They will try to fit Environment and Community Design in elsewhere.
If not, it will come back with the rest of the Comp Plan.
The group reviewed the timeline for the rest of the Comp Plan process and suggested they might need a
subcommittee or pairs of board members meeting outside of regular meetings to get through it all.
A concern was raised about the September 25 meeting being too full with the Preferred Plan presentation and a
public hearing on CIP/CFP. There was some discussion about the new budgeting process the City is
transitioning to and how the timing of that meshes with the 2025 CIP/CFP which will be based on the Comp
Plan. The 2026 CIP/CFP will be informed by the new Comp Plan information. The group expressed interest in
hearing about priorities in the 2025 CIP/CFP as well as justification for those priorities and how that aligns with
where they are at with the Comp Plan. There was some discussion about starting meetings a half hour earlier to
get through more topics.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board members expressed appreciation for the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 26, 2024 Page 3 of 3