Loading...
2024-08-06 Council Special Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES August 6, 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 (arrived at 5:01 pm) ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Neil Tibbott, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir. Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Steven Li, Board Member Judi Gladstone, Board Member Lee Hankins, Board Member Nick Maxwell, Board Member 1. CALL TO ORDER The special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin introduced Urban Design Planner Navyusha Pentakota and advised the consultant team is not present tonight in the interest of managing costs. As this is the first conversation with the council regarding the housing element, she recognized there would be questions and edits. Her goal tonight is to have a very constructive, productive discussion. She reviewed the agenda for tonight’s meeting, noting this is a review of the housing element in isolation, there may be things missing that are in other elements: • Tonight’s Agenda 1. Staff presentation (15 min max)  Why do we need to update the existing goals and policies?  Housing in Edmonds  Housing needs today  Public input  Goals and policies framework  Schedule 2. Planning board summary on housing feedback (10 min) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 2 3. Council roundtable on specific goals/policies (45 min) 4. General discussion (20 min) • The “Why” o Compliance with laws and regulations o Demographic change o Market trends o Removing outdated policies o Reduce redundancy improve efficiency • Snapshot of Edmonds housing supply • Community/stakeholder feedback o We heard from  Community  Development stakeholders  Organizations Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA)  Community champions  Citizens Housing Commission’s work • Housing Needs Today Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 3 • Public Input from Community Meetings • Connecting Back to Vision: Housing Element Guiding Principle • Housing Goals Framework Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 4 • Upcoming Key dates • EIS Schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 5 Ms. McLaughlin advised the packet includes a matrix of planning board comments and staff responses. Planning Board Chair Jeremy Mitchell asked the subcommittee (Planning Board Members Judi Gladstone, Steven Li and Lee Hankins) if they had reviewed the matrix and compared it to what was initially sent to staff. Board Member Gladstone said she reviewed it and it seemed the changes were made based on the planning board’s comments. Ms. McLauglin recalled suggesting if the subcommittee could review the matrix and if there were any red flag issues that weren’t addressed, they could be raised tonight. She advised this would not be the last time the planning board will see the housing element. Board Member Gladstone said the only new one that did not seem to hit the mark was the restatement of Policy H-3. She was unsure what was meant by the revised goal, “Ensure a net positive number of housing units per lot in activity centers, neighborhood centers and hubs.” Ms. McLaughlin said she anticipated robust discussion around this goal. There was a long conversation at the planning board around preservation of older housing stock, which Edmonds has a lot of, and whether that fills the need for housing diversity, retaining a more affordable housing option versus a single family home turning into a triplex which is one to three units. There are a lot of apartments and condominiums in the downtown activity center; some of which are older and not that attractive, but they provide affordable housing options for that part of the City. The goal is not to have a 50-unit development torn down and replaced with 10 luxury townhomes. Board Member Gladstone said what she was wondering about was the options included in the table. She recalled the planning board discussed the loss of existing affordable housing, exploring opportunities to support preservation of modest housing stock. That may be appropriate in multifamily but not in single family because replacing a house with a house is no net loss, but it does not necessarily accomplish affordability. Ms. McLaughlin said the intent is net positive, not net neutral, replacing one unit with two. She pointed out that goal only pertains to activity centers, neighborhood centers and hubs, areas that are already multifamily. Board Member Li said a lot of the subcommittee’s conversations were around organization of the goals, figuring out the main goals and how the policies supported the goal and a fair amount of wordsmithing. The subcommittee’s main goals were related to, 1) housing diversity and affordability and housing stock and physicality of buildings, 2) housing equity and how they impact future and current residents, and 3)the regulatory framework and how the policies come together. The subcommittee’s discussion was related to how the policies support housing diversity and housing equity. Getting into the policies and nuances was challenging as a lot of the policies interact and some counteract each other. The planning board hasn’t had a chance to hash out staff’s responses to the planning board’s comments. Board Member Hankins recalled a major discussion by the subcommittee was that the document as first presented focused heavily on low income and although an important segment, the approach wasn’t very Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 6 balanced and resulted in questions about what single family residences in Edmonds will look like in the future since it comprises 65% of the housing. It is very well said in the narrative section on page 2.1, “The City aims to foster balance equitable and sustainable housing market, recognizing Edmonds is unique in its historic…” which illustrates there is recognition of the unique nature of Edmonds’ neighborhoods, of Edmonds itself, and how to balance all those elements to create the environment residents want for the future. Ms. McLaughlin said the language is in the narrative, but the policies could be strengthened. Mayor Rosen invited councilmembers, by position, to state their top three. Councilmember Eck appreciated the comments about this being a balance. She thanked the planning department and planning board for the work they put into this and listening closely to public input. In thinking about what is good for the climate, she liked looking cautiously at setbacks and increased lot coverage, but pushing the boundaries where it make sense due to the need to create more affordable housing throughout Edmonds. She acknowledged the juggle and balance depending on the needs of the neighborhood. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the work done by the planning department and the hours of volunteer time devoted by the planning board. He asked about the financial impact of implementing these policies on staffing and City resources. For example, H-1.7, “Explore funding opportunities and grants to support the development of diverse housing types.” He agreed that was a good policy, but questioned the financial impact which is something that needs to be kept in mind. Second, with regard to Policy H-8.1, it was great to consider revising the Multi Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) program because the current program may benefit the developer more than the intent to provide affordable housing. One of the goals is to mandate developers set aside 25% of all units in a project for MFTE (currently it is 20%); he asked if there had been any feedback from the development community regarding whether that was doable or implementable. Third, with regard to Goal H-10, “Remove barriers and implement supportive development regulations,” he agreed that was needed to help affordable housing move forward. Policy H-10.1 refers to allowing lot combination, lot-line adjustment and subdivisions and consider adjusting lot coverage requirement to enable ADU and other middle housing. He wanted to ensure the language in that policy did not allow the reverse to happen, building one huge house rather than adding more units. Councilmember Dotsch thanked the planning department and planning board for their efforts. First, she pointed out the housing element contains a lot of urban planning jargon such as neighborhood life, placemaking strategies, etc., recalling part of the intent of the comprehensive plan update was to make it more user friendly. She noted the housing diversity included a push for co-housing and live-work although realtors have said that live-work devalue properties, makes them difficult to sell and would require staff to check business licenses. Co-housing is popular back east, but it is very dangerous for women. If the City pursues co-housing, she suggested asking about liabilities, if people would be put in harm’s way. She did not feel it was appropriate for a city like Edmonds to host that type of program at this time. Second, the policies under Goal H-2 contain a lot of transit language including high capacity transit. She recalled a discussion at the state level about the definition of a transit stop which makes it all of Edmonds, but a lot of the stops are not high capacity at this time. Lacking in that goal and in others is the environmental impacts such as tree retention, tree canopy, watersheds, clean drinking water, etc. Councilmember Dotsch continued, third, Goal H-3 refers to activity centers, the map illustrates an activity center from 9th to the waterfront and from Caspers to halfway between 220th and Bowdoin. That is a sloped, highly desirable single family area and she suggested removing the activity center designation from that area. Ms. McLaughlin responded that is the boundary of the existing downtown waterfront activity center in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Dotsch expressed concern a net positive number of housing units per lot was encouraged in activity centers which she felt would be very surprising to residents living in that area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 7 Council President Olson said her biggest point was regarding the guiding principle. She rewrote it in a way that incorporates the vision statement instead of being entirely new, “Edmonds encourages design standards and housing choices that together create a safe, charming and welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life, healthy lifestyles and access to the natural beauty of our community.” She acknowledged there were parts of the original vision statement that are not in that because they are not relevant for this element. With regard to quality of life, that includes privacy, space and light, socialization opportunities; safety includes eyes-on in neighborhoods, diverse housing options, and placemaking which are related to welcoming. She was concerned with not having the vision statement, that the City put so much time and effort into, front and center in each chapter. Council President Olson suggested the guiding principle for each chapter go back to the original vision statement and bring in concepts from the vision statement into the goals and policies. In doing that, some housing goals related to the vision statement are missing from the housing element. She did not object to goals in the element that are not in vision statement because they are goals. The goals need to reflect the goals the community identified, balanced with the goals in the vision statement and goals that aren’t reflected in the vision statement. The guiding principles need to come from the vision statement and the rest of goals either flow from the vision statement or do the best job of delivering on the vision statement. For example, that may mean requiring green space in affordable housing. Council President Olson said she liked a lot of things in the housing element such as Goal H-3 which was a totally new concept, but a good way of looking at some marginal increases. She also liked Policy H-6.3 regarding shared housing, commenting that is a good way for the community to achieve affordable housing in a way that works and looks and feels like the community. She suggested Policy 6.4 instead of being a separate policy, be a subjugated action item to Policy 6.3. Councilmember Paine thanked the planning board and others for their work. She referred to Goal H-5, “Foster access to quality housing for low income, differently abled impaired and senior residents” and H- 6, “Avoid actions that result in the displacement of existing residents, particularly low income and marginalized communities,” pointing out the need to avoid actions under Goal H-5 that result in displacement. She referred to H-8.1 regarding MFTE which provides some assistance but can also result in displacement. There need to be strategies that incorporated H-5 and H-6 so they do not compete with each other, such as fostering access to quality housing for low income and differently abled communities as well as considering the impacts. She wanted to have a program document that looked at that specifically to ensure progress was being made for the most vulnerable community. Councilmember Paine referred to the “dating game” that Chris Colliers, Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA), does matching jobs and incomes to affordable housing. She wanted to ensure the program design doesn’t compete. Overall it is really important to understand how MFTE will be used. She didn’t understand the market well enough to know when the City would get a lot of MFTE requests due to the current interest rates. As interest rates change, she wanted to ensure the City understood the market forces that impact MFTE use and ensure the City’s program hits the sweet spot. Councilmember Paine continued, her third issue was to ensure housing stability in the community that is supportive for existing residents. There are a lot of great mid-century housing in the City and there could be incentives to remodel or find ways to maintain smaller footprint homes and maintain the essential affordability of an existing home as well as green building bonuses to ensure the best sustainability to mitigate the impacts of heat extreme events. She requested staff send the PowerPoint to council. The PowerPoint addresses the income needed to purchase a home, but she also wanted to know the average rent in Edmonds and the income required for a 2 bedroom/1.5 bath apartment. Councilmember Nand thanked the community, planning board, and staff for their efforts. As an elected official, she was most interest in how to take aspirational statements and implement them in concrete policies in real life. She referred to Goal H-6, “Avoid actions that result in the displacement of existing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 8 residents, particularly low income and marginalized communities,” and pressure from state housing bills such as HB 1220 and 1110. She noted HB 1110 does have a carve out to preserve single family zoning for up to 25% for a specific target such as critical area and displacement as long as it is a community that wasn’t redlined. She immediately thought about Highway 99 where there is a very severe displacement risk for the ethnic minority community in that area; however, in 2017 council upzoned that area to CG. If the City wants to incorporate/implement the 25% allowed by HB 1110 for specific neighborhoods, she asked if that needed to be contiguous or can the City identify specific parcels, Councilmember Nand continued, under HB 1220 which targets specific AMIs, if there are properties already accommodating those AMIs in a stable manner such as manufactured home communities, could those be targeted and even though they are not single family zoned, were there any tools in HB 1220 to preserve them from gentrification and displacement. She was interested in programs that would put the City in line for grants from the Department of Commerce and specifically interested in converting manufactured home to resident occupants. She summarized she was interested in implementing anti-displacement aspirations. Councilmember Nand continued, her second comment was related to the guiding principle to have safe, affordable and dignified housing for all current and future residents. In light of the Grants Pass decision issued by SCOTUS that communities do not have an obligation to allow public camping and can sweep them out of the community, if there are properties already providing the minimum of a dignified place to sleep such some of the as motel properties along Highway 99, how does the City from a policy level ensure safe, dignified, accessible housing is preserved so people have somewhere to go when it’s raining and are not out in the cold. If those properties are the only ones in the City accommodating that need, the City should examine how much they want to incentivize developers to raze those and replace them with luxury townhomes. Councilmember Nand referred to Goal H-8, “Elevate, leverage and implement Housing Financing Opportunities,” commenting this would be an opportunity to reach out to regional partners. She referred to the Sno-Isle Libraries’ Mariner project that brings together a public library and mixed income housing, an opportunity to combine a public amenity with housing and getting another regional partner to help pay for it. She summarized those are the three policy goals she found most interesting and where elected officials can take concrete action to bring them to fruition in the community and to ensure the comprehensive plan isn’t just a document on a shelf, but is utilized in a way that benefits the community and honors the public process and what stakeholders are expressing. Councilmember Eck commented the housing element is a well worded document. As she thinks about the very thoughtful verbiage in the element about supporting those who may be displaced and at risk of becoming homeless, it may be helpful to commemorate somewhere in the document that partnering with churches and nonprofits has a cost. It is extremely important to develop trust with those in traumatic situations. Not only is it important to work with partners, but as Policy 6.1 states, it is important to establish local housing funds to ensure getting individuals into stable housing occurs effectively, gracefully and respectfully. Councilmember Chen commented another group of people that may need assistance is people fresh out of college and trying to accumulate a down payment. Setting aside funds for interest free loans, etc. to help that population may be beneficial. Councilmember Dotsch referred to HB 1110 and other middle housing bills, commenting the Department of Commerce has informed the City it can only count 48 units in 20 years and it’s not considered affordable and considered the same as single family housing. She questioned creating policies to over-emphasize something that will only allow 48 units in 20 years over single family unit housing. Single unit housing is still the most desirable type of home ownership. If policies are pushing for clear cutting lots and putting as many units on them as possible, she felt that was not an Edmonds kind of thing and environmentally, a lot Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 9 of the City’s parks are in these single family neighborhoods, but that is not reflected in the housing element. Edmonds is attractive due to nature right next to neighborhoods; she recalled a resident on 9th saying Edmonds is the land of 1000 gardens. She feared this is a hammer that is not needed, the City is not allowed to count them or only minimally. The element is very dominant in its inclusiveness of the state law that was touted as affordable, but now are told it is not in Edmonds. Councilmember Dotsch continued, it is important to be mindful that Edmonds is special and a different kind of community than Shoreline and Kirkland and residents have said they do not want to be like those places. She suggested taking what is required and blending that to make the community better. Ms. McLaughlin referred to Councilmember Dotsch’s reference to 48 units, explaining as part of HB 1220, the City’s housing distribution has to address housing typologies that exist in Edmonds today and that will be needed based on socioeconomic factors. Due to the cost of housing in Edmonds now, middle housing, lower density such as duplex or triplex, a low percentage of units would be allowed to be counted toward the housing needs in HB 1220 due to the affordability gap. However, a large number of the housing units the City will need, over 1700, are actually low to medium rise apartments and ADUs. She recalled the discussion with council how ADUs count toward lower income housing. The 48 Councilmember Dotsch referred to is very high end townhomes, duplexes or triplexes which would still sell in Edmonds for $1M+ which is not considered affordable. Council President Olson referred to Goals 12 regarding sustainability, pointing out there was no mention of the [inaudible] program and wondered if a policy should be added to educate applicants for retrofit and new construction about that program and its opportunities. Councilmember Paine pointed out along with sustainability, it is absolutely essential to maintain the regular housing stock in single family zones and ensure residents have the ability to do remodels. She hasn’t heard anything good about the [inaudible] program and feared it would be difficult to implement, but it may be something for staff to investigate. Councilmember Nand referred to the tree code, preservation of mature tree canopy, the climate action plan, GHG emissions, pointing out when existing housing stock is bulldozed and new developments constructed, there is a cost in GHG to the community. She asked how green building incentives are being accommodated versus preservation and retrofitting and whether it was possible to accommodate that within the same envelope and were any credits passed onto to developers who preserve and retrofit. Ms. McLaughlin answered it is a complex answer with a lot of factors, the regulatory factor – only so much can be regulated before it is a liability issue - incentivizing and development standards and strengthen the City’s critical area regulations to ensure tree retention is a priority. She referred to conservation subdivisions which allow different kinds of subdivisions and housing types, customizing their lots so it is not cookie cutter such as retaining a group of trees in a corner in exchange for customized site development There are a myriad things, and staff is looking at all of them. The City is establishing a citywide tree canopy goal as part of the climate action plan; when looking at the tree canopy goal as a whole and the benefits, private development loss has to be offset to allow for different housing choices while increasing the tree canopy in areas that the City manages. Councilmember Eck commented on the importance of looking at all housing options and types including micro units. Micro units are not for everyone, but adults fresh out of high school working locally may want to live in a situation where they share a kitchen and other amenities and potential even a bathroom with a small group of people. That could be a very affordable option for someone who is single and not making a lot of money. With regard to home sharing, she has some expertise in this including programs around the country for seniors. The beauty of that option is it doesn’t require building more housing, for seniors who have paid off their mortgages decades ago and cannot afford their utilities or taxes, they voluntarily work with an agency who thoroughly vets applicants and does deep background checks. It is usually someone of the same gender and the person who owns the home absolutely has to feel comfortable and the agency provides support for the people involved. Edmonds has a lot community members in that situation and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 10 shared housing would allow them to retain the property and greenery. She was particularly fond of the idea of shared housing and did not want to toss it out, envisioning there were college students who could help around house. Shared housing has worked successfully in other areas and there is a low breakup rate. The City likely would not oversee the program, but would contract with an agency. She encouraged the council to retain that an option for additional housing. Ms. McLaughlin commented co-housing was intended to be a generalized term; she asked if Councilmember Eck was recommending more specific language related to home sharing. Councilmember Eck agreed it could be high level, but home sharing or micro-housing could be examples of co-housing. Councilmember Chen referred to the 2044 goal set by the state of 28,073 units; the City’s current housing stock is about 19,300, a gap of about 9,000 units. With all the great programs and policies in the housing element, he asked if the City would exceed its goal via implementation of the housing element. He noted 9,000 units over 20 years is approximately 450 units/year which seems like a very low bar. Planning Board Vice Chair Lauren Golembiewski commented it was important to keep in mind that the goals and policies and unit counts are not directly tied to each other. The goals and policies can be considered aspirational and part of the overall vision without necessarily equating them to a number and equating it to quality of life. Even if the goals and policies do not add up to a number, it is adding to the growth of Edmonds and the direction residents want to go and not everything in the housing element has a direct relationship to a number in the housing stock. She also looks at the housing element as a tool box of things the City can use when developing code because everything is checked against the comprehensive plan, but not everything in the comprehensive plan will be implemented in the next 10 years. If the City did every single thing in the goals and policies, it’s likely the goal would be exceeded, but it is unlikely the City will do everything and it’s nice to have those options in the tool box. Ms. McLaughlin added GMA requires the City to enable the amount of housing that may come to Edmonds, but the City is not building the housing and what is developed is still the landowner’s choice within this land use framework. The City is fostering housing choices via the comprehensive plan, and whether new housing is 2800 or 800 over the next 20 years is difficult to say. The number one test is whether it could happen or is there something precluding it from happening and those barriers need to be identified to enable housing. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the goal related to maintaining existing housing stock, commenting if the goal is to tear down a house and build two or more houses, that does not really preserve affordable housing stock. She commented how things are written matter; if something is aspirational but the City doesn’t think it will be done, if it is written in the comprehensive plan, it is intended. If that is not the intent, it could be added later. She observed many of the goals and policies are very labor and cost intensive and could be added later. In looking at other cities’ housing elements, they have a lot of goals, but not as many policies. The number of policies seemed excessive and she hoped some could be eliminated or combined. Council President Olson referred to conversations in the public that came to council via email about oversized lots. She asked if someone does not want to subdivide a large lot, what other alternatives could be offered such as allowing more DADUs. She suggested looking at that because that process would be more affordable than the subdivision process. She referred to Policy 10.1 and asked what was mandated, whether it was the ADU and middle housing typologies or the lot combination, lot-line adjustment and subdivision. Ms. Pentakota answered ADUs and middle housing are mandated and City needs to explore options to achieve what the state has mandated. Council President Olson wanted to ensure it was not implying or encouraging those options without it being a real considered process through the legislative branch. She recalled big projects on Main Street that included combining lots, where there was no differentiation in the roofline and the result was a massive, unattractive structure. She wanted to be careful about that in the housing element. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 11 Councilmember Paine referred to Policy 8.1 regarding MFTE, and wanted to ensure MFTE was used properly and targeting the right people as well as having some accountability. People have mentioned to her that there are apartments available in MFTE buildings which she found odd because one wouldn’t think there would be vacancies, and she wanted to ensure the vacancies were not MFTE units. She was interested in having feedback to council regarding the MFTE program to ensure there wasn’t discrimination happening. She acknowledged it seemed over-regulatory which she was not happy about, but she wanted there to be some accountability to the comprehensive plan goals and policies. Councilmember Nand referred to Goal H-3, “Ensure a net positive number of housing units per lot in activity centers, neighborhood centers and hubs” and Policy H-3.1 “Explore the requirement of an equal or greater number of housing units when the property is redeveloped” which seemed somewhat skeletal. When redevelopment happens, particularly with high density, she found thoughtful and intentional inclusion of preserving green space, open space, and shade equity lacking. Where she lives, in close proximity to Highway 99, developers plant rows of box hedges between properties which are not beneficial other than privacy, children can’t play there, or a resident cannot walk their dog. If there was some type of master planning done for this type of redevelopment, a place for a park could be identified. She would like to have that expressed in the housing element, particularly when there is a net increase in housing units. When there is a net increase in housing units, green space, tree preservation, shady equity, etc. tend to be sacrificed. Ms. McLaughlin responded Goal H-2 talks about a similar concept, an incentive zoning program that would result in community dedicated spaces such as pocket parks, high quality public realm or on-site landscape features. Councilmember Nand commented on commonality between private properties. There are some older multifamily developments with a large allocation of green space within walking distance of her townhouse complex which has zero green space. For example, there could be a covenant that children in her complex could play in the other development’s green space. Councilmember Eck echoed Councilmember Nand’s comments as well as her earlier comment about paying particularly attention to displacement. She also supported requiring green spaces for children. Staff has done a great job including practical as well as aspirational goals and policies. She supported documenting what the City wants, commenting if it is not in writing, it gets lost. Councilmember Chen applauded staff’s efforts to document concepts such as Policy 10.6 “Develop pre- approved plans for ADUs for faster permitting.” He supported that policy, anticipating it would make it easier for people interested in developing an ADU. Councilmember Dotsch referred to a statement in the narrative, “Edmonds is unique in its historic character and natural beauty compared to the surrounding cities. It is essential to appreciate its identity and incorporate new developments without losing the city's uniqueness.” She suggested adding a goal and policies to support Edmonds uniqueness and desirability which is why people choose to live in Edmonds. That is one of the community’s overarching goals and should be included. With regard to if something is not in writing it gets lost, Council President Olson said the current comprehensive plan states views are important to the community, something that has not changed. The vision statement refers to access to natural beauty, but possibly views need to be mentioned specifically. With regard to pre-approved AUD plans, she suggested those be approved by ADB as well as staff. With regard to Policy 1.4, she suggested council needs more information regarding how live-work developments affect the current commercial and BD zones. The council also needs more information regarding MFTE because they do not understand it well enough. She suggested looking at alternatives for additional height such as for affordability and not MFTE which shifts the tax burden to others. Regarding co-housing, she would like to share what she knows about co-housing on more established units similar to a condo association, built in a thoughtful way with shared and private spaces. She summarized co-housing would be a great thing to explore. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 12 Councilmember Paine thanked Vice Chair Golembiewski for her comment about the overarching vision, a great way to honor the look and feel of Edmonds and where growth can be accommodate. There are some areas with park deficits which are well delineated in the PROS Plan. As Councilmember Chen said, this is a 20 year plan and the City has options. Councilmember Nand thanked staff and the planning board for all their hard work. She requested the intentionality toward preserving green belts be expressed as an opportunity for human residents to enjoy the natural beauty of Edmonds as the housing stock and density increase. The Highway 99 community benefits from the greenbelts around Lake Ballinger, the cemetery, etc. and they provide opportunity for enrichment and wonderment for all generation. She supported providing thoughtful suggestions that make sense for developers’ profit margins as well as residents who are seeking to maintain quality of life. Council President Olson suggested planning board members have an opportunity to speak. Board Member Harding agreed this is a 20 year plan. It is difficult from an aspirational standpoint to determine what is today and what is in 20 years. Growth will come from the middle housing areas and providing options for meeting that growth is the focus of the housing element. The planning board is very aware of the City’s fiscal constraints; many of the items that were initially discussed and identified as define or develop were changed to explore, Board Member Gladstone, referred to Policy H-8.4, one of the only policies with “shall” in it. It talks about developing an in-lieu fee program that promotes development of affordable housing. The City needs to examine all possible tools due to the challenge of meeting some of the goals. There may be some downsides to an in-lieu fee program that City needs to look at before adopting it. Ms. McLaughlin said she had intended to change that. Board Member Li commented 20 years ago, housing cost less than half of what it costs now. Looking ahead 20 years, median home prices may be $1.8-$2 million. There is urgency to make decisions to allow the City to get ahead of price increases rather than playing catch up for the next 20 years. Twenty years is a long time but a lot can change in 20 years and the City needs to be proactive instead of reacting to changes. Vice Chair Golembiewski commented on the juxtaposition between preserving housing stock and increasing the number of units and how to balance that in this element. That is the biggest challenge, avoiding having existing older homes torn down, but still adding units, how to ensure those policies support each another. She viewed that as a conflict in the overall approach, increasing the number of units on existing parcels, but at the same time not tearing down existing housing stock. The ADUs are a good solution. Ms. McLaughlin recalled the planning board’s robust discussion about that resulted in the net positive policy Planning Board Chair Mitchell commented the comprehensive plan is an evolving, living document and it doesn’t necessarily have to be perfect in December because it can always be updated. Councilmember Dotsch requested an in-person open house instead of online at some point, commenting that was something the community is interested in. Councilmember Chen commented the City spent money for the contractors and at some point he would like to have the contractors involved. 6. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the special council meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 13