Loading...
2024-08-20 Council Special Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES August 20, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Lee Hankins, Board Member Nick Maxwell, Board Member STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Rosen in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Mayor Rosen described the procedures for the presentation and council questions and discussion. Urban Design Planner Navyusha Pentakota explained the intent of this meeting was to get council input. She reviewed: • Agenda o Staff presentation (15 min max)  What is land use – requirements  Why do we need to update the existing goals and policies  Key land use changes for the 2044 update  Land uses in Edmonds  Public input from the community meetings  Goals and policies framework  Schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 2 o Planning board summary on land use committee feedback (10 min) o Council roundtable on specific goals/policies (45 minutes) • What is land use element o Mandatory element in comprehensive plan • Land use element requirements o The land use element of urban planning involves comprehensive planning for various land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and recreation areas  Details guidelines on population densities and building intensities  Emphasis on environmental justice and public health equity’  Aims to reduce single occupancy vehicle usage  Accounts for infrastructure needs and green spaces  Aims to create a balance, sustainable and safe environment for all • Why update this element o Compliance with laws and regulations o Demographic changes o Market trends o Removing outdated policies o Reduce redundancy o Improve efficiency • Changing Trends in Land use o Changing Trends  Mixed-Use Development: integration of residential, commercial and recreational uses  Placemaking: Focus on vibrant public spaces  Environmental Considerations: Green infrastructure and resilience planning o Changing needs and Issues  Affordable Housing: Addressing the housing crisis.  Equity & Inclusion: Ensuring access and addressing historical inequities.  Mobility: Multimodal transportation and reduced car dependency.  Community Engagement: Collaborative planning with community input o Impact of Changing Demographics  Aging Population: Senior-friendly design.  Cultural Diversity: Culturally responsive planning.  Younger Generations: Preference for urban living and walkability o Key Concerns Today  Growth vs. Sustainability: Balancing development with environmental protection.  Gentrification: Mitigating displacement.  Adapting to climate change impacts.  Planning for sustainable, modern infrastructure.  Land Use Conflicts: Managing competing interests (e.g., open space vs. development) • House bills applied – Single family zones Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 3 • Community Feedback Summary o Public Input from community meetings  Outline specific mitigation efforts to manage the increased density.  Address parking, traffic flow, and stormwater management to maintain livability.  Apply consistent standards for all types of development to ensure fairness and environmental sustainability.  Explicitly designate areas like Marina Beach Park, the Unocal parcel, Edmonds Marsh, and the fish hatchery/demonstration garden as Open Space.  While affordable housing is necessary, it should not compromise the quality of established neighborhoods.  Incentives must be balanced with protection for community character and livability.  Changes to business district zoning should be communicated transparently to stakeholders, including local businesses. Ensure that small businesses can thrive alongside residential developments.  Manage growth carefully to avoid overdevelopment.  Limiting building heights and ensure adequate infrastructure to help preserve Edmonds's suburban feel and historic character  Integration and Connectivity: - Foster a cohesive community, new developments should incorporate small footpaths and bicycle paths that connect neighborhoods to key destinations such as schools, hospitals, and stores.  Natural Resources: - CARAs and other critical areas are not protected enough/not mentioned enough in LU policies - Policy for daylighting Willow Creek missing.  Open Spaces: - More public space to accommodate all the growth the city is planning for.  Incentives Program: - Green incentives should be highlighted more - Incentives for restoring historic structures - Zoning should be reassessed to allow fair development opportunities. Simplify the rules and providing clear guidelines will attract developers while ensuring responsible growth  Parking: - Resistance to reduced parking requirements especially for multifamily apartments. - Goals of reducing cars and freedom of movement will decrease the success of small local businesses. - Residents are going to have to deal with more traffic, congestion and parking problems because the City refuses to provide more public parking and require more parking for new development.  Downtown: - Clarify FLU designation of Downtown Mixed use - Make core- 5th street a pedestrian only area; paid parking in downtown - Restricting parking to handicapped at the waterfront.  Waterfront and Marsh - UNOCAL be marked as Open Space - Add a Sea Level Rise Risk Area (as King County has done) and extend coastal floodplain regulations to that area.  Funding: Comments pertaining to both increased tax burden and existing fiscal crisis - Too many actions require citizen tax dollars: decreased impact fees, MHA Program, rental assistance, MFTE, Homeless Assistance programs Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 4 - Money required for improving road infrastructure to accommodate growth - No fiscal constraints while developing policy: test all policies against what city can realistically afford. • Connecting back to Vision: Land Use Element Guiding Principle • Land Use Goals and Framework • Upcoming Key Dates Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 5 Key Dates Discussion Topic End of August (date to be confirmed) DEIS to be issued Mid-September DEIS Public Webinar (Comment period through September) September 25th DEIS Comment Summary – Planning Board October 1 DEIS Comment Summary – City Council October 9 & 23 Preferred Alternative & Final Plan Discussion with Planning Board October 29, November 4 Preferred Alternative & Final Plan Discussion with City Council Council President Olson requested the presentation slides be sent to the planning board and city council. Planning Board Summary Vice Chair Lauren Golembiewski explained the biggest takeaway from the small group was formatting from the previous version to this version, it seemed like there were a lot of good ideas in different elements related to specific areas of Edmonds and those being a good idea everywhere The group tried to identify those and discussed having an overarching citywide section and reorganizing. Staff has taken that feedback and reorganized the element so that it makes more sense now and is in the right track. Chair Jeremy Mitchell said he liked the revisions so far. There were a couple items he wanted more clarity on such as LU-11 and asked if it could emphasize mitigating the canyon effect of building facades along streets via the use of floor stepbacks, façade articulation and similar techniques. He recognized that was part of the development code, but restating it in the comprehensive plan seems to makes sense and that was a big goal of the community too. Chair Mitchell continued, from the joint economic development commission (EDC) and planning board meeting earlier this year regarding not displacing existing commercial spaces. He was unsure if the development code has an established minimum commercial square footage standards; that could potentially be beneficial for retaining the existing quantity of commercial spaces so when new development occurs, four tenants are not replaced with one large one. He suggested language such as, “Establish minimum commercial square footage standards in hubs and centers to preserve the existing quantity of commercial spaces.” Planning Board Member Lee Hankins commented the agenda states tonight is not the time to make financial decisions on goals and policies and that the document is still in development. The element is definitely headed in the right direction but there is a section on centers and hubs, LU-3, and a policy on centers and hubs, LU-1.8, so things are still a little out of order. It is a vast improvement, but it should not be expected that everything is understandable and makes sense and ready for a final decision. It was his understanding this meeting was to orient the planning board and city council to issues which will become clearer as the review continues. With regard to Chair Mitchell’s comment, Ms. Pentakota advised policies were included on prioritizing access through side streets and not having gigantic front facades. Possibly that language needs to be refined to make it more efficient. With regard to the percentage of commercial vs. residential in mixed use, she was hoping to get data for this meeting, but the consultants are still working on it. When the future land use discussion occurs, there will be a discussion on what low density and high density means and how to balance those with commercial in centers and hubs. That is being worked on now, standards will need to be set to ensure commercial space doesn’t decrease or residential does not dominate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 6 Acting Planning & Development Shane Hope cautioned against making the comprehensive plan the regulations. Specific measurements usually belong in the regulations, not the comprehensive plan. Policies like encourage existing businesses to stay, try to reduce displacement, etc. belong in the comprehensive plan. Council Roundtable Councilmember Dotsch said when she read the element, it is kind of all over the place at a 30,000 foot level and then specific detail, she feared it was trying to do too many things. She recommended clear policy language and not minutia. A lot of the minutia is very staff and money focused and she cautioned against getting into the weeds and committing to creating departments, staff or funds. The element also contains a lot of planning jargon. She watched a Department of Commerce video that said the public should be informed and brought along, and the element needs to be understood without a lot of planning jargon. She was not sure how to interpret with that much jargon and interpretation will be very important to avoid it being too vague, jargony or broad. Council President Olson relayed a comment from a resident, to not allow residential-only zoning around the International District that is anchored by Ranch Market and establish minimum density and other elements that support building that area into a dynamic uptown center. That is touched on in the current goals but more needs to be done. There are a lot of cul-de-sac neighborhoods and she wondered about including a policy in the comprehensive plan about pedestrian access and making things more walkable and allowing pedestrian passthroughs on private property and incentives that encourage that. To Ms. Hope’s point, she recognized that may be addressed subsequently in the development code. Councilmember Paine agreed with statements that have been made so far, particularly Ms. Hope’s comment about keeping this at an upper policy level and not be so prescriptive about identifying everything. It is important to stay at the community level and not get into the weeds. Like Councilmember Dotsch said, there are some very fine details that probably don’t need to be included. She appreciated reading the element, noting there is some good stuff and some stuff that needs elevation and editing. Councilmember Nand referred to Goal LU-9, “Enable Hwy 99 Subarea’s transition from single-use – highway-oriented commercial uses to mixed use, walkable environment.” While that is an admirable goal, she proposed adding “while preserving a minimum parking ratio per residential unit” to Policy LU-9.2. Parking is one of the top topic that councilmembers hear about. Bills that failed in the state legislature that allow apartments with up to 6 stories of residential without any parking will likely be brought back in the next session. Parking is already at such as premium, especially in the Gateway area, that she was concerned with Edmonds signaling they were okay with becoming the next Capitol Hill when that is not necessarily reflective of Edmonds residents who councilmembers are elected to represent. She suggested rewording to advocate for minimum parking ratios for residential. She recognized some people, especially the younger generation, will opt not to have a car and use public transportation, but someone who rides a bike in their 20s may need a minivan in their 40s because they had kids or ADA parking in their 60s. Maintaining the option to have a car if one needs it would better serve the community. Vice Chair Golembiewski said there are several policies related to parking in various elements of the comprehensive plan. Personally she wants to move environmental sustainability forward and get away from dependency on single occupancy vehicles and the idea of leveraging the Sound Transit station and allowing reduced parking in proximity to that station makes sense, but at the same time, she has kids, drives a big car and understands the practicality. She recalled there was a policy about not tying parking spaces to a lease so someone who didn’t need parking wasn’t paying for it. Not forcing people to have a parking space may help gauge the need for parking. She summarized there are different parking needs in different areas. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 7 Council President Olson referred to Zipcars and how to set up that operation. She envisioned there were a lot of people who need a car occasionally and would give up their personal vehicle if they had access to a Zipcar when they wanted one. She suggested setting up something in Edmonds that supported the availability of Zipcars or multifamily garages have a certain number of Zipcars, envisioning that may change people’s minds about owning and insuring their own car. Councilmember Paine asked if she was thinking of a Zip shuttle. Council President Olson said she was not. Ms. Hope said having policies that address that balance without talking about exact numbers or formulas would be helpful. There are multiple ways to implement the comprehensive plan at more detailed level including via regulations and design standards and infrastructure choices or programs/partnership the City undertakes. Working with companies that provide Zipcar type services could be a program type action the City was involved in and maybe a policy could be included that refers to that. Ms. Pentakota advised there is a policy like Ms. Hope referenced in the transportation element because parking is addressed in that element with its own goals and policies. There was discussion of having minimum standards and parking management strategies and plan for the neighborhood centers and hubs in the land use element, but they were included in the transportation element. Councilmember Eck said what she sees through the element is balance, growth versus preservation, parking versus doing the right thing for environment. She commended the planning board for their input and the planning department for listening. She hoped the public took notice of that, commenting this was not a drastic document. The City has a duty to deal with what’s happening now and build a City everyone wants to live in in the future. She acknowledged this had been lot of heavy lifting because these are very tough issues. Councilmember Chen recognized the element was still a work in progress and that a lot of energy and knowledge have gone into it. He referred to LU-9, commenting that was a good policy approach. He pointed out the opening of light rail August 30 will accelerate the need for east west connections to the light rail. He suggested seeking federal funds to build an overpass at Ranch Market/228th area, one of the busiest intersections on the corridor, and suggested adding that to the policy statements. Councilmember Nand commented that was a that wise prognostication by Councilmember Chen, especially seeking federal funding. That would be a great opportunity for cooperation with Mountlake Terrace, the closest light rail station, as well as Shoreline and Lynnwood which will help diffuse some of the pedestrian and public transportation traffic that will be offloading from Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood light rail stations to density points like southeast Edmonds and other places with significant workforce housing. Councilmember Dotsch said she attended the presentation in May at the high school, noting it was challenging to provide feedback with only an hour for each element. The language presented today looks about the same as was presented then and she was curious how the public input had been incorporated in this element. Ms. Pentakota assured it was not the exact same language, a lot of changes have been made in the last couple weeks. Feedback was not just taken at that one-day presentation, the community was given two weeks to provide comments which were used to address key concerns. Some comments will be addressed when regulations and standards are developed as well as in the future land use maps. The comprehensive plan goals and policies are just statements; she invited Councilmember Dotsch to highlight anything in particular she wanted to see changed. Councilmember Dotsch referred to goal LU-11 regarding residential neighborhoods, recalling there was plenty said by the community related to challenges with changing single family neighborhoods in Edmonds for a variety of reasons. The way the policies are written seem to promote Seattle-style tall skinny development. The language in HB 1110 was very specific that middle housing was buildings compatible in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 8 scale, form and character with single family homes. That was the feedback the legislature got as well, when expanding single family to accommodate all these varieties of housing, the goal was to have the same form and character and allow for things like duplexes, quadplexes, etc. She feared the proposed language could be interpreted in much more aggressive way to allow for heavier development in neighborhoods when that is not what the community wants as well as the environmental impacts from expanding lot coverage and changing setbacks. She pointed out 70% of the tree canopy is on single family lots so she wanted to be mindful of changes and putting so much emphasis on that types of housing. She recalled the Department of Commerce saying middle housing is the same cost as single family and not allowing Edmonds to count more than 40 units in the next 20 years. She felt a lot of the goals and policies were written with that in mind versus using less forceful language pushing toward that type of development in neighborhoods. Councilmember Dotsch continued, relaying her understanding the comprehensive plan has to allow for duplexes, but the original idea was maintaining the footprint. She summarized she wanted to think about shaping single family neighborhood in all areas of Edmonds. Ms. Pentakota offered to relook at the language. She highlighted the fact that there is no more single family; the state bills made it clear that all parcels should allow at least two units, ADU or middle housing units, which will change single family zoning to low density residential, medium density residential and high density residential. That will be considered further with the future land use designation discussion. HB 1110 also requires the City to allow 6 of the 8 middle housing typologies which is one of reasons for changes in the regulations. There was a policy in the past about allowing heights up to 85 feet; following discussion by the planning board, those policies were removed. but adding development in different ways without increasing heights. She offered to reconsider the language to make it more clear, pointing out there are certain regulations and mandatory regulations that must be followed especially related to single family residential zones. Councilmember Dotsch responded the language is very specific. Ms. Pentakota reiterated her offer to relook at the language. Councilmember Dotsch said things can still be built, but heights in single family do not have to be 35 or 40 feet. For example a duplex can be built in the same footprint as a single family house. She said that is one of the challenges in Edmonds especially due to slopes, corridors, trees, light, etc. She wanted to be very mindful of the language that is included in the comprehensive plan. Council President Olson referred to the comment about some goals and policies taking a 5-foot view versus others taking a 20,000 foot view. For example the LU-20s goals and policies refer to specific partnerships and volunteer programs which seems pretty micro versus some of the others that take a higher level view. She suggested consistency throughout the document so the viewpoint is from the same level. She referred to the idea of transitions in residential neighborhoods under the LU-11s, LU-8 and LU-3 that refer to neighborhood centers and hubs, commenting this may be something that should apply everywhere. For example, the way transitions occur from the business center and what is put next to commercial; maybe right next to commercial it would be fine to have multifamily, but if the very next parcel is single family that does not provide a transition. She suggested the policies related to neighborhood centers and hubs address the definition of transitions and near single family it be something like a garden apartment that integrates better. Councilmember Dotsch referred to transition language in Policy LU-3.7. Council President Olson suggested adding green space to LU-3-7, as development gets closer to single family, multifamily development has more green space so it seems more like it belongs next to single family. She thanked the team for the reference to topography and framing views where possible in LU-2.3 and 2.4. Councilmember Nand asked if Edmonds wanted to pursue something like designation of groves or greenbelts that are protected from development as properties flip and turn over, would that be addressed in the comprehensive plan, at the regulations level, or how would the City go about that. Ms. Hope clarified Councilmember Nand’s question, whether she was asking about designation of streets for landscaping. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 9 Councilmember Nand clarified her question was about existing stands of trees or greenbelts that may be changed by subdivision or development, if the City wanted to designate or protect those so development happens around those and those natural assets are preserved, whether that would be addressed in the comprehensive plan or regulations. Ms. Hope answered it would not be necessary in the comprehensive plan; if anything was included in the comprehensive plan, it should be a high level policy such as look into how greenbelts or existing stands of trees can be preserved. She cautioned against getting down to the detail level and making assumptions in the comprehensive plan that can’t be addressed in the regulations due to a number of factors including private property rights, etc. Vice Chair Golembiewski said there is language in LU-14 about preserving undeveloped public properties as public open space, that City-owned property should not be relinquished, etc. Councilmember Nand commented Kirkland has neighborhood covenants not to take down trees in groves. Councilmember Paine referred to LU-8, “Strengthen and expand the creative identify of the Edmonds Downtown Creative District,” relaying her understanding the Creative District cannot be expanded as it is a specific designation, but it should be a goal to have creative hubs across the entire city to highlight and show off things the community does well. She asked Vice Chair Golembiewski if this was one of the things she was referring to as a good idea citywide. Vice Chair Golembiewski answered it wasn’t necessarily. She referred to LU-8.2, “Add flexibility for creative uses, including retail, small-scale production spaces and live work uses” as a broad statement, not to create Creative Districts citywide but expand live-work and creative uses. Councilmember Paine wanted to have businesses in areas where people live and work and maintain the quality that so many people appreciate of locally owned businesses throughout the City. She suggested encouraging that at the comprehensive plan level. Councilmember Nand said she generally liked the idea of exploring other districts. She was unsure if this lives in the comprehensive plan, but some of the things Seattle has been able do in their high density areas such as metropolitan districts that address specific concerns that residents and businesses are facing. For example on Highway 99, reducing conflicts between residents, business and the unhoused, vulnerable populations that need services. She suggested that could be an aspiration in the housing element, wraparound services for certain populations. She was unsure that was something to include in the comprehensive plan, but she wanted to express the daily pressure that residents and business owners experience that is unique to the Highway 99 Subarea. Ms. Pentakota advised there is a policy in the community design element to develop neighborhood action planning frameworks. Once the comprehensive plan is adopted, the intention is to develop neighborhood action plans that talk specifically about concerns and opportunities for each of the neighborhood center and hubs including the three districts along the Highway 99 corridor. It is important to identify the unique opportunities and challenges which vary by each area. Councilmember Nand explained when Seattle began facing some of these issues in the 1990s, it created the Metropolitan Improvement District, which could receive block grant funding from the Seattle City Council to create a Downtown Seattle Association to keep downtown areas clean and ensure people who need services are connected to services including residents and businesses who are impacted by the unhoused population. This will need attention as density increases regionally in Snohomish County and wondered if that was an aspiration to include in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Chen pointed out Edmonds aspires to be a city that will be beautiful for generations to come and apply the equity lens to how land is used. In 2017, the Highway 99 Subarea Plan upzoned the entire corridor to 75’ and higher density. He agreed that area had potential for higher density, but singling out that area created a different feel and density/land use compared to the rest of the City. Now there is an opportunity look at land use for the next 20 years, a golden opportunity to address this imbalance. There is high density, high crime, affordable housing, the food bank is moving to Highway 99, Snohomish County’s Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 10 bridge housing, etc.; everything is centered on Highway 99 which creates an imbalance. The 2017 Subarea Plan also created a program where high rise 7-story, 75’ buildings could be right next to single family housing without any transitional zoning. This is an opportunity to reconsider that. Highway 99 is a neighborhood, it is not all high rise buildings. He referred to Mill Creek Town Center, such a cute, nice, clean and attractive area, commenting that could happen on Highway 99 as well. Councilmember Tibbott referred to Ms. Pentakota’s comment about different typologies of housing. He asked how many typologies there are, what they are and how they apply to low, medium and high density areas to provide a better understanding of the type of housing to choose from or to expect in those zones. Ms. Pentakota answered the typologies being considered are duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, 5-plexes,cottage homes, low and mid-rise apartments. A final decision has not been made regarding which of the six of the eight typologies will be chosen; that is still pending discussion as the regulations are made and decisions made regarding HB 1110. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that of the eight, the City can choose six and all six would be available in any zone. Ms. Pentakota answered that is something the City can regulate; for example, 4-plexes could be allowed in neighborhood centers and only duplexes or triplexes allowed in hubs. The City can choose where to allow the typologies as long it achieves the required capacity. That will be discussed as part of the future land use designations; for example, what typologies are included in low density, medium density, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that was a policy or regulation. Ms. Pentakota answered maybe a regulation. Councilmember Tibbott said it would help to provide a picture of what the zones will look like based on the housing typologies that would be allowed. To the extent that is a policy statement, it would be helpful for the comprehensive plan and for the community. Ms. Pentakota said they will try to make that as clear as possible during that discussion. Councilmember Dotsch expressed interest in a redline version of the existing comprehensive plan and what has changed. If the intent is an update and not a rewrite, she wanted to see what was being updated in the existing comprehensive plan. Ms. Pentakota referred to a matrix in the council agenda packet showing the current status of the existing goals and policies and whether it has been modified or stayed the same. Councilmember Dotsch said a redline would be a clearer way to review it. She sees a lot of changes, many that are not subtle. Councilmember Dotsch wanted it to be clear Highway 99 is a commercial area. Having had her practice in Shoreline and going through their process and talking with councilmembers after meetings, she did not want Edmonds to follow in their footsteps. She wanted to be mindful where tax revenues are coming from; replacing commercial with residential changes the economics. Some of the thoughts about Highway 99 are how to blend commercial and the desirability of places to go. With so much housing in Shoreline, they do not have places to go, they all come to Edmonds. Shoreline didn’t include commercial and are now trying to backtrack, but unfortunately a lot of smaller businesses are not able locate in the new developments other than corporate type businesses. Many of the neighborhood business districts are quite small and are becoming mixed use, even the sections of Highway 99 are small. She wanted to be mindful about how housing along with businesses is developed. Councilmember Dotsch continued, Edmonds has an eclectic business environment and businesses want to come to Edmonds; she wanted to be careful to retain commercial and not change to a housing first model in the commercial cores. One of the desirable things about Edmonds is places where people can stop and shop such as neighborhood commercial areas including Highway 99. She emphasized the City’s economic needs beyond bedrooms and being conscious of that as the policies are designed and the community grows, that residential does not strangle out business and commercial uses that are attractive and vital to the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 11 With regard to the language about cars with new development, Councilmember Dotsch relayed when talking with people who live in the apartments in the Schoolhouse District of Woodinville which has shared parking, they have one parking space and if they have a second car, they have to leave by 10 am every day so businesses can utilize the parking. With housing next to commercial, for the commercial to survive, people have to be able to access it and for the most their customers do not live within a few blocks. The idea that Edmonds can be less car dependent is still a work in progress. Edmonds is an aging community and needs parking for disabled individuals as well as parking for young families who have cars. Edmonds is still on the outskirts and light rail is not adjacent. The idea of creating density without parking, although there may be transit that can reduce the reliance of cars, there still a lot of people who rely on cars. Councilmember Eck agreed with the extremes, the City can fall into a pit, for example replacing commercial businesses along Highway 99. The EDC is finding itself challenged with how to attract businesses. The City is lucky to have mom & pop businesses, car dealerships, a lot of great restaurants and a lot of culture, but there is little diversity in the type of businesses; it is important to diversify the City’s revenue sources. Mixed use housing includes shops on the first floor with housing above as well as a village-like shopping center with adjacent homes like Mill Creek Town Center. A variety of things can be done to improve the look and economic health of the area while adding housing. She agreed it shouldn’t be drastic, but diversifying the type of revenue and growing it would be healthy along with adding additional housing types. Councilmember Dotsch agreed, but one of the biggest things is retaining commercial. The idea of constructing mixed use with commercial space on the first floor and the same businesses returning is not usually the case. Mill Creek Town Center is a mix of uses that includes commercial and medical. She liked the reference to light industry in the land use element, noting medical is another opportunity to bring businesses to Edmonds. In talking with the Chamber president, they do not have enough space for businesses downtown or in the neighborhood centers. She wanted to ensure the addition of residential did not strangle the opportunity to attract a variety of businesses. Council President Olson referred to LU-2.7, related to the Green Street manual, relaying the council saw the Green Street manual, but never approved it. If it is used as the basis in one of the policies, approval is a step that is still needed. She suggested rephrasing LU-2.7 based on the experience when there were two proposals in the CIP for Green Streets and when push came to shove, they were so expensive and not a priority for the communities where they would be installed so they did not move forward. Making an assumption in the policy that Green Streets would be used with all the transportation and stormwater projects seems to be an overstatement of reality. She suggested rewriting the policy to read, “Consider the content of the Green Street manual when designing transportation and stormwater projects citywide.” That will provide an opportunity to use the manual but does not commit the City to that approach if it doesn’t make sense. Areas with Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) may be places where a Green Streets project should be considered due to the potential to address stormwater issues with such a project. Councilmember Nand relayed she has heard that the retail in mixed-use is difficult to lease and is not as popular as strip mall or standalone commercial spaces. Ms. Pentakota responded changes have happened in the past several years; a lot of commercial only or shopping center only areas are being rezoned as mixed use with retail and residential uses. It is new for smaller cities that are used to the strip mall concept, but there are many examples of areas that have successfully transitioned. Ms. Hope said strip mall type development has fallen out of favor in a lot of places because it does not offer the walkability that people want today. She agreed it was a balance. With regard to strip mall versus mixed use development, Chair Mitchell said the problem with comparing a strip mall to mixed use is a strip mall with a frontage parking lot is not a resilient development because Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 12 having 1-2 businesses close could cripple the whole strip mall whereas a mixed use building that loses one business on the ground floor still has upper floor uses to support the development. Councilmember Nand said she was not necessarily hostile to mixed use, she lived in a development in Northgate with 24 Hour Fitness as the anchor tenant with three floors of residential above. She suggested being mindful when changing from wholly commercial to mixed use with anchor tenants so that it makes sense for the people who live there and considering whether the business can attract people from the surrounding neighborhoods. She has heard from people that mixed use developers have a hard time attracting retail. Councilmember Paine recalled the City had an economic study done of the BD1 and BD2 areas which included an analysis of turnover, although that was done when interest rate were lower. She asked how the economy has changed that dynamic. She recalled at that time the turnover in the downtown area was very swift; as soon as one business closed, the space was back on the market. Ms. Pentakota answered she did not have that data, but could check with Mr. Tatum. Councilmember Eck pointed out once the zoning changes, everything will not happen overnight as it is subject to the market and transformation will occurs over time. She took heart in that; change is hard but is something that people can adapt to particularly with regard to mixed use on Highway 99 or other changes that seem significant. Having a mix of different business types and mixed use will be healthy for the City. Councilmember Chen commented Edmonds is a beautiful coastal city with a unique character. With regard to diversifying the City’s revenue sources, Edmonds has a beautiful waterfront, but only one hotel. He asked if there was any thoughts about increasing the number of waterfront hotels to attract more tourism to the area. Ms. Pentakota responded in community meetings, the community is opposed to hotels. When developing the waterfront vision, there was support for recreational activities, small scale retail, coffee shops, and other pedestrian level activities that create the vibrant character of the waterfront but people were totally against any mixed use residential or hotel. If there is interest among councilmembers, that can be discussed further. So far nothing has been done to designate land for hotels in that area. Mayor Rosen recalled council action a few years ago to allow hotels on the waterfront with some limitations. He noted city hall would make a beautiful boutique hotel as it already has the height and square footage. Opportunities for boutique hotels should be encouraged, but it would need to pencil out and be within the character. With regard to transition zones, Councilmember Tibbott said there were two different kinds, first, transitions that occur between zones such as higher density, middle density and lower density. He was on the planning board when the Highway 99 Subarea Plan was developed; at that time there was discussion about not having transition zones in favor of having wider sidewalks and streets which is why the City ended up with what it did and the moratoriums that were proposed. That experience demonstrated the importance of having transition zones, but it was not clear how to incentivize that. He suggested that as a policy statement. Councilmember Tibbott continued, the second type of transition is within areas already zoned for medium density. There are areas on SR-104 where great development is happening with smaller apartments, multifamily units and condos on lots previously occupied by a triplex. He wonder if areas like that within the City have been identified where substantial headway could be made in new housing typologies that do not currently exist. He recognized that may not fit with the hub concept because SR-104 is not a hub, but a lower use moving to a better use. Ms. Pentakota responded areas for growth that are not currently identified as centers and hubs have been identified, especially on SR-104. How to designate those areas hasn’t been finalized and with Ms. Hope on board, she anticipated that discussion would occur this week or next with the consultants as part of the future land use map designations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 13 Councilmember Tibbott commented that will be really important because as Councilmember Eck said, the transformation will happen slowly over a number of years, yet there are some places in the City that could more easily move from a lower use to a better use. In some cases, the lower use has been there for 50-60 years, built when they were in Snohomish County, and could be redeveloped into something better than the subpar housing or commercial centers. It would be helpful to incentivize those transitions. Councilmember Tibbott recalled in 2016/2017, the planning board also talked about the difference between mixed use and a mix of uses. A mix of uses on a commercial property might have four stories of residential behind two stories of commercial. He was unsure if that typology would be helpful in Edmonds, but it could theoretically provide transition and modulation. Ms. Hope responded it would be better to address that in the regulations. Mixed use can refer to a number of variations including vertical mixed use, horizontal mixed use, in the same building or somewhere nearby. The exact standards that would apply would be contained in the regulations. She relayed her understanding that Councilmember Tibbott wanted to ensure the opportunity for different types of mixed use was not precluded. Councilmember Tibbott agreed and suggested identifying areas of the City where that type of development would be appropriate. Ms. Hope cautioned once the comprehensive plan is adopted, there will be a continuation of codes, regulations and design standards as well as future opportunities to revisit the comprehensive plan. While the intent is to get as much as possible included in this update, she cautioned against thinking everything has to be perfect and to identify everything that will be needed in five years. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the DEIS which informs land use. Having this conversation first and getting the DEIS after will be helpful to inform the impacts. There hasn’t been discussion about other impact such as stormwater, streams, watersheds, etc. She asked the plan after the DEIS is published to help inform the processes. Ms. Pentakota answered once the DEIS is published, there is a 30-day comment period. If the community, planning board members or councilmembers are still concerned about something, they will have an opportunity to bring that to the City’s attention. All the comments received must be addressed in the final EIS. Staff will provide responses regarding how the issues raised will be addressed. Councilmember Dotsch asked how the public will be involved, commenting it would be helpful to educate the public prior to the comment period so they know what to comment on. With regard to the earlier comment about an east-west pedestrian bridge over Highway 99, Council President Olson said to the extent anything about that would be included in the comprehensive plan, she has been an enthusiastic supporter of that idea and even talked to Representative Larsen about it. She recently had a conversation with Mr. Tatum who said things at ground level are what gets used; having improved and safer amenities at ground level are experientially what works. It could be that the City makes this enormous investment in an overhead bridge that is not well used. She suggested inquiring with Shoreline about their expectations for the use of the pedestrian bridge versus the actual use. Mayor Rosen pointed out the meeting was noticed for 90 minutes which has been exceeded. He asked if the council wanted to extend. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO EXTEND TO 8:20. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, CHEN AND ECK VOTING NO. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the special council meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2024 Page 14