The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-11-13 Planning Board PacketAgenda Edmonds Planning Board REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 13, 2024, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION: Meeting Link:https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxITG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode:007978 This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Previous meeting minutes 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS For topics not scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Priority Action Steps for Implementing the Comprehensive Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT 10. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Extended Agenda Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 13, 2024 Page 1 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 13, 2024 Page 2 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/13/2024 Previous meeting minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History We have retained services with a newly contracted provider for Transcription Services. They have provided the minutes for the previous meetings held: October 9th, 2024 Regular Meeting October 17th, 2024 Special Meeting October 23rd, 2024 Regular Meeting October 30th, 2024 Special Meeting Staff Recommendation Review/Approve previous meeting minutes. Narrative Meeting drafts attached. Attachments: PB 10092024_draft regular PB 10172024_draft special PB 10232024_draft regular PB 10302024_draft special Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting October 9, 2024 Vice Chair Golembiewski called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by George Bennett. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair George Bennett (alternate) Judi Gladstone Lee Hankins Nick Maxwell Steven Li Jon Milkey Isaac Fortin, Student Rep. Board Members Absent None Staff Present Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Deputy Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Brad Shipley Shane Hope, Interim Planning and Development Director Navyusha Pentakota READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 AS PRESENTED. NO SECOND WAS GIVEN. OPENED FOR DISCUSSION. There was discussion pertaining to additions and corrections needing to be made to the minutes. There was a request to amend and add information pertaining to the discussion that projects that were selected were based on the previous comp plan and the DEIS rather than the current comp plan. It was stated as a reminder that minutes are to reflect only what was discussed and not to add anything additional that was not discussed. It was confirmed that the additions requested were things that were discussed during the meeting but not reflected in the minutes. Steven Li pointed out that the minutes listed incorrect board members. There was also a typo correction noted on the spelling of Lora Petso's name. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 4 MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECOND BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO TABLE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Draft Comprehensive Plan Element Review Brad Shipley, Shane Hope, Rob English and Navyusha Pentakota were introduced. Shane Hope began the presentation, giving an overview of what's included in the agenda packet. The focus will be on the three plan elements going into the city council's packet for next week, which include capital facilities, utilities, and culture, history and urban design. There may be time at the end to discuss the climate element. Capital Facilities Draft Element. Board members were provided background information, data and explanations, particularly about level of service and the status of the city's buildings and facilities. A goals and policies section is next, followed by potential action items. The goals and policies are the key component to consider, which are somewhat new territory, although not new subjects. There are six goals for the capital facilities element, with a set of policies under each, followed by potential action items. Utilities Draft Element. There's a guiding principle about supporting our city's needs and aligning with future population growth, followed by an introduction, narrative, and so on. There are several more goals, each with a set of policies. The utilities element refers often to the water and sewer comp plans and the stormwater plan as a means to give background information. There are overall goals and policies for each utility type, followed by storm and surface water management, and then solid waste. The overall is partly water and sewer. Lastly, there are potential action items given. Board members were encouraged to give feedback to help refine and improve the proposal in working toward a final draft. The Board will be presented later with a full draft that reflects revisions, clarifications, et cetera. The Board was reminded that the DEIS draft is currently being reviewed as well, which has some overlapping themes. The DEIS is looking at the city as a whole and thinking about future growth. It looks at what can be accommodated and what would be needed to accomplish each goal. Regulations are built into potential mitigation actions in the EIS. It looks at two action options, as well as a no action option. So the DEIS draft is currently being worked on, ultimately leading to a finalized plan. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Discussion under Capital Facilities Draft Element. Board Member Gladstone asked a question about Capital Facilities Goal CF5 that talks about outsourcing, whether there is any other current outsourcing or known opportunities that this gal has in mind. Rob English responded that the goal says coordinate with other government entities to align capital planning efforts and leverage shared resources. Those collaborations can lead to cost savings and enhanced service delivery across jurisdiction. Current collaborations include the sewage treatment plan, where partners provide their flows to the plant for treatment; a collaboration with the city of Lindman on signal maintenance, timing and coordination; a partnership with City of Linwood on the Perrinville Stormwater Basin regarding projects and planning issues, noting that they adopted our more stringent stormwater code for private development in the Perrinville base; and coordination with Olympic View Water and Sewer District when doing street improvements or work on their facilities. There was a comment that under Capital Facilities Goal CF6.3, the policy needs to be more direct, rather than just using the phrase, "consider future climate conditions." It seems as though new facilities need to be designed to standards or to be built to be resilient based on the expected impacts of climate change for those facilities. It needs to be more that climate conditions are being incorporated into the siting, design and improvements of the facilities. There was discussion that policies need to be specific enough to provide direction without mimicking what the code should say. For example, on Policy 6.6, nothing is needed after "carbon footprint." Currently, it states how we're going to support Puget Sound Energy, but we don't need to define the how, but just support Puget Sound Energy's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, period. Board Member Hankins commented that the Board recommended to the city council that they proceed with the CFP/CIP as was presented and asked if those policies were done. The answer given was yes, they were, and that this is like what the previous comprehensive plan stated, to maintain a six -year plan to finance needed capital facilities and ensure adequate levels of service across the city. That's a first step in any capital facility planning. Regarding policy CF2 about maintaining a six -year plan to finance city or the finance needed capital facilities, Rob English had presented lists of proposed projects in each of the areas identified. Were they taken into account when these policies were used as you reviewed the process and made those lists? Rob responded that those projects came from elements of the existing comprehensive plan that had the similar type of policy, where there is a water comprehensive plan as part of the element, a sewer comprehensive plan as part of the element, storm and surface water, and then the transportation element that was presented that week. It was commented that up in the future needs section where it states, "the following documents identifying the facilities needed to support project growth," it seems like a circular equation, that the CIP and CFP is developed based on the comp plan, but then the current CIP and CFP is referenced in this comp plan. And while that information is there for identifying the facilities needed to support project growth, it reads as if our current CIP/CFP is driving these plans and goals and policies, as opposed to the goals and policies driving the future CIP/CFP. The response was that it's not circular in that what you're going to read in the final plan when it's adopted, it'll be after the fact. It's going to talk about the six -year planning as being part of identifying the needs for projected growth. The goals and policies in the projected capital facilities element here are very similar to what was in the existing comprehensive plan. The identification of those facility needs came about as a result of the policies. This CFP in particular is kind of a snapshot in time that will evolve and will be based on whatever changes may be in these policies, even if subtle or small. It was acknowledged that it could easily be read as these are telling us what is needed for projected growth, but that does not reflect what we're doing in this plan related to hubs and centers, for example. So it may be appropriate to state that it will be modified based on whatever alternative is adopted by the city as a comp plan. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Shane was asked if it would be appropriate for this to reference the capital facilities capital improvement plans but not the time period. The response was that it depends on what's trying to be accomplished, and that the wording may need to be adjusted, to think about how to recognize it's a specific six -year time period. It was commented that the comp plan is intended for a 20-year period, and that the next CFP and CIP is going to be based on a whole different set of assumptions. So it's important that it's clear which is being cited, which should be whichever one is current. The intent would be if you were looking at the comp plan in the future, you'd be able to hyperlink to that CIP/CFP to see what facilities they're talking about. And so that's where it seems like that would be something that would be updated as time goes on. The intent is to be more of a reference. But it was commented that it's coming across as a driver rather than just a reference. The response was that the language could be clarified. Board Member Gladstone had a question on the potential action section regarding what preservation priorities are. The response given was that these potential action items were part of something that had been drafted up before, but that they were at a different level than being a broad policy, so they were included here in the potential action items for further consideration. For example, conduct feasibility studies for each existing building is not a policy, but rather a step one could take to make sure the building's in good condition. But on the other one, like for example, create and maintain a long range municipal capital facility plan. In response, it was recommended to scrub or clean up thoroughly the potential action items. There was discussion about C172, where it says develop and expand capital facilities, that it seems there may be a sharp look at existing facilities to see if they're required any longer. There may not be an expanding of facilities, but rather getting rid of existing facilities. It was recommended to use a phrase sch as "expand where appropriate," or something similar. Perhaps evaluate capital facilities to effectively meet the needs of a growing city, something broad, which includes both new and old. There was a Board Member comment on level of service, where the term "adequate" is used, which is ambiguous. The response was that while it is vague, it was used because there wasn't a really good precise number to use that met Edmonds' services. It was suggested to dig a little deeper on the adequacy side or change the verbiage. Another comment on C172 and throughout, where cost benefit of analysis and fiscal responsibility is alluded to, using the word, "efficiency." It was suggested to state that the city is going to take actions to be fiscally responsible, leveraging cost benefit analysis, a best use or best case scenario, instead of saying operate efficiently, which is ambiguous. It was expressed that the city has a responsibility to say in their planning they will run a cost-effective, fiscally responsible capital plan. So in CF2 a cost benefit analysis should be included, inclusive of or part of C174, continue to analyze city operations and strategize to achieve — you say efficient — it should read cost efficient, or fiscally responsible, or highest and best use. It was noted that those comments are very helpful, so it will be evaluated to better convey that general idea and incorporate that improved language. Board Chair Mitchell mentioned a couple clarifications: one, on the sustainability goals for cap facilities projects and the reference to the state clean energy building act, that it's just the Clean Building Act, no "energy" included; and two, on the metric of 30,000 square feet, it's 50,000 square feet or more, but that there's no need to state size, because size will change, that it could be more general. Discussion on Utilities Draft Element. Board Member Milkey commented that the DEIS identified a potential issue with either firefighting volumes or pressures, and that in the comp plan, nothing was alluded to about the need for additional volume or pressure for firefighting within the city. The response given was that it's a Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a common thing that's done at the city, so it's assumed to be part of the analysis when capital facility planning is done, that the water volumes, et cetera are considered. Rob English noted that even when new private developments come in, they'll want a water service availability. That particular site can be plugged in to advise them if they have the proper flows. It's built into the analysis all along for water and sewer and so on. Board Member Maxwell had a comment on goal UT1, under Policy 1, where it states, "ensure systems are aligned with community growth and land use planning," to make sure that the systems line up with the land use element. He commented it would be a good idea if it also lined up with the climate element, because the climate element is going to make some sort of requirements about what kind of utilities we want to have within 20 years. Or another approach is to say it lines up with the comprehensive plan, which would include both land use and the climate and anything else. There are decisions that the climate element will guide as the utilities use is driven more towards sustainable energy use. Similarly, he also commented under 1.6, discussing prioritizing regular maintenance, repair and upgrading of utility to ensure reliability and meet future demand, mentioning that it's also meeting in harmony with the climate element, consistent with the climate element, because future demand will be affected by climate -related planning. Both comments were recognized as things to take a look at. Further comments by Board Member Maxwell under UT4, stormwater, 4.1, implement measures to mitigate flood risks. He notes that there should be some sort of text recognizing that the flood risks are increasing, and the amount of stormwater is increasing, and that it's no longer viable to base future catastrophe planning on the worst catastrophe in the last 100 years. It needs to include recognizing that flood risk will increase. or mitigate the increasing flood risks that are increasing due to climate change. It should be clear we're not going to use the traditional approach of assuming that the risks we used to have are the risks we have in the future. His comment was acknowledged and appreciated, that the whole plan should be looking forward rather than backward, that it's a 20-year forward plan. One other comment by Board Member Maxwell on UT2, promote public awareness and education, that he feels that's a job that belongs to the utilities, and that we don't need to take on educational responsibilities. Board Member Gladstone commented that she found the statement about educating and informing about emerging technologies unnecessary, asking to what end is it included there. She acknowledges the importance of public awareness and conservation efforts, service changes, and infrastructure investment, because you want customers to support your rate increases. Part of sustainability is financial sustainability. The more the public is educated, the more likely they're going to be accepting of rates and make it easier for council to approve them. She then brought the conversation back to the future projections and challenges section, stating she believes regulatory requirements should be added there, because the wastewater treatment plant is going to be massive, and the PFAS regulations and cleanup standards could be massive. She also commented on 1.2, that if it's being stated that any new development, only when and where necessary publicity can adequately serve demand, there may not be the means to do that until some of the development occurs. The language should reflect that it can be provided within a reasonable amount of time. But saying that it has to exist is going to strap your strap the ability to have growth where you want it to go. Further discussion from Board members included that it could state to only actually build projects that can be serviced, but still allow development, because some of these projects could be in the works for a long time. We want to allow and encourage development in these growth areas, but we can't actually build anything if there's no water service there. We want to allow and encourage development in these growth areas, but we can't actually build anything if there's no water service there. But they often come at the same time, so it's a matter Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a of the language allowing for that concurrent aspect. A lot of development when it comes to water and sewer is going to occur when the developer puts that infrastructure in. It's not going to be there beforehand. Board Member Gladstone comment on 1.5, stating it would be good to see this policy focus on a more holistic look at utilities when there are projects going on, not just more than one system. So that if they're embarking on an area of utility development here, you're checking what else is going on in the street, checking the sewer and stormwater and road, bolstering the coordination on multiple levels. The response given was agreement and stating that is the typical practice. A further comment from Board Member Gladstone on 1.6, that it would be good to specify the reliability and resiliency, because there's earthquake resiliency, there's climate resiliency. Reliability can just mean making sure that the pipes aren't going to break, but it could also mean making sure that you are reducing your risk from liquefaction. It's important to recognize the importance of prioritization so they don't get left behind. It was agreed the term resiliency would be a good addition. Vice Chair Golembiewski commented on the topic of emerging technologies regarding stormwater, that it would be good to include policies around educating the public about rain gardens, stormwater management, surface water management, et cetera. Rather than getting rid of that piece around education, include it to, limited to city provided services. Chair Mitchell commented on UT 1.9 regarding sanitary sewer systems and failing septic systems. He asked if there were any active septic systems throughout the city. The response was that there are some. He then asked, if someone's septic system was failing now, would they be able to replace it or would they have to connect to sewer. Rob English replied that it's not a clear cut answer. If they can repair it, they can extend the life. But we obviously encourage connection for obvious reasons. A Board member asked concerning the second sentence, where it states, "as development progresses," whether it's worthwhile calling out development and growth pressure as a separate bullet point in the challenges for utilities that evidence include. He asks because UT 1.2 allows a development only when and where necessary. He states it should mention a cost recovery framework that's clear and transparent about the cost burden being on developers and not existing ratepayers. Cost recovery isn't mentioned at all on new development, and he suggests it should be. Board Member Gladstone comments that she's not sure of the process regarding stormwater utility, but in regards to water and sewer it usually is totally subsidized. Shane Hope confirms that's correct. There is a comment that it should be clearly stated that the city is going to run as fiscally responsible as possible and that it is going to pass the cost of new development to the developer and make it a guiding principle. Board Member Gladstone asked Rob English if that is in the comprehensive plan for utilities. Rob responds that he can't recall what's in the specific water comprehensive plan and sewer plan, but the intent is that the developer would bear the cost of whatever improvements are needed to connect to the system, that the city would not bear that cost. The connection charge is kind of the primary function of how they pay into the system that's already built that will serve their property. Shane Hope states it is a standard practice. Board Member Gladstone states that growth pays for growth. There is discussion that economic development or growth can be done via incentives. But it can be stated as a goal to reflect a fair and transparent cost recovery program for new development, where existing ratepayers aren't overly burdened with the cost of new development. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a There was a comment referring back to the purpose of the comp plan, that it's being done because the Growth Management Act requires a plan be in place to do that, and specifically the task is to be able to accommodate future growth in this city. All these elements should be focused around what is needed for future growth. Some of the goals may be good in and of themselves, but they don't address future growth in the city. It was stated that future growth certainly factors into a comprehensive plan, but it's not the only key component. Other key factors deal with quality of life, community issues, et cetera. There was concern expressed as to how everything will work with hubs and centers, how things will move forward, how the city will integrate the proposals. The maintenance portion is clear, but it seemed the plan was a forward -looking projection to help us with the growth plan. But there are questions like how to prioritize how funding is spent, for example. Vice Chair Golembiewski explained how she views the comp plan. When a project comes up, whether private or public, and they have to refer to the current comp plan to see if that idea or agenda is in line with the comp plan. Some things are included in the comp plan to create the needed flexibility to make decisions based on current wants and needs. There was a response in agreement, expressing it's not possible to write a document that's going to cover every contingency or possible circumstance. But if the task is to create a document that supports future growth in the city, then it should in fact support future growth in the city. We must do our part to ensure that it is a future looking document that incorporates these things being discussed, and that it's not just going to deal with the current situation. Board Member Gladstone raise a question about whether or not developing strategies is a separate task versus integrating it into what you already do. It seems as though it would be more efficient and effective to have that more integrated, rather than as a separate task. Vice Chair Golembiewski asked whether the community development group had commented on the proposal yet, which they had not. She stated that a good goal, in terms of working with telecom providers to provide high speed internet and having a level of service for telecommunications, would be to promote business growth. Telecommunications and internet should be a priority for economic development. Board Member Gladstone notes that 1.4 talks about public and private utility plans. She asked a question regarding the franchise agreements the city has with regards to telecom and whether those franchise agreements have requirements around planning. She wondered about the extent to which those franchise agreements can be used as a tool for accomplishing some of the city's goals where they don't operate those. Shane Hope responded that she doesn't fully understand that, and she asked Rob English if he had any thoughts about whether that would be worth bringing up. He responded no, not necessarily. He stated that right now the city doesn't have an existing franchise and hasn't since 1957, and that current efforts are being made to work with the city on that, as well as with other cities. He gave examples of different franchises he's aware of, and he stated he can't remember whether there was any standard metrics for service to the community. He stressed that in terms of service, we want to be better than adequate. A good goal would be to have good services that promote businesses being able to operate effectively, with everything being online. There was conversation around utilities, from a power source perspective and integrating solar, which will likely be covered by the utility section referring to either the climate section or just the comp plan. The climate section will require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which means using more renewable energy. UT 1.3 says support the adoption of new technologies and innovative practices and improve efficiency. It was suggested that it could mention targets for renewables, both in the housing and land use. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Whichever of those is being address would determine whether a PSE or PUB is being referred to, which is a sort of contract that utilities decide where they're sourcing their energy from. On the finished end, it may be on the developers and land use and climate action. Discussion under Culture, History and Urban Design Draft Element. Shane Hope opened this segment by reminding everyone that elements of culture, history and urban design are addressed in our current comprehensive plan in a couple different ways. The land use element has some aspects of historic preservation. Community culture and urban design deals with other segments of that. This section ties them together while giving space for emphasis on this important element without making the land use element so bogged down. So here, arts and culture is talked about broadly with some goals and policies. Effort was made to avoid restating things already included elsewhere. There's a very short section on heritage, but reflecting historic preservation work is the main element. It's important to recognize that archaeological resources were here long before the city was settled, so historic preservation is important. It's also important that our city's more recent heritage be considered. The urban design section, which is more broad in nature, specifically mentions placemaking. It refers to urban design needing to be incorporated into public facilities. One of the policies refers to the downtown urban design standards. Board Member Li mentioned a general question around the arts and culture or even the heritage segments, that the other elements, including the ones discussed today, are tied to certain documents and codes and budgets that are aligned with it. He asked if there is a budget that supports arts and culture and heritage, and if so, what department or departments does it fall under .essentially. Shane Hope responded that it does happen, within a limited budget, in various things that are occurring. She cited special signage guiding people to different facilities, support and technical assistance, performing arts, theater, cultural designs being incorporated into city street design. It's incorporated in some big but mostly smaller ways, and mostly with the department of community development, the economic development side of things. Board Member Maxwell asks if it's prohibitive to mention encourage strengthening a creative identity of new development and putting some of that cost on new developers. For example, if thy put in a 12-story building somewhere, there has to be some artistic concept incorporated. He asked if there is a way to factor that into new development. There was conversation around combining culture and art with the urban design and encouraging developers to integrate artistic element into building development, with an emphasis on the word encourage. It should not make development impossible or prohibitive. But we do want development to fit into our cultural and art history, which could easily fit with Goal CD3, enhance neighborhood pride through investments in cultural arts. It talks in there about encourage programs and pilot ideas, encourage the diversity around audience for festivals, encourage artwork into new development. The key element in this is to encourage the city, but also future developments, to recognize and celebrate the culture, history and art that makes Edmonds unique. There is a program in place where capital projects that fall within a certain threshold are required to put 1% of the project funds towards creating some form of art. Board Member Gladstone shifts the conversation to 2.2. She stated that the language doesn't feel right where it says, "considering investing in the next generation. Better verbiage would be, seek opportunities to support the next generation, or something more closely tied to what actually would be done. She continued on to Goal Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a CD4, where she asked what specifically is meant by "reflect Edmond's heritage." She suggests removing that last part, so it would read, "maintain the cultural resources and historic sites of Edmonds." She then turned to Goal 5 and stated that 2 and 3 just seemed stuck in there, that this may not be the right place for them. And 4 is not a policy. Shane Hope states it should have been removed. Vice Chair Golembiewski asked a question regarding the colorful dots on figure 6.4, page 31, the protection against unpleasant sensory experiences, whether heat was on that list. Shane Hope replied that yes, it applied to wind, rain, extreme heat, although heat isn't mentioned specifically. Board Member Gladstone remarked that she hadn't noticed the dots, but in looking carefully at them, they're interesting because there are some things listed that are potentially in conflict, such as opportunities for unhindered views versus the tree code. It was noted that the diagram list came from the Gale Institute, who helped create it for us during the Five Corners project in Westgate. It's not meant to get deep into detail, but rather to serve as a broad stroke tool. There was conversation around the Gale Institute, who they are, and what they do. Conversation continued regarding the potential action items. It states, "The urban design framework shall be developed with participation from relevant city departments" There was confusion as to whether that excludes residents or boards or commissions or whether only city department heads should provide input for the urban design framework. This may be a section that needs scrubbing. There was further conversation around there being a goal to find it in the community cultural plan, which may be on the website. The question was then posed as to whether there's a definition of cultural spaces and what that means, in reference to CD3.3. Shane Hope commented that it's a community center or a performing arts center or a special dedicated art space, for either performing or visual art. The use of the word space here is meant in a different way than a physical space. So I just think not using lingo might help. There was further discussion around Goal 1 and 2. Goal 2 mentions fostering dialogue with diverse communities through creative arts, and that it would be good to seek representation from different parts of the community. Right now it's just leveraging creative arts to have a dialogue about what's representative of the people of Edmonds. It would be good to say something about considering investing in the next generation of Edmonds artists, creating access to the arts, arts facilities, or arts and culture, for all pupils of Edmonds, old or young. whether young or old, rich or poor, regardless of the diverse backgrounds and culture. It aligns with Edmond's creative identity. The wording is vague, and it needs further clarification. Discussion around culture, history, and urban design was concluded. There was discussion regarding the presentation of other elements on future dates. It was decided to push climate change to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS SUBCOMNUTTEE REPORT PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA The next meeting on October 17 will include the elements of housing and land use, as well as climate, if time allows. The 16th is the community hearing on the DEIS. October 23 we have recommended comp plan Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a preferred alternative, and then the transportation element. Our focus for the next meeting should be the note from Shane with the link to the draft EIS and the comp plan draft that has the housing and land use elements in it, and reviewing those two elements, and coming with comments. Copies of those elements are online and available now. Following that will be the preferred alternative recommendation and land use map. The question was asked as to how all this integrates with the council's review. Shane Hope explained that the planning board goes first, and then we're running everything to the city council in that order, subsequent. So planning board first, then it goes to the the council and so on, with a couple exceptions, just because of the way that timing worked. It was clarified that the calendars reflect a meeting on the 16th and 17th, but the 16th is disregarded, and the meeting on the 17th is correct. Memos will be done only on the final draft recommendation, not on each element. We'll have a preferred alternative recommendation, not a separate land use map recommendation, and then a final draft recommendation. The draft plan that's published right now has two land use maps, which is one for each growth alternative. And once we make a preferred alternative decision, we will be generating just one future land use map in the final version of the comprehensive plan that goes for council for adoption. In summary, the planning board will give them a recommendation on the preferred alternative, along with whatever our recommendation for the final plan is. The October 16 meeting is specifically for the DEIS. Comments will be documented as part of the mandatory 30-day comment period. Responses will be provided in the FBIS. It will be a virtual meeting. October 21 will be a meeting to go over the draft plan goals, policies, and any comments or questions. Shane Hope states it would be really great if the planning board could give a summary report at the meeting on the 23rd regarding the alternatives. October 30 will focus on the future land use map based upon the preferred alternative. November 13 will be to review additional information for comp plan update. November 25 is a special meeting to make the recommendation of the final comp plan, which will require a lot of reading time. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 9, 2024 Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Minutes of Hybrid Meeting October 17, 2024 Vice Chair Golembiewski called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Milkey. Board Members Present Staff Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair George Bennett (alternate) Lee Hankins Nick Maxwell Steven Li Jon Milkey Judi Gladstone Board Members Absent Isaac Fortin, Student Rep. Shane Hope, Planning & Development Navyusha Pentakota, Planning & Development READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI STATED THAT THE REGULAR MINUTES WOULD BE APPROVED ON THE BOARD'S REGULAR MINUTES AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.b ADNIINISTRATIVE REPORTS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Housing, Climate Elements. Vice Chair Golembiewski suggested that they discuss the comments that were received via email first because they might spark discussion. Ms. Hope read a question from Board Member Gladstone's email regarding the land use element, selection criteria for the neighborhood centers. Her concern was continued reliance on existing public transportation rather than identifying areas for growth where transit could be may result in perpetuating legacy income segregation. Ms. Hope believes the question is probably going back to how these neighborhood centers were decided early on and how that came about. Some of it really had to do with multiple criteria, how to encourage walkability, how to balance where there already was existing infrastructure and transit, and be able to use those option for healthier environment instead of driving. There was also recognition that there were existing little village -type centers in some of these places already, so how to help those neighborhoods and spread it out, but still recognize that the Highway 99 area, the transit there is a major opportunity for growth to continue. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated that something else to add to that is part of it came from the buildable lands report, too. They couldn't put centers in hubs where they already have completely built -out residential housing. That would not make economic sense to tear down. One of the first criteria was, could they build something there? Planner Pentakota stated that they had those discussions when they were initially thinking about what the two growth alternatives could be. They landed on these two alternatives because it made more sense to add growth in places where there is existing transit. They have identified areas with existing commercial, existing multifamily, and then the transit stops and the key routes they have. Because if they have search to find new routes and place growth, it's putting in more investments, and the growth will be less reliable and less frequent with the services. It just makes more sense to have these locations as the basis for adding growth, rather than starting from or connecting new areas. Board Member Li asked Ms. Hope to repeat Board Member Gladstone's comment. Board Member Gladstone then joined the meeting, and Ms. Hope summarized her comment regarding the land use element, and her comment about the criteria for neighborhood centers, and concern about maybe relying on existing public transportation as the only criteria would further income segregation, and that kind of thing. Ms. Hope then stated that the initial response is that a number of factors were actually included when that early work was done, Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.b so existing infrastructure, existing transit was part of it. But then the other idea was recognizing that there are neighborhoods already that are kind of a cluster of their own, some of them with a little bit of commercial at least, and some with a little bit of multifamily housing. So that approach of recognizing where there were some existing clusters, density, where there was more activity and not just a spread -out area. So there were a number of factors that went into that initial definition. Board Member Gladstone stated that she recalled that she voiced this same issue when they first started discussing about where the hubs and the centers were. She recalled that there was some public comment about just picking an area because there happened to have been a gas station that was put in the middle of a residential area, which doesn't necessarily mean it's an optimal place to be creating a center. She just wants to keep on their radar and awareness that these are going to grow over time. If there are areas where they think there is a good placement, she would hate for them to be constrained, as they will change over time. Board Member Li asked if the words "with existing and future transit service" should be used. Planner Pentakota stated that transit is not the only factor they looked at. They also explore what other opportunities they have, and that's where the additional hubs have come from in the other alternative. So when they finally choose, it can be a mix of both, or it can be one of these, as we always discussed. And these centers and hub locations are based on all the factors, and just not transit. Board Member Gladstone stated that she just thinks it's important that they keep these things that perpetuate legacy problems and not keep perpetuating them. Ms. Hope stated the next question was about Policy Land Use 1.8, what is imageability, and why not just say image, or why include this policy at all? She believes it had to do with image itself sounds sort of static, so imageability means that it's something you can imagine, and you can envision, trying to stay away from words like character, which is also very vague. There are other ways one could say it, recognizing the visual appeal of an area or something. They can play with those words, but that's where it came from. Board Member Gladstone stated she had never seen the word "imageability" used before. She stated that rather than enhance Edmonds' imageability, couldn't it just not say preserve and leverage Edmonds' strong visual quality or something? Ms. Hope stated that the problem with preserve is that it sort of implies that you're going to keep it just the way it is. Board Member Gladstone agreed. Ms. Hope then suggested using recognize and enhance. Ms. Hope read the next comment regarding Land Use Policy 1.10, asking about what this policy was getting at. She stated that they could speak to that policy more specifically, but that one was a newer policy added around a discussion that had happened at the city council level about municipal urban growth area boundaries. This came about from some citizens that were interested in Edmonds expanding into their area, and some interest in whether that made sense, but also some concern from both council members and the public whether that was appropriate and what the process was, if you even wanted to do that. So they acknowledged that the existing comprehensive plan didn't address it specifically. Ms. Hope then stated that if there's something's already in their UGA, that is something to pursue, but when it's not in their UGA, but right adjacent to their UGA, so in that municipal urban growth area boundary, if there was to be a change, which is allowed through the Snohomish County Tomorrow process, but it's complicated. This was a placeholder policy, and so it was to recognize that they should put something in there about it. And then after that, she met with the city council and came up with different wording that's more explicit, but it was not included in the packet tonight. It lays a bit more specific process by which Edmonds could look at expanding Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.b into, or trading, or doing something with municipal urban growth area boundary by working with the other city that was affected, and any other affected jurisdictions, and by doing a costibenefit analysis, and by thinking through what the social factors might be, and whether that was a wise thing. Board Member Gladstone believes that makes a lot of sense. Ms. Hope stated that the revised language that they talked with the city council about would be emailed to them. She then discussed a question about activity centers and why that designation should be retained when there are centers and hubs, and there are no policies for activity centers. Downtown waterfront is a center, and height restrictions are well known there. Further, health activity center is the expanded medical center and doesn't need to be separately identified. She stated that those activity centers that are there is being carried forward, so those are in the plan and considered prime for some types of development. The new type that isn't there are these hubs and centers. Board Member Gladstone stated that she is trying to understand the distinction between an activity center and a center and a hub. Ms. Hope stated that in some ways they are similar. The activity centers, as they're being used in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, goes back to prior, that was a designation that was in the last comprehensive plan. So the idea of coming up with these other centers and hubs was to recognize these were a little smaller areas, and more spread out, so it was to say this is something new, not the same level of intensity or activity that these smaller centers and hubs were. Board Member Gladstone stated that it seems as though the characteristics of the activity centers, pedestrian oriented, mixed -use community character, multimodal, all seem like they apply to centers and hubs. She states that is trying to understand the value of maintaining that distinction. Ms. Hope believes it is just recognizing scale. It was discussed that this is a legacy that started with Vision 2020, when there was a desire to create essential spaces that had good access to transit and were surrounded by open space. That evolved through Vision 2040. But at the time, the city didn't really see itself as one of those more grown-up cities, so they came up activity centers to replace them. So it was a terminology that was used a long time ago to depict what was desired by the comp plan or the Vision 2020 back in the day, and it has carried forward with Vision 2040, and the update to the comp plan in 2015. So they are now looking at the evolution of this. So at a future comp plan amendment, that could be cleaned up, but right now there are policies that are tied to these activity centers that are hard to remove before they have the development code in place to back it up. So some of that is design guidelines that they look at, or policies when they're looking at new development, and it's hard to pull that out at this point without also proposing some other amendments that require a little bit more in-depth thought. It was further discussed that the idea of the comp plan was to set the policies and then adjust the ordinances and zoning to match what they came up with in the comp plan. Perhaps it doesn't make sense to say that they are stuck in the comp plan with whatever they current have for ordinance and zoning. However, there are design guidelines in the comp plan that probably shouldn't be in the comp plan. They should be in a development code, so it was suggested to take it out. Ms. Hope stated that she agrees that because something is a legacy isn't a reason necessarily to keep it. However, she believes in terms of scale and what people are comfortable with, the activity centers in Edmonds have been thought of as being a little bit larger, a little bit more intense, and that the centers and hubs were seen as smaller Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 17 2.A.b scale. If they want to call higher -intensity activity centers medium activity centers and small activity centers, that could be done. But she questions if that is really necessary. Planner Pentakota stated that scale is definitely one factor. But apart from that, to all the neighborhood centers and hubs, they are adding additional growth, but to these activity centers they are not adding any growth. So the kind of policies and the approach for the activity centers and the neighborhood centers and hubs is different in that context, as well, which is why they haven't been combined. Board Member Gladstone stated that perhaps a little more distinction in the narrative in the plan would be helpful because, otherwise, it may be confusing. She does think that the language is good because it's neighborhood, versus the activity centers are more big commercial hubs. She believes that it may just need some language to make the clarity about those distinctions. Ms. Hope agrees. Board Member Gladstone also stated that making note that these activity centers are not ones where they're adding housing to, they are commercial hubs, and that was a helpful distinction. Ms. Hope provided the next question, which is what is the difference between Low -density Residential 1 and Low -density Residential 2? Two levels are distinguished. One would be what is now the RS6 and RS8 as being Low -density Residential 1, and that the 2 would be those that are RS 10, RS 12, et cetera. The most common type in the area now are the RS6 and RS8 in Edmonds. So it's giving it a new name to reflect that it's a little bit more diverse than just residential single, but still some distinction between the general lot size and the smaller lot size. Board Member Gladstone asked if the zoning standards are different between the 1 and 2. Ms. Hope stated that the 2 have bigger setbacks. They have bigger minimum lot -size requirements, but some of that will go away because of the new state legislation where you can divide up those lots into smaller ones in order to accommodate housing, if a property owner chose to do so. But the zoning standards that apply there are a little bit different, mainly the setbacks for the yards in those two categories are different. The 6 and 8 are a little bit different, but then becomes even more so in what's now the RS 10 to 20. It was also brought up that once they get into development code, they want might want to make some distinction between the two low -density residential classifications, but they have not come to those determinations as of yet, so that will be addressed through the development code. It was asked if the idea is that Low -density 1 would have a requirement of 6,000 square feet, and Low -density Residential 2 would have 10,000. Ms. Hope stated that the thing to remember is that in some ways, the minimum lot size won't translate exactly as it used to. RS6 meant it was a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size, and RS8 was an 8,000, and so on. But with the new state legislation, the lots can be divided, so those numbers don't really apply anymore. So trying to define it anymore by the lot size is more confusing. Having the two in the comp plan was to recognize the distinction, so more to come as they get into the code. Board Member Gladstone suggested that maybe they just have something that says Low -density Residential 1 lot sizes less than 8,000 square or whatever it is, and Low -density Residential 2 is 10,000 and more. Otherwise, she believes they seem like they're one and the same. Planner Pentakota stated that when they go forward, they have to choose the typology of housing that will be allowed in both the zones, so if it's just one zone, they lose the flexibility of choosing the land -use type. It was discussed that allowing all those housing types in low -density residential makes sense, so just one was suggested, which is not necessarily the Planning Board view as yet. It was discussed that keeping the two provides some flexibility. If there aren't two distinctions, then everyone will be grouped up and have the same Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 18 thing. They are not sure if they want that at this point. Different building types have different standards that they are built to. Different distinctions could be in place for things like setbacks or heights. It was discussed that there needs to be language on the differences in the dimensions to be determined later to avoid litigation. It was suggested that the way it's done in other places is they have one that's a walkable residential and then another one that's more suburban residential. That creates some distinctions that could start to translate in terms of where and how buildings are oriented on a piece of property. Ms. Hope stated that the challenge is that sometimes things are borderline, and then arguments can be had about the difference. Board Member Gladstone stated that she is okay with keeping the 1 and 2 but just adding some language that provides what the distinction is. Ms. Hope read the next question, which states that mixed use seems like it will need to be adjusted based on the selected alternative, which she states is correct because the mixed -use zones are in the hubs and centers mainly. The final land use map will have to reflect that, whatever it is, after the preferred alternative gets selected. The next question was why have separate zoning for Edmonds Way corridor, planned neighborhood and master plan development? Is it possible to condense some of these zones? She states that it probably could be, but maybe Board Member Gladstone could comment on why she believes that would be helpful. Board Member Gladstone stated that particularly the Edmonds Way corridor, she doesn't see why the other zoning designations wouldn't fit along that corridor. So she doesn't know what's already there that may not fit in those. It was discussed that the master plan development was developed for Point Edwards, which it is believed also includes the lower grounds where the marsh is, or at least portions of it. So whatever goes in there just needs a master plan. A planned neighborhood is coming into Downtown Edmonds on Edmonds Way, and the history was because they were concerned about putting too many access points on the highway as people are leaving the ferry or stacking for the ferry. That would perhaps be changed as the development code is gone through and come up with clearer guidelines for how the development can occur, and then it would be easier to dissolve. Regarding Edmonds Way corridor, that is on the other side of Westgate. Throughout the zone, they've allowed some things. They have some incentives built into it for allowing additional density if one is providing affordable housing or meet certain building forms. It is believed that it would be good to condense most of these. They will have to look at some of the nuances that exist, especially where the highway and stacking lanes are located. It will take a bit of work as they go through the development code, and the hope is that they would be able to dissolve these into one, or at least have a zone that applies to both that is the same, and then dissolve in a later update to the comp plan. Vice Chair Golembiewski thought that they were going to dissolve some of these outdated zones when they would get more absorbed by the hubs and centers, and take on some of that similar typology. It seems like the hubs and centers are on top of the existing, instead of trying to really merge the old and the new. She would like to see that happen on this comp plan. She thinks that if there are areas that are adjacent to hubs and centers that are similar in style but are running by a different name, that it would be nice to clean that up. Board Member Gladstone stated that for her, it's especially for Edmonds Way because they are talking about a hub or a center right there. Vice Chair Golembiewski believes that would be a good point to make at the next board meeting when they're really diving into these land use maps. Maybe the discussion can be revisited then. Ms. Hope then referred to a question about Policy Land Use 10.3, removing culverts for a fish passage, should only be done when there is a net benefit that is the fish have somewhere to go. Board Member Gladstone Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 19 2.A.b discussed wanting to make sure there is benefit for the dollars spent. It was discussed that the policy says to improve fish passage. Remove or modify barriers, such as culverts, to improve fish passage. So it's not useful if it's not helping fish move to another area. Ms. Hope stated that perhaps some clarification could be added having to do with the back and forth or clarifies that they're not talking about just barely moving, but actually passing through to other areas, perhaps by stating to connect to spawning habitat, et cetera. But it's got to not just remove the culvert and then it's a dead end. Managing flooding was also discussed, though Planner Pentakota stated that based on their discussions with engineering was one of the areas that came as an example. The streams and passage there was mainly considered before they thought about a policy like this. So she agreed that there should be some additional language to make it more specific. It was discussed that each board member could provide their input and then it be recorded, as there is not enough time for solutions, especially not knowing the history of each of these items. They agreed to table Board Member Gladstone's questions and go around and make comments. Board Member Gladstone was fine with that so long as her final question about Highway 99 does get discussed at some point. She also suggested that they could respond to her via email. Board Member Bennett stated that there's a lot to digest. Per the document, the city is going to do a lot without requiring developers to prove or contribute to community benefits. He believes the comprehensive plan should explicitly place on an onus on the developers. They want a community benefit that exceeds the current use of the building, so the developers should have to contribute to the community benefit, whether it be affordable housing or park space or a certain percentage of their budget goes to a cultural space. He is not a fan of having a comprehensive plan that says the city is going to be all of this and do all of this when they could make it somewhat clear that they want developers to partner with the city and provide community benefits, not just dump a bunch of modular homes on a lot. It was then discussed that both Alternative A and B are offering incentives for community benefits. To incentivize, sometimes it takes a developer another opportunity to make additional income in exchange for the community benefit. Also, it was discussed that it seems to be a controversial issue going from four to five stories, so that's included in the plan. Board Member Bennett stated that he believes it should be a governing rule that the community benefits for redevelopment outweigh the current benefit, whether it's to improve fish passage or to build more affordable housing, or to make streets narrower, he believes there should be a guiding theme about community benefit. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated that she believes they tackle some of that in the code with park impact fees and transportation impact fees. These things are in the code, but does the comp plan give them a reason to be in the code? Board Member Bennett stated that the comprehensive plan is the guiding document for the next five years. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated that giving it that Edmonds expects developers to be bringing something to the table or some language. Board Member Bennett stated that they hope for development that benefits current and future residents, current and future businesses, and believes it's okay to say that in the comprehensive plan that they're taking a progressive look at projects and development that provide greater community benefits than the existing use, that it sets the tone for how you approach development. Ms. Hope adds that for background information that there are things in the code right now and in the requirements for impact fees, utility connection fees, park fees, et cetera that do apply, and they may have some of that in another element. But it wouldn't be bad to add something. She would be careful in adding it so that it doesn't mean that someone, because they're adding an accessory dwelling to their existing house, must do a Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 20 2.A.b level of improvement to the area that's not necessarily reasonable. It would mean that people on low incomes can't do anything, so just that balancing point. Chair Mitchell then joined the meeting. Board Member Hankins stated that he submitted a list of comments to Planner Pentakota earlier. One unidentified board member brought up one of the land use, Land Use 15.2. It says adjust development standards and regulations that act as barriers to the possibility of middle housing and residential zones. He looked at Planner Pentakota's presentation on HB 1110, and they know what the requirements of that are. But they also know what the city has flexibility with. And then he looked over the state law, and he did not see a requirement that says adjust development standards and regulations. So the city has a lot of flexibility, he believes. Chair Mitchell thought that 1220 was the reasoning behind that, had to have reasonable standards in place and remove barriers to development. And under 1110, the existing zoning in the currently single family, which will become low density, it does accommodate two units per lot with the current rules that it's under. The hubs and centers are where the big changes are happening to remove the standards to build more housing. But he did not read that it's mandatory to adjust in residential zones. They should be considering not adjusting. It was discussed that there are certain things within I I10 where you can't have development standards that prohibit one of those missing housing types, the building types. For example, if you have a stacked flat, maybe you can't get it within the height restriction, but maybe you can. And you have to know whether your development code is going to prevent that, and this is what that is getting at. Ms. Hope agrees that if you're going to allow a duplex, you have to adjust the development standards that exist now. It was then discussed what is meant by development standards, such as building heights, setbacks, lot coverages, no parking. Ms. Hope stated that was just open ended and figure out in the zoning code which ones of those make sense. It could be any one of those or none of them. It was discussed that by saying adjust development standards that they aren't locking themselves into adjusting them if a developer comes in and wants to build nothing but tall and thin buildings throughout the residential zones. The standards for building types could be identified. You don't have to just allow all the same underneath the zones. You could have specific building types so you're allowing the standards within that building type be built, to make sure that there's compliance with 1110 and that they're not preventing it. Planner Pentakota stated that they have considered the existing residential along with centers and hubs, the breakdown, how the House bills apply to the single family residential and how much housing capacity is achieved. They have considered that, and the rest of the housing needed is distributed among the centers. The number is based on commerce guidance. But to achieve that in ideal situation, the code may or may not allow that to happen. So those are the development regulations they will be revising which would also consider the factors just mentioned, not to go too high not to obstruct surroundings. All these will be considered when they enter the next phase, where they will be developing the code. For example, they have identified that there are some steep slopes in one of the hubs they have proposed, and they just don't want to consider that at all. And removing that hub might result in, say, 1,500 less number of units. So because they have this buffer right now, they would have that flexibility to choose bits and pieces of what they have proposed, rather than sticking to the exact alternatives. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 21 2.A.b Board Member Gladstone asked if the language that's in LU 15, is that straight out of 1110? Planner Pentakota stated that it was just the standard in a lot of places she looked at. She needs to cross-check if it's exactly the same. Ms. Hope stated that she is very familiar with 1110, and the point is that cities will need to adjust their standards in order to be able to have these different types of middle housing. But there is still room to decide what those standards are, if they're making it impossible to have middle housing in residential areas. You can't set different design standards of one to the other, but in a residential area, in order to be able to accommodate middle housing, for example, cottage housing, if the code doesn't already allow that, the only alternative is to adjust the standards. So it's implied that you must allow these, and the only way you can do that is by adjusting the standards. Vice Chair Golembiewski states that the distinction is that 15.2 is discussion of adjusting the standards at the code level, not at a project level. So it's not to say that a developer is going to come, and they have to suddenly adjust their standards or their code so that they're not preventing that project. It's just saying that if their current code isn't up to those housing bills, then they have to evaluate and make those changes. One board member asked where they're going with the alternatives, as in here's Alternative A, Alternative B to city council and they're going to make the final decision, or if they want a recommendation from the planning board? Ms. Hope stated that would be coming up at the next board meeting where they get to do that, if they choose. If he were making a recommendation, it would be to use both A and B, so he doesn't see any reason if they're going to hubs why they would not have development in the centers, as well. So centers and hubs, not either centers or hubs. What they're aiming for is spreading development, less development in more locations around Edmonds rather than putting a whole lot of development in one location. The planning staff stated that his understanding is that hubs and centers are one and the same except for scale. In other words, scale and density of development. So they're one and the same except for centers are more developed. The board member stated that on page 11, there's a separate list of hubs. His only expectation was that they were going to use all of it. The question was, do they focus the development on centers with some hubs, to a lesser extent, or do they spread it across the whole thing? Planner Pentakota stated when they are looking at Alternative A and B, both alternatives have centers. Both have hubs. So they're different in scale, density, height differences. So when they're choosing a preferred alternative, it can be exactly same as what they proposed in A, or exactly the same as wheat they proposed in B, or it can be minor amendments to either of those. So they will also be telling the board the capacities they achieve from each of those centers and hubs so they can decide whether they want to have this, or whether they want to scale it down a little bit, or completely take off one of the hubs and keep the rest. It's up to the planning board to have that discussion and come up with a recommendation. Ms. Hope stated that hopefully that discussion will be at the next meeting so they can finish the other things. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated that she felt they should try to tackle housing and the climate element, if there's specific comments on the goals and policies there, and leave the discussion about preferred alternatives and the land use maps to next time. Board Member Gladstone asked what they're bringing next week. It had been mentioned that they would be able to show the capacity of the different alternatives. She would be interested if they're able to bring Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 22 2.A.b information on the alternative that she suggested. Ms. Hope stated she would look towards that. They don't have it right now. Vice Chair Golembiewski asked if they would have numbers for potential units in each of the hubs and centers, or is that getting too specific? Planner Pentakota stated approximate number of housing units they can achieve from each of those centers and hubs is something they will be able to share. Vice Chair Golembiewski felt that it would be helpful for their discussion to know what numbers they're working with. Chair Mitchell had a question on whether they're considering everything and everyone's alternatives at this point? What constitutes taking one proposal over another? Ms. Hope states that one of the challenges here is that Alternative A and Alternative B, if you invent something new that doesn't even take into account either alternative, you risk not having that resolved through the EIS, and then you have to go back and look, then that means that you have to push more things into other areas, so that won't fit well within the EIS framework. The EIS is the public process. It's gone through all of this public process and things at this point would make it difficult. They can provide shared numbers if requested. Chair Mitchell stated that he doesn't want to introduce an off-the-cuff alternative that's not vetted through the public process because all that does is open Pandora's Box, so anyone can submit their own alternative. That's how they got this random white paper. He doesn't think that's fair to all of Edmonds. Board Member Gladstone stated that when they started out the DIS, she mentioned that it was backwards to do the DIS first before you go through a discussion of your policy to select your alternatives. And they were told they could pick an alternative that's somewhere in between, or put together different pieces of it and that they might have to do a supplemental EIS, if it goes outside of it. That was a reason for trying to create bookmarks that were on each end, and they chose to do some that were not very far apart. Ms. Hope stated that the point was it's not only the DEIS but there was a lot of public discussion around these two alternatives. Those are the alternatives the council chose. Vice Chair Golembiewski suggested this discussion be saved for the next week and that she has not dived into Board Member Gladstone's alternative to get her take or think do these fall somewhere within those bookends already, or is it outside of that, or is there some of it that's inside that could still be considered with their current framework. So she believes that is a good discussion for next week. What do they have to say about housing? Chair Mitchell stated that it is a very good discussion, and he agrees with a lot of Board Member Gladstone's points given what the 99 planned action has gone through. He believes it should have been a conversation last December. One board member had a number of comments about housing. Goal H 1 says enable diverse housing types. He wonders if this should be a stronger word than enable, given that several policies say promote and encourage. He believes enable and encourage or enable and promote might sound stronger. He thinks within that goal, as well, there's a number of policies that align with different types of development. One of the ones he thinks is worth highlighting is also promoting just the middle housing types here. This is a paradigm shift, and middle housing is a huge opportunity to create equity and diversity through their residential areas. He believes it would be worth having a policy saying something like promoting ADU middle housing in residential neighborhoods, not just focus on the centers and hubs. He believes creating more awareness around ADUs and middle housing and not so much for developers, but really for current residents because he believes there's a great opportunity Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 23 2.A.b for a lot of people that really don't know what they are and don't know that they can be built in their backyards. Instead of having developers build it, now homeowners are helping to build more housing in the city. Planner Pentakota stated that they have some work left to do in that area of middle housing where they're supposed to do a large chunk of community engagement to make people aware of this, and received a middle housing grant, and it's one of the key requirements to make them aware of what the possibilities are, how the code helps them build one of these typologies of houses, and when that will be changed and all of this. So it's something coming, probably end of the year or early next year. Another board member mentioned having preapproved plans for ADUs. Resources like that available to the public would be great. He believes there is a big difference between affordable homeownership and affordable rentals, and he believes that a lot of the affordable housing discussion does revolve much more around affordable rentals because it's multifamily, it's density and whatnot, and it makes sense. And it's necessary. There's a huge need for affordable homeownership as well, which aligns much more closely with middle housing as opposed to condos, or multifamily. Perhaps there should be language promoting affordable home ownership and rentals. Another board member discussed that throughout the document, they use affordable housing. That's incorrect terminology. The state defines affordable housing. And being in a high -cost area, nothing in this comp plan is affordable housing. They are incentivizing affordable housing, but middle housing is not affordable. Only 42 middle housing units count towards our 9,069, because middle housing is very expensive. EDUs in this construction and climate are expensive, but they're an excellent avenue to try and get something that costs less and rents for less so they can get more housing supply for people. Middle housing isn't additional affordable housing at all. It was discussed that perhaps a more appropriate word is attainable homeownership. Board Member Li discussed Goal H4. Rehab and restoring suitable housing stock. He doesn't believe that Edmonds does anything around providing support for home repair right now, but he wonders if that's something that could be explored, especially if this is an aspirational comp plan. The city of Everett has their chip program, where they secure HUD funding and provide it to residents for rehab and repair. He wonders if that's something that the city at some point could seek pass -through funding from HUD to distribute to residents to do large critical repairs. Edmonds does have an aging population and aging housing stock, that that is a real critical need now, and especially moving in the future. He believes there is an opportunity for more repair and rehab of existing homes. In 4.3, as well, recognizing the value of retaining manufactured homes. He questions if the city should be exploring some sort of support for either rent stabilization for the manufactured home parks or something else. He believes that relates to goal H 6.1, where is says, essentially, explore policies and programs to help support renters at risk of displacement. He thinks mobile home residents fall under that, and he wonders if maybe either H 6.1 could be expanded to say, and mobile home residents paying rent on their land, or something like that, or merge those two components. One last comment he has is Goal H 7. There's one policy there on working towards eliminating racial inequity and housing distribution. And it just says, engage and partner with communities impacted by housing. He knows this is a much larger conversation because it's so deeply embedded into housing. He agrees that the goal should be there, and he doesn't know what else necessarily needs to be in there right now, but he is just highlighting that they only have one very soft policy in that category. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 24 2.A.b Board Member Gladstone had a similar comment that there were policies up in the land use all around the middle housing that she would encourage them to take a look at and see if they don't fit more in the housing section and then in the land use that get at making that housing more prominent in here. She also supports what Board Member Li said in terms of the recognizing the value on Policy H 43 and even if it was preserve or something like that, it needs to be much more active because it doesn't really mean anything, and she likes the idea of expanding H 61. And then she had a comment on H 10. H 10.2 didn't seem to fit the goal, and she also didn't know what supported development regulations are. A small item that the statement under Policy 10.7 is more like an action item than it is a policy. The goal is remove barriers and implement supported development regulations, encourage design that requires varied and articulated roof lines in developments. The other minor detail she points out is on Policy 10.7 where there is an action statement that doesn't really belong there. Ms. Hope said regarding the awareness program, she would say on behalf of staff that there are probably a couple of things sprinkled around that they didn't get scooped out. Vice Chair Golembiewski wanted to comment on Board Member Li's point about including something for affordable homeownership and pathways to affordable ownership. She believes that is a really key thing, not just having access to affordable rents, but being able to purchase a home and build family is something that she benefited from at a young age in Edmonds and would love to see future generations have access to that, as well. Another board member stated that he doesn't believe that 1110 is included in the DEIS, and he believe that 1110's potential significant impact and if it's not going to have its own DEIS, he doesn't know why it's not included. Planner Pentakota states that DEIS considers the house bills being applied to how it's supposed to be, to the entire existing single family residential zones, so it is considered. The board member states that 10.1 says provide options for lot combination, lot line adjustment, subdivisions to accommodate a modest amount of additional housing, and consider adjusting lot coverage requirements. He states there is potentially a lot of impervious surfaces outside of hubs and centers because these parcel sizes can go down to the smallest house you can build on a parcel size that could be adjusted to the lot lines. Planner Pentakota states it's not limited to centers and hubs. It definitely considered all the other residential parcels. Ms. Hope stated that the language here distinguishes we will more clearly provide options for this kind of lot combination, but then it says consider adjusting lot coverage requirements to enable accessory dwelling units, et cetera. So consider is not as strong as providing options for some things where you might need lot line adjustments. But when you come back to the code, that might be something to consider. It was discussed that there is a distinction between lot coverage and impervious surface. Impervious surface has to do with storm water. It's not regulated through lot coverage. There was then a question around the EIS. With the impacts of 1110 implemented in the EIS, how does that get implemented? He recalls in a previous discussion, there was some percentage considered utilized for middle housing, and wonders if that is how the EIS is modeled after. Planner Pentakota confirmed, and stated that they way they allocated those units is based on commerce guidance and that's the 10 percent they landed on, and it's exactly the same in the DIS, as well. Which they discussed was optimistic compared to a lot of other jurisdictions, probably closer to 4 of 5 percent actual. Regarding housing, it was discussed that H 10.6 and H2.1 say the same thing. One says consider lowering permit fees and lowering costs. If it presents a barrier, we'll get rid of it. He doesn't believe they need to Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 25 2.A.b explicitly say they're going to make it cheaper. H2.1 covers that pretty well. Vice Chair Golembiewski believes it to be 10.5. Ms. Hope noted that some of that language can be cleaned up or consolidated. 10.5 refers specifically to affordable housing and as the board has discussed, sometimes affordable housing means different things to different people. Technically, this is referring to what affordable housing is defined based on HUD standards. Currently, in Edmonds, they have a lower impact fee allowance for some types of utility connections and transportation fees, but that is only if they meet all the HUD targets under true affordable housing. Vice Chair Golembiewski questions if 10.5 isn't just related to affordable housing. Ms. Hope states that it talks about consider adjusting barriers to the development of affordable housing. So in that case, it's more speaking about that. The other policy is probably just more general. Board Member Bennett questions isn't the guiding theme of their comp plan to promote equity and affordable housing and smart development that's inclusive. He's really sensitive to saying we're going to reduce costs for them because every cost that is reduced is a cost that's borne by somebody else. More of a thematic statement is the guiding principle is just not true. Edmonds is not a city that everybody can live in, mostly because of capacity, and not everybody can afford to live in because the reality of the world, and not everybody has access to. Chair Mitchell has a question in relation to a housing policy where he does think there's some things where they could form a policy around maybe prioritizing efforts to achieve a geographic balance in finding housing. He thinks an emphasis on balancing the siting of housing, whether it's through a corridor or hubs or centers, should be addressed just so they don't get into the habit of planning for growth. He doesn't see anything on prioritizing geographic balance in siting housing, and he thinks if they had a policy that identified what that was, it would make it so they don't just take the default Edmonds stance of we've got to plan for growth, let's sweep it towards the corridor. Vice Chair Golembiewski doesn't know if that would be an additional policy, but it would be something along the lines of evaluating the growth, and if they were going to make concessions for costs or barriers, that they might become geographically specific. If they continue to not see growth in places, it might be that a utility connection fee is not valued the same in one area of Edmonds as it is another. It might prohibit development if the overall project value is lower because of the area. It might not pencil out. It was discussed that there are some economic impediments to developing in certain areas. Economics of development always come into play, and there have been many projects that have started with a great idea and never went anywhere, mainly because of infrastructure that had to put into place. Planner Pentakota shared about a board meeting where they discussed about equitable distribution of growth was distributing utilities and services to underserved areas and how they can add some language to differentiate both so that they make sure that the growth is distributed equitably, but also give equal importance to all the other areas in terms of providing utilities and other services. There was a comment from another board member regarding critical areas. They talk about excluding them, yet the additional conversation seems to be it's on an on -proposed basis. It's almost like a conditional use permit for everyone that's potentially building in a high slope near surface water and anything like that. He questions if they are going to leave critical areas in the comp plan, and then do follow-on zoning where they actually delineate areas. It was discussed that if an engineer states that something can be safety built, as long as it can be built. Planner Pentakota stated that they have excluded all the highly impacted critical areas out of the Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 26 2.A.b capacity calculations they have done, and when they are choosing the centers and hubs, they have followed the same exclusion of critical area. So those parcels are not included at all, and for the rest of the parcels, when there's a development application that comes in, there's a separate critical area. Ms. Hope states that the critical areas that are different than that would be wetlands or something like that. It was suggested that due to the time, they have one minute on the climate. It was discussed that they don't need to do one. They could leave it off. On page 60, though it does suggest that what they're doing is meeting the requirements of 1181, and he doesn't believe that they are. So the first sentence on page 60, the city of Edmonds recognizes that the climate element provides the vision goals and policies that respond to the new legislation that requires a climate change element. HB 1181 is part of the comprehensive plan. It doesn't. He states they would have that ready by 2029. They'll have something that responds to the new legislation. Council and planning staff need to understand that they haven't even begun the process of developing a climate element. And then there's the public. So the last time they discussed the climate Action plan, there was public commentary in the Edmonds News about what horrible people the council were because they didn't include adaptation. He would not refer to this as climate element at all. He would refer to it as climate objectives, and say one of the climate objectives is that they will have the climate element ready by the deadline of 2029. And then on page 68, there's a list of potential things they could do, which he doesn't understand what the purpose is of the list. It was discussed that they are potential action items. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated she would entertain a vote to extend to 9 15. Chair Michell made a motion to extend to 9:15. Board Member Gladstone seconded the motion. There not being a consensus, they agreed to wrap it up. Chair Mitchell asked if they wanted to briefly review the extended agenda since it's a little packed the next few weeks. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated that their next regular meeting is the larger discussion on the draft preferred alternative recommendation. The one after that is looking at the land use maps. And then on November 13th, we have the discussion about the final draft recommendation, and then we have a special meeting on November 25th, the week of Thanksgiving, to wrap up and present a final draft recommendation. Chair Mitchell wondered if they're making that recommendation, is that recommendation going to council on their 26th meeting. Ms. Hope stated she didn't think they'd be able to do that, but in order to get it on their next meeting, that's what they would have. Vice Chair Golembiewski stated land use maps and preferred alternatives and meat and potatoes of what we've all been talking about next two meetings. NEW BUSINESS None. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT None. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 27 2.A.b PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA None. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. aD 3 C E as c r as m E 0 a� L a �a a� a w M L N O N O T- eo IL w 0 E s c� r r a Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 17, 2024 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 28 2.A.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting October 23, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. CALL TO ORDER — ROLL CALL Board Members Present Staff Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair George Bennett (alternate) Judi Gladstone Lee Hankins Nick Maxwell Steven Li Jon Milkey Isaac Fortin, Student Rep. Board Members Absent None Shane Hope, Interim Planning & Development Director Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner Brad Shipley, Senior Planner Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Paul Sharman, Transpo Group Shreya Malu, VIA READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA There was unanimous consent to approve the agenda as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Sam (no last name given), addressed building heights in the 5 Corners area. He felt that a maximum of 3 floors with no incentive for a 4t' floor would provide sufficient units in that area to be consistent with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and hubs and centers concept of the draft Comp Plan. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October23, 2024, Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 29 2.A.c None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 2024 Comprehensive Plan: Transportation, Climate, and Preferred Alternative Recommendation Interim Planning & Development Director Hope indicated that the Climate Element of the Comprehensive Plan had been reviewed previously by the Board but had remained on the agenda if further discussion was necessary. None was forthcoming so discussion moved to the Transportation Element. She introduced Paul Sharman, Transpo Group, and Rob English, City Engineer, to discuss the item. However, since the Transportation Element was not available for review in the Board's meeting packet, the Board agreed to table the topic and revisit it at a future meeting. Board members framed the discussion of the preferred growth alternative recommendation by agreeing that because a hybrid recommendation was likely (some mix of Preferred Alternatives A and B), that they would review each neighborhood hub and center area being considered, compare and contrast the alternatives, and then create an individual recommendation for each hub and center. A discussion of the Highway 99 area was also anticipated. Ms. Pentakota provided a presentation about the growth alternatives being analyzed, starting with a summary of the data supporting which hubs and centers were selected for further study as Growth Alternative A and Growth Alternative B. A No Action alternative was also included as a baseline, but it was noted that this alternative would not be compliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Alternative A, the Focused Growth option, would feature more intense development within four neighborhood centers (Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale Village, and Medical District Expansion). In these areas, buildings could have up to four floors with a possible fifth floor if certain public benefits were provided. Less intense development would occur within four hubs (Firdale North, North Bowl, East Seaview, and Perrinville). Buildings in the hubs could have a maximum of three floors, no option for a fourth. The two Activity Centers found in the current comprehensive plan (Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99) would be carried forward and updated in the 2024 Plan. Alternative B, the Distributed Growth option, would feature a more balanced distribution of development within the four neighborhood centers (Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale Village, and Medical District Expansion) and seven hubs (Firdale North, North Bowl, East Seaview, and Perrinville, West Edmonds Way, Firdale North, and Maplewood). Buildings in both the centers and hubs could have up to three floors with incentives for a fourth floor if certain public benefits are provided. (Maplewood would not count towards GMA capacity). Less intense development would occur within four hubs (Firdale North, North Bowl, East Seaview, and Perrinville). The two Activity Center found in the current comprehensive plan (Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99) would be carried forward and updated in the 2024 Plan. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 30 2.A.c Prior to reviewing each of the proposed neighborhood center and hub growth alternatives, the Board discussed the possibility of spreading existing and planned housing capacity from the Highway 99 subarea the proposed hubs and centers. Unit counts and capacity for the area was discussed as well as the concept of takings if capacities in the Highway 99 subarea were reduced from those already existing. The concept of better defining centers and hubs within the Highway 99 subarea for placemaking purposes was discussed and staff agreed to update proposed goals for the Highway 99 subarea, as appropriate. In the future, the development code would be updated to implement better placemaking consistent with the goals and policies of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Pentakota then introduced each of the centers and hubs, comparing the No Action, Focused Growth (Alt. A), and Distributed Growth (Alt. B) alternatives. The Board reviewed and discussed each center/hub and created a recommendation for each. Westgate Alternative A There was a consensus among board members that taller buildings (up to 5 floors w/incentive) were appropriate in this area because of the topography and existing building heights. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial — Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing 3-4 Floors Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 4 floors -1800 units Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and Multi -Family (Mousing Bills compliance) subject to change with further study. School Middle housing: Duple , Tuple.es. ADUs. lowm times. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � BUS STOPS Quadplexes (only with one affordable until. slacked Hats. conage style and counya,d apanmeMs City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 12 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 31 2.A.c Five Corners — Hybrid — Alternative A modified to restrict building heights to 3 stories There was consensus among board members regarding the extent or footprint of Alternative A but with height limited to three floors as shown in Alternative B. Staff indicated that three floors would likely not be economically feasible along the portion of 212th Street east of Five Corners but would be feasible on Bowdoin west of Five Corners. The Board recognized that the change may result in a reduced unit count but felt that could be made up for across the other neighborhood centers and hubs. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth � Neighborhood Commercial eslllo Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) A� all Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Multi -Family • School Bus Stops Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 4 floors Up to 3 floors X\ _ -800 units elllllllllll Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) ellllllllllll Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) -350 units Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and (Housing Bins Compliance) subject to change with further study. Middle housing: Dupes. Tnple.es. 4DUs. townho,nes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ guadple.es (onty wdh one affordable unit). stacked flats, cottage style and couMard pan—ts City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 13 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 32 2.A.c Medical District Expansion — Hybrid of Alternative A modified to include additional areas in Alternative B Vice Chair Golembiewski disclosed that she is a property owner in this center but that she has already entitlements for a project at her site so that would not affect her ability to future development capacities in the area. Most board members supported 4 floor building heights at the corner of 212th St SW and 76th Ave W, as presented in Alternative A, with a 5th floor possible with public benefits. There was also support to expand the footprint of growth in this area as shown in Alternative B, but limiting the overall building height to 3 floors within the expanded area. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) tttttttt■ Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) tttttt� Up to 4 floors Up to 3 floors -750 units expansion I - —1500 units LXh� Mixed -Use f°`°"•" li .� I se"Bui s li -� Neighborhood commercial Neighborhood Residential aletr/cs are approximate, conceptual only and Multi.Family (Housing Bills Compliance) subject to change wi th further study. tillillillillit School Middle housing: Duplexes. Triple.., ADUS, townhomes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • BUS Stops quadplexes (only with one affordable umt). Stacked flats. '.Wage s yle and '..rtyano apanments City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 14 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 33 2.A.c Firdale Village (center) & Firdale North (hub) — Alternative A Both alternatives for Firdale Village have building heights up to 5 floors (with public benefit), which the Board supported. While there was some interest in the expanded area of Alternative B for Firdale North, ultimately the majority preferred Alternative A as proposed. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth h Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) rim ! Mixed -Use ! Neighborhootl Commercial ! Multi -Family School • Bus Slops Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 3 floors —30 units 0 Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) ! Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Up to 3 floors t -90 units 14 -290 units \♦� -290 un Neighborhood Residential Metrics (Housing Bills Cornpll•nc•) Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and subject to change with further study. Middle housing: Dudexes. Triplexes. 4DUs. townfwmes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ guadplexes (only with one affordable unit), stacked hats. collage style and counyartl ap.nm.m, City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 15 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 34 2.A.c North Bowl Alternative B After discussion, there was a majority preference for Alternative B given the size of the hub and the existing development in the area. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Up to 3 floors a a ^75 units a ^200 units f• Mixed -Use fi Neighborhood Commercial tillillillilitMulti-Family School • Bus Stops a Neighborhood Residential (Mousing Bills Complienc•) Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and subject/o change with Istudy. Middle housing: Duplexes. Triple—. ADUs. townhomes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --— — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ geadplexes.omy wnnttmtl. sacked flats, constyeancouo age drtrd apartments City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 16 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 35 2.A.c Perrinville — Alternative B After discussion, there was a majority preference for Alternative B given the size of the hub and the existing development in the area. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and Multi -Family (Housing Bola Cemplience) subject to change with further study. �Schocl Middle housing: Duplexes. Tnplexes. ADU,, townhomes. ————————————————————————————————————————— Bus Stops quadplexes (only wdh one affordable unit). stacked flats. conagestyleand courtyard apanmems City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 17 n Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 8 of 13 Packet Pg. 36 2.A.c Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) l� Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Up to 3 floors East Seaview — Modified Hvbrid of Alternatives A and B The majority of board members agreed with including East Seaview in the final preferred alternative, recognizing that any additional housing capacity would not be counted toward the final unit count. The Board found that the taller building heights allowed in Alternative A were acceptable south of 195th St. SW but not on the north side of that street. Alternative B was acceptable to the west along 196th Street but the footprint was proposed to be reduced south of 196th Street, and north of the cul-de-sac at 190 Place SW. Final capacity numbers will be recalculated and the area discussed again at a future meeting. No Action Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors .1 —80 units Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and Multi.Family (Housing Bills Compliance) subject to change with further study. SChocl Middle housing: Duple,es. Triplexes. ADUs. lownn mes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — e BUS SLOPS quadplexes (only ynth one affordable unit). slacked gals. conage style and cuunyard epanmems City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 18 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 37 2.A.c South Lake Ballinger — Alternative B After discussion, there was a desire to include the hub in the preferred alternative and there was a majority preference for Alternative B given the size of the hub and the existing development in the area. No Action Alt 13: Distributed Growth Neighborhood Commercial Up to 3 floors Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) E E ^70 units atrod 3 a tlot� 3 J C sJ C x et. x Lake lake Ballinger Ballinger Edmonds wall Edmonds Way NE 205th St, I NE 205th St. Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and Mulli-Family (Housing Bills Complain,.) subject to change with / study. � School Middle housing: Duplexes. Tape—, ADUs. townh— — ome5. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bus Stops puadplexes (only with one affordable unit). stacked fiats, conage style and courtyard apartments City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 19 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 38 2.A.c West Edmonds Wav — Alternative B After discussion, there was a majority preference for Alternative B given the size of the hub and the existing development in the area, recognizing that any additional housing capacity would not be counted toward the final unit count because redevelopment is not feasible due to the 3 floor height limit. No Action Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Alt B: Distributed Growth Up to 3 floors Fd oro �G V —35 units Mixed -Use Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Residential Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and Multi -Family (Mousing Bills Compliance) subject to change with further study. — School Middle housing: Duple.es. Tnplexes. Aous. u-nhomes, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ e Bus Stops guadple,es (only wah one affordable unit). stacked Oats, ,..age style and courtyard apanments City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 20 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October23, 2024, Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 39 2.A.c Maplewood — Alternative B MODIFIED to restrict building heights to 3 stories The Board supports including the Maplewood Alternative B in the preferred growth alternative but limiting the building heights to 3 floors consistent with other condos/buildings in the area. It was noted that intersection improvements at 196th St. and 88th Ave W are included in the current CEP making this expansion more feasible. No Action Alt B: Distributed Growth t .wl Maplewood' .. MMA Medical Distric, Frnan.nn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 1 21 Ms. Malu indicated that the reductions in height across the centers and hubs discussed by the Planning Board may decrease the number of units below the required minimum capacity that must met. Staff agreed to update the center and hub maps and the unit calculations at a subsequent meeting but the Board felt confident that even with the proposed reductions, VICE CHAIR GOLEMBEWSKI RESTATED EACH OF THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDAITONS REGARDING THEIR PREFERRED ALTERNTAIVES FOR THE CENTERS AND HUBS. A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS, MOTION PASSED 6 — 0, WITH BOARD MEMBER MILKEY ABSTAINING. The Board agreed to create a memo for City Council summarizing their decision. NEW BUSINESS None SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October 23, 2024, Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 40 2.A.c None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes October23, 2024, Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 41 2.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting October 30, 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 Nick Maxwell. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Judi Gladstone Lee Hankins Nick Maxwell Steven Li Jon Milkey Board Members Absent Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair (excused) George Bennett, Alternate (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Patrick Lynch, Transpo Group Paul Sharman, Transpo Group Shane Hope, Interim Planning & Development Director Tom Tatum (phonetic) Navyusha Pentakota READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Seitz stated she is commenting tonight on behalf of the Economic Development Commission. She read a letter they provided electronically to the mayor and the Edmond City Council. "We are writing to express Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 42 2.A.d support for the economic development portion of the draft comprehensive plan. The plan represents a thoughtful and forward -looking approach to addressing our city's growth while balancing the needs of our diverse community. The Economic Development Commission has had the privilege of being engaged with draft review, policy discussions, joint sessions with the Planning Board, and information sessions, all of which have contributed to a highly collaborative process between the city's professional staff and consultants and resident input. The plans focus on diversifying and growing the city's economy, enhancing activity centers, enhancing quality of life and creating efficiencies in zoning, permitting, and business support all come together through a set of purposeful goals and policies. These policies not only align with the values of our city, but also work to address pressing issues such as housing and business displacement, access and transportation, and improving quality of life for all residents, workers, business owners, and visitors to our great city. While we have been engaged at many stages of this work, there is one policy area which we would like to suggest an additional edit. Within goal ED-3, the additional policy ED-3.6 could be added to more directly reference the purpose for planning for economic development, which is to improve quality of life. Below is the recommended text. `Policy ED-3.6. Recognize that the purpose of comprehensive planning for economic development is for a high quality of life for the community. Establish and track quality of life metrics with the understanding that support and economic investment in locations where quality of life is slow will result in the greatest benefits for all Edmonds residents.' A more detailed version of this proposed policy, ED-3.6, originally Goal C Policy 1, was within the economic development element presented at joint session with the planning board on May 22, 2024. We believe this addition restores the policy basis for the identified potential actions in the revised draft economic development element. With this addition, we recommend adoption of this comprehensive plan element and urge the council to continue to prioritize policies that foster sustainable growth and enhance the quality of life for all community members. Thank you for engaging the EDC in this work, hearing the voice of our city residents, and using that feedback to shape a plan that addresses current challenges and future opportunities for all those who live, work, and visit Edmonds. We are excited to see the future impact of the plan and stand ready to engage with the city" — and the Planning Board, I added that — " for implementation and work of the plan." Arlene Williams asked the board to consider a small map change for the West Gate Center at lots 22805 and 22811 100th Avenue West, which are right up against single family homes that are on the same level, not towering high above on cliffs. She noted that currently, the 22 at 8.05 is maximum two stories because it's right up against the backyards of those homes that are on the same level, one and two story homes. The next lot is maximum three stories; four stories are not allowed at that point. It's also a protective slope above the 340-foot elevation. She showed a picture, noting the drainage issues, and showing a ravine going through backyards and gardens. There seem to be a section of storm system lacking there to gather the water. Also, on 228 at the cul- de-sac, there is just an infiltration well, which leads to moisture issues. So if I want you to consider that, but mostly think about the building heights She noted that last week, in regards to Five Corners, the board gave a limit of three stories. She asks for the same consideration, a maximum of three stories with no incentive. ADNWOSTRATIVE REPORTS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 43 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Board Member Maxwell made several comments. He stated he would like to see cut -through paths for walking, biking, and connecting cul-de-sacs put back into the planning process. He stated that the aim is level of service D on arterials, and that for him D or E is applicable for the entire city. He stated that a policy of doing parking surveys once every other year would be worthwhile, because that data is needed regarding where spaces are needed, and it could be done cost effectively. On Policy 7.1, rather than guaranteeing the financing of the Travel Improvement Plan, it would be better to say prioritize as possible. Also, a regular system to allow people to weigh in on problems, such as with traffic lights in a dangerous intersection. He stated the plan should consider placing bike routes off the arterials rather than bike lanes on the arterials. Board Chair Mitchell had a follow-up question regarding bike lanes on arterials, whether grant monies are part of the reason they're included in arterials, and whether moving them off arterials would cause a loss of those grant monies. Bertrand Hauss confirmed that bike paths not on arterials would not be eligible, but that the cost for striping on local streets would be low and therefore feasible. A comment was made that in Seattle, bikeways were created on residential streets, which some neighborhoods are unhappy about, but that may also be due to the way the infrastructure was implemented. Board Member Maxwell pointed to text for Goal T3 and Policy T3.1 not being ideal, because a goal about enforcing laws and another about underserved communities were put together. The enforcing laws is not the important part of the goal. Then, there is a calming goal, but none of the policies are about calming. But calming has worked well in many places and increased the level of service. There was discussion that in some places the policies don't seem to support the goals in the transportation section, and some suggestions on how to improve those. And further, under the potential action items it talks about increasing the crosswalk visibility using flashing lights, et cetera, but the information in the article cited needs to be verified before being implemented. There was a question about the schedule to present this to the city council. Shane Hope discussed that they are trying to meet their due date, and that it's okay to the potential action steps as is and come back and do some priority work later. The transportation element is on the council's agenda for November 19. The council will expect all the policies to line up with the goals they have put underneath, so that's a priority. Board Member Milkey had comments on Goal T10 parking supply goal, that there's housing growth, and that more on -street parking needs to be accounted for. He asks about alternatives in areas with little space, about a map of priority sidewalks to be installed, and about budget and prioritizing of projects. He comments that light rail, Mott Lake Terrace Station is great, and that getting it going east/west should be a priority. Board Member Gladstone commented on Policy T1.3, a focus on transportation system management investments that increase efficiency while reducing demand. She stated she's not sure what increasing efficiency means. She also wonders, regarding baseline transportation network, why it states that it includes projects that were already funded, but the CIP states that not all those projects have funding yet. Mike Clugston responded that some things were added in that shouldn't have been. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 44 2.A.d Board Member Gladstone comments regarding adding a second left turn lane to manage high traffic volumes, that other jurisdictions are removing them, so wondering why they're being implemented and what kind of studies have gone into that, noting it takes up a lot of land area add in a second left turn lane. Bertrand Hauss responds that all but one being proposed are all on Highway 99 intersect, and all are at intersections with significant left turn demands and trying to improve that level of service and dealing with delays. Board Member Gladstone raises the question about looking at other jurisdictions with similar kinds of congestion problems and what methods they've used for solving those. She also pointed out several places with redundancy in the policies, including 2.1, 1.4, and 2.2. Regarding Policy T7, it relates to funding, but the goal talks about coordination. She suggests separating those out and adding goals around coordination with utilities to minimize increased costs due to delays caused by lack of coordination with utilities. With coordination, it's important to allow for project design and for utility relocation costs. For Goal T8, she questions how it works on arterials and what the goal means or what its implications would be to multifamily areas and to businesses in the area. Under Policy T 8.6, improve emergency service access to the waterfront, especially to west side of train tracks when there is a train crossing, she states the city needs to be creative about how it looks at addressing that problem. Under Policy 11.1, it's good that it includes criteria of prioritizing sidewalks, as they're badly needed, and money is limited. Further criteria may need to be added which enable the city to scrutinize projects around arteria roadways without pads or shoulders where transit service is not provided. Board Member Li suggested a verbiage change on Policy 1.3, from "reducing" to "meeting." He then discusses overall traffic calming, Policy T3 and the lack of an overall plan for what arterials and what streets get what signage and what speed limits are set where. It's not listed in the transportation guide under calming or any other thing. Bertrand Hauss stated that there will be a chapter about the traffic calming program. Board Member Li comments that there is data on the number of cars traveling on each street, but some routes get a speed limit sign or a flashing speed limit digital sign, while others aren't prioritized. It should be part of the standard features for a section of road based on these characteristics. Board Member Gladstone stated it may be an equity issue, and it should not be based just on complaints made. Board Chair Mitchell notes that in 8.1 and 10.1 use the word "downtown," which he feels should be removed, because any beneficial policy should be applied across the board, not just to downtown. He also wonders what the intent is for bullet point one under potential action items, which encourages neighborhoods to fund improvements that exceed city standards, and he wonders how neighborhoods would fund something. Better verbiage would be to just say encourage funding, or even scratch that one altogether. There was discussion that goals and policies are the key elements to focus on, and that some of these minor errors will be cleaned up. City council will have the options on what is included, what remains potential, and what's removed. Board Member Li comments on Goal T5.2, where it says design streets with minimum pavement areas needed, that's referring for new streets, but wondering if there's an opportunity to redesign or retrofit existing streets, especially around those needing new sewer work or new pavement, which would create opportunities to decrease impervious services, create better drainage using planter areas for more trees and tree coverage so that they perform better ecologically and are better for the environment. That could happen especially in areas where work is already being done. On Goal T 10, the parking supply goal, he suggests thinking about parking more holistically as a whole area as opposed to like development by development, and to look for studies done on that topic. B. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan — Economic Development Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 45 2.A.d Introductory remarks were made that previous suggestions were implemented. There was discussion about new regulations from the state on the metrics on permitting, how long permitting takes, how many permits are asked for, how many are granted, cost, et cetera. It's required, and it's needed for inspections as well. There was discussion on Policy 2.4, a need to clarify what "regional" means. Also, the use of the phrase "recognize" all throughout could be improved to state an action rather than just recognition. There was discussion around remote work, bringing higher paying jobs to the area, sales tax, et cetera. There was discussion concerning the effort to not try to force council to make financial investments. That it's important to have significant action items. In policy ED 2.4 it states, "recognize the role of community -led organizations as catalysts for local empowerment, advocacy and collaboration, and support them." Support doesn't necessarily mean fund. But it may mean a priority for where staff puts their time. C. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan — Climate There was discussion on Policy CC 4.2 to remove the current text where it lists projects such as the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project and Little Creek Daylight, because neither of those projects are sea level adaptation projects. An implication will be put in that the marsh and Willow Creek are there in order to do sea level adaptation. On 8.3, it says set aside funding for regular updates, which is over committing the council. Better wording would be achieve consistency on, or something to refine the wording. It was mentioned that the section on metrics will be revised. Also, that all throughout, the policies listed are under the correct goals; currently, some are listed under different goals. So that also needs to be refined. There may need to be some cross-referencing added where a topic needs to be referenced under multiple sections. There was also discussion about the need for hazard mitigation plans for earthquakes, wildfires, windstorms, et cetera, and the need for backup power. The current policy is that if there's going to be a blackout, you need to have a generator at your house. The permitting process has been streamlined, so there's no longer conditional use requirement. for that equity. The city has to have an emergency action plan of some sort, with an emergency operations center with generator backup for it, for coordination with police, fire, city assets, tracking and radars for Puget Sound. Everything on the radars is all in backup with automatic transfer switches. FEMA is being consulted on a first draft.of the updated plan. D. Review of the Draft Future Land Use Map NgMsha Pentakota gave a brief introduction and shared a couple slides to recap what's been finalized. The Planning Board has also requested capacities based on what's decided. Each center and hub was reviewed as proposed in both alternators. For most of them, it's either Alt A or Alt B as proposed, except Five Corners and Medical District, which is kind of a mix of extents of one alternative and height limits that's proposed in the other alternative. Calculations were done based on what's finalized. There are no big changes. The map is included in the packet that was sent and also the printout that was distributed. There are numbers based on recalculations done, based on the Planning Board's recommended preferred alternative. So in total, from all the centers and hubs, there's a total capacity of 3,965, which is more than what the city needs to attain overall. There is already capacity for 4,947 units based on the existing BLR report. Per aid use and middle housing exemptions, there are approximately 1,977 ADUs and 42 middle housing units. And with the preferred alternative, the centers and hubs give approximately 4,000 units. The total is around 10,931, which is around 1800 additional units. It's up to the council to make the final decision. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 46 2.A.d A future land use map based on what was decided last week was also provided, with area details for each center and hub. Every center and hub has a revised area detail map based on what was decided, and also. existing 2020 comprehensive plan land use in comparison to what's proposed as part of the 2024 future land use map update. Today's discussion centers around additional questions or things to consider to make the final decision regarding the Planning Board preferred alternative. The Planning Board's recommendations from the last meeting are going into the packet for the city council, and they will be having a discussion on this on November 4th. Discussion: Board Member Milkey listed a few concerns he wanted on the record. There's 1,862 surplus capacity units, allowing for even more flexibility than the Planning Board put in their preferred hybrid plan. He states that it's choking off 196 between Maple and the North Bowl, because it's very geographically limited on that hill for traffic. We're putting in 200 units in Maplewood on paper, but only 20 of them are counting. So not only do we have a 1,862 unit surplus, but 180 units are proposed that don't count. In Five Corners, there are 36 single family zoned parcels that are going to be upzoned to mixed use. The Five Corners area is creeping very close to Yost Park. The area between 99 Medical and Five Corners is going to be saturated. There are two high schools there and an elementary school, and a lot of units getting put in there, resulting in a lot of traffic and people. In Maplewood, 13 single family homes are getting zoned up to mixed use. In Seaview, the growth area was identified and reduced by 17 single family residences. Three single family residences on the Edmonds Way were impacted In North Bowl the plan is to go to four floors, and 13 single family residences are being impacted. You're proposing 200, when with alternative A you could go to 75, not impact those 13 parcels, and still be well over 1,000 surplus or surplus capacity in housing units. Board Chair Mitchell stated he doesn't want to go into the recommendation committing to going above and beyond by 1,862 without justifying the amount of areas being recommended. Board Member Maxwell stated a more strategic approach would be to replace the four stories with incentive of five recommendations to three with incentive to four. If everything was capped at three, the requirement would likely still be met. So two with incentive of three being looked at. Board Chair Mitchell expressed concern that a cap may cause the loss of utilizing the land efficiently in the future. Board Member Gladstone stated that we can't know where the market's going to want to rebuild, and that having extra capacity isn't a bad thing, because it's not all likely to be built. 99 has had the capacity of 4,400 units for seven or eight years without capacity being built. We're looking at like a 50 to 75-year timeframe for it to get fully built out. Paring back may result in more pressure on areas that have capacity, leading to us not distributing it as we wanted and an inability to go back. During last week's discussions we didn't know hard numbers, but we got to the numbers that work for us. Having that extra capacity relieves some pressure on all the different areas that would be beneficial for the 50 to 75-year range. There was discussion of the issues brought up during public comments, whether areas have been looked at in close detail. Before the lines are drawn, it would be good to consider that level of detail to avoid grossly including things that maybe need a little bit less of a broad line or where other factors need to be considered. There was a question as to what extent that applies beyond the CG (phonetic), so that we don't have to deal with avoidable consequences due to lack of close examination and using too broad a swath. The example of the footprint at the Westgate sub area was mentioned, bringing up the question of whether it's suitable for what was zoned under that idea, and does it necessarily carry over with this different kind of development Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 47 2.A.d that's being proposed, and does there need to be some guidance for how to deal with the proximity to the single family home so that it creates the appropriate transitions to apply universally throughout the city. Navyusha Pentakota states, we are working on the GIS maps where we can identify parcel by parcel and have strict boundaries to make these kind of analysis and understanding. That will be ready by the council discussion as well. Most of the parcels or the lines that you see on the future land use map are pretty much overlaid with the existing comp plan commercial and multifamily boundaries we have. So we're not including any additional parcels. The lines you see kind of represent the same lines that we have in the existing map. It's hard to overlap and check, but it's pretty much the same extents that we have in the existing 2020 plan and 2024 update. Shane Hope stated that by having a somewhat broad approach in the comprehensive plan, they're still going back into the detail level of the parcels with the zoning updates. Navyusha stated that having some level of buffer might help us in the long run, because it's a 20-year growth period, and we cannot really make assumptions accurately, but we may need to consider what is the decent level of buffer we want to have. The rest is up to the council's discussion and resolution. Board Member Maxwell asked Navyusha regarding the no action map for Westgate whether the purple is determined by the current comp plan, or is it defined by our current zoning. He states he understands that sometimes the zoning does not catch up with the comp plan. He asks whether it's defined by the comp plan or by the zoning. Navyusha responds that in these maps, we compared comp plan layers, so it's not the zoning. As per 2020 comprehensive plan, it's community commercial for that Westgate area, which is the purple shade. With zoning, we have compared heights but not the land use designations. Board Member Maxwell asked her, if anyone complained, would we change the zoning to match the comp plan. Navyusha said that is correct, that the existing zoning will be changed based on what's decided in this comprehensive plan future land use map. Shane Hope added that sometimes a zoning can be a little more specific than what's shown in the comprehensive plan. There was discussion about having gone through the neighborhood centers and hubs identified, and looking at the transition areas, and trying to build a baseline of what exists and how to approach development code. So it is being thought about. It was stated that having a blanket approach is needed, that the zoning needs to match, and that flexibility is necessary to be able to make correct decisions. There was discussion around the importance of considering that some of the middle housing types require three stories. So where traditionally a single family zones could potentially go up to three stories, that could be dialed in to say it's for this kind of building type only. But when considering three and four stories, things can go in an undesired direction. The main concern is with the five stories, and so those transition zones are important. It's a very limited area where it's currently zoned for four stories. The majority of Westgate is three stories. The fact that one area has both three-story and four-story designations means that can be done. Once an area is zoned a certain way, you can't easily pull it back. It's important to be really clear about what where those lines are, particularly for the bonus incentives, and to not say it can just get figured out later. This is the map that will be used, and we will be held to it. We must avoid having to go back years later and adjust because we didn't think things through at the beginning. It's important to get it right as much as possible. Board Member Milkey had several comments to regarding middle housing. It needs to approach three-story. It's non -counting because it's not affordable. Any middle housing could be and sometimes is built under 25 feet, and it's here in single family residences now. There should be consistency on the north end of Edmonds. Seaview is at three floors, or 35 feet, which flat roofs will not be put on all of those. East Seaview we've pulled out any transition zones. While it's at three floors, but 17 single family parcels were deleted from this Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 48 2.A.d area. Seaview, there are 13 in there, and they're three floors. He questions why that hasn't been excluded from Seaview. North Bowl is set at four floors, with 13 single family homes. So consistency is needed. Jon was asked if he is trying to prioritize single family homes. He responds that he's just trying to understand, and that it has a greater impact. He attended various neighborhood meetings, read information, and heard from lots of individual residents. There are 12,000 single family residences and about 7,000 multifamily. Among them, there's a loud concern with what's going to be low density residential. So there is no single family, though, when there's four-story adjacent to it. The view is changed, the neighborhoods are changed. He notes it was written in the comprehensive plan, they're looking to have minimum compliance with the state housing bills while trying to allow Edmonds' footprint to be recognizable as Edmonds. He states he's trying to ensure that the voices of the residents are heard for those numerous residents concerned about single family or low density residential being impacted. There is discussion around maybe this is just nomenclature, that single family is being removed altogether, it's nonexistent. It's low density residential versus medium density, like a tug-of-war. It was stated looking back at some of the model code and the processes that went into developing it, it's only one middle housing building types that would by definition require or allow a third story, not every building type. Regulation is now by building type. That conversation will be approached in much more depth in a couple months, but for now there should be a refocus. The question was posed whether the purpose of this plan update exercise is to plan a city for the next 20 years, or whether it's to protect the 13. The response was given that once it's identified in this comprehensive plan by land use for mixed use three-story, four-story, the zoning has to follow. So there's an opportunity to make some choices on the fringe, but it's challenging when that fringe is unknown There was conversation around what is presented on this map is a sliver of mixed use, but then there's a larger part that's mixed use three. There's not that delineation at Westgate, which is on the southeast corner. It's being utilized at Westgate and in some other areas, which may be a concern. The rest of Westgate sits in the depression right at the bottom of the hill, which was discussed last week. During this process 15 years ago, there was intent of creating some transition zones, which is why the lower stories were on the north end. That was a different process, and that capacity didn't have to be allowed, so it wasn't a consideration at that point. This process now goes in much deeper, having to evaluate land use in different areas. The question was posed whether the footprint allows for one mixed use type to another. The response was that it's about the math and the fact that there is a substantial overcapacity or room to grow. The question was posed why the fifth floor option is not just lopped off, since we don't lose much, and the point of contention seems to be that building heights are contentious amongst the different areas. It was suggested to go back to the smaller areas being talked about and to instill limits. The point was made last week that some of these projects become economically unfeasible due to lack of density of people, which is a trade-off to be aware of. But forcing a fifth floor into some locations is unnecessary, so how much is enough for overcapacity? The response was that if the correct locations are identified as to where to place those building types with the higher stories, there is reduced risk of having to revisit this process again when there are more than 13,000 people to accommodate. That number for Edmonds is more like 25,000. It's now necessary to look at areas beyond the centers and hubs, that should have been planned for correctly the first time, and work from there. Board Member Hankins made a counter point that if the five -floor buildings are strategically placed in areas that can accommodate, it takes pressure off other areas. It was stated that it's possible to look at reducing those requirements on the smaller areas, the outlying areas, the hubs, to make it more palatable to the local Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 49 2.A.d communities there. It was stated that it seems to suggest having a more fine-tuned land use map that selectively allows for higher buildings, while also having transition zones from those buildings, which requires more detail to the current map. Some examples were given regarding Westgate and fine tuning areas of five and four stories rather than the whole thing being one or the other. It was stated it's clear that a lot of thought went in that original plan to make that distinction within that whole area, including slope height that those buildings back up to. There was conversation around having a little bit more discretion in situations of having to allow for five stories. It was stated that there needs to be capacity, which can be more than what you actually will have. But choosing the preferred alternative and maybe providing some caveats about it to recognize that some of this may not need to be reflected fully in the zoning, but that additional analysis will be needed and could be helpful. The selection of the preferred alternative really comes down to the council making a decision this coming Monday. It's vital to provide the best information and recommendation possible, because the preferred alternative will guide some general things that need to happen about transportation projects and capital facility improvements. And it will take a little time after the preferred alternative is selected to go back and do that project list. It was requested for Shane Hope to speak to how commerce would look at it if there's five stories accounted for in terms of capacity, but then also in terms of being over capacity by 1800, does that give room to make different changes in the zoning at the edges. She stated there could be some flexibility for that and also learning some things about areas that need extra protection. The idea is to build in a bit of buffer. Some of the properties won't be ripe or reasonable for development. When commerce looks at the zoning, they want to know that it adds up to the minimum. It was stated that it seems as if two different purposes are being aimed at, one being the Department of Commerce approving the plan, which is important, but the other is whatever land use map is included here becoming a sort of gospel that makes it hard to trim back on. There is value in having flexibility. But in allowing for that flexibility, does it tie your hands to the maximum because that's the expectation. that's laid. THERE WAS A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING A HALF HOUR THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The conversation continued that if there is extra capacity and a buffer, that will give the ability to, during the development code, refine some of those edges. It wouldn't necessarily need to be five stories, it could be less, because the need and even more is accounted for. There could be a statement or a clarification in the policy that this is approximate, it's conceptual, which is common in a comprehensive plan, while still providing direction. It's not intended to be a zoning map. It's rigid. The question was asked as to why there are markings for different zoning on the map. The answer is that it's different zones, different land use designations. Each land use designation has different zones underneath it that would be allowable within that land use designation. In the land use section of the current comp plan there's a future land use table which has all the comp plan designations. Next to it you have appropriate zones for that land use designation. Perhaps the flexibility that we provide is by retaining some of that buffer, not trying to get to zero or one, but leaving some of it there. We know going forward we want to have some of that buffer so we can make some changes. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 50 2.A.d The question was posed regarding the term FLUM on the table in the land use section, which was clarified as Future Land Use. It was asked if the FLUM designation is going to replace those zoning classifications. The response was yes. Anytime someone comes in for a reason, we have to go back to the comp plan and ask if that rezone aligns with the future land use designations. If it does, then you're allowed to just follow a rezoning process. If it doesn't match the future land use designation, then they have to go through a comp plan amendment, which we can only do one a year. It was stated that the designations listed need to be revised. We'll come up with terminology as we go. The important distinctions will be things like suburban or walkable, which gives you different frontage types or different building types that you'd like to have. It was requested for Navyusha to put the pie chart back up on the screen. It was discussed that a decision should be made on what the buffer amount is, which is 1,862 of the required amount, or about 20.5%. It was stated that 10% would be okay, but the 20% allows freedom in planning and development perspective. There was conversation around the surplus capacity on the original preferred alternatives A and B and whether they're roughly the same or not, which they are roughly the same. An example was given regarding Westgate. There was a question posed as to the need to pare down capacity numbers when both alternatives are roughly the same. The response was that in thinking about the long term, flexibility is desired for the planning department's sake to work through their zoning and land use maps, but also eventually for developers to make sure that it's developable. It's necessary to look at the long term. If we're trying to lock in a certain amount of sort of heightened capacity now, we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot long term. Board Member Gladstone stated she feels better knowing that the land use map you're talking about still allows for the zoning refinements. That was not an option after the sub area was done. It was stated there are benefits to doing those in tandem, and benefits to separating it a bit. We don't have people on this board who have a self-interest in the area either. So if we maintain it as is without any modifications to our recommendations and keep the 1,862 surplus, we must have a very good response to why, because it's likely that four out of the seven will ask why we're going that route. Shane Hope offered that an explanation is part of the issue to the council about how you came up with the choices. It really wasn't based on fording an exact number, it was based on looking at the areas and what kinds of things made sense to have walkability in some of these centers or hubs and to provide for kind of a center that reflected where some commercial or multifamily already existed and to recognize that that was a different kind of place. In that way you give the council some flexibility to further refine. They may choose to take some things off the table that you haven't necessarily had in your sights, or we might get some study information as we go forward that some things need to be off the table for a while. You've built in some capacity. You spent all of last meeting looking at placemaking in the centers and hubs, and your number came out right in the middle of alt A and alt B. Presenting that to council would be beneficial, of how we approached the number. Shane Hope asked Jon if he is suggesting that the memo be expanded to be more explanatory. He responded that yes, and that it won't require much more, as we've arrived at a preferred hybrid alternative for certain reasons, which include providing transition, accounting for existing geography, and for meeting our target numbers. We need to be consistent with our recommendations and why. There was discussion regarding what is going in the packet to the council, and that it will include draft minutes from this meeting that are not yet approved. Supplemental information can be sent to the council later as needed. It was stated that in regards to whatever land use map is developed, that when you actually start to develop the zoning for that area, it would be helpful to get a reminder of what the public comment Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 10 of l l Packet Pg. 51 was for those areas so that we have that as a reminder in the discussion. Generally speaking, the friction is always in regards to the buffers and edge conditions when people see something encroaching on them. NEW BUSINESS None. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT None. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA None. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 30, 2024 Page 1 l of l l Packet Pg. 52 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/13/2024 Comprehensive Plan Potential Action Stems Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Navyusha Pentakota Background/History The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to periodically update their Comprehensive Plans to guide growth and meet other key goals over a 20-year horizon. These plans are essential for creating and aiming to achieve a unified community vision that defines local goals, policies, and actions for managing development and infrastructure. Local officials and staff rely on the Comprehensive Plan to make informed decisions that align with this vision, fostering a balanced approach across vital sectors such as housing, land use, capital facilities, utilities, and transportation. The GMA also mandates that cities and counties must implement their comprehensive plans and take actions that are consistent with them. For example, development regulations and capital budget decisions must be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan .In 2022, the GMA introduced an additional requirement for counties and cities: an implementation progress report due five years after a plan's update. This report must provide an overview of what the jurisdiction has achieved so far in implementing its Comprehensive Plan, including any new regulations, zoning changes, and other legislative or administrative actions taken to support the plan's goals. Regardless, implementation is more certain and demonstrable for the community when a Plan is accompanied by tangible measures, such as regulations, incentives, programs, and actions, to ensure real -world impact. This alignment helps the city stays on course to realize its community vision over time. Although a written set of "action steps" is not required to be in a Comprehensive Plan, Edmonds and other cities have previously done so as a way of helping keep track of --and following up on-- a few specific high -priority activities for Plan implementation. For example, the Edmonds 2015 Comprehensive Plan includes the following action step: "Develop an update to the Street Tree Plan by the end of 2018." The above step was taken and reported to the Planning Board and City Council in 2019. Our current Draft Comprehensive Plan contains a number of "Potential Action Items." These represent good ideas that were brought up earlier in the planning process but not all of them are high -priority and some require resources beyond the city's current financial means, while others have not had the opportunity to be fully vetted. (That is a key reason why they are labeled "Potential" and have a qualifying sentence that introduces them. Without such qualifiers, it could be assumed that the city is obligated to implement all of them, as is.) While the full list of potential items can be kept in an appendix for reference, it would be useful to identify a handful of high -priority items to highlight in the main body of the draft Comprehensive Plan, probably locating each of them at the end of the chapter to which they most relate. (Note: That is the approach used in Edmonds' existing Comprehensive Plan.) Packet Pg. 53 7.A Staff Recommendation Discuss action items to prioritize in the Comprehensive Plan Update Narrative The Draft Comprehensive Plan, released for public review on October 3, identifies "potential action items" for several of the Plan's elements. These items provide ideas for specific future actions that may be useful in implementing the broad vision, goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. Attached to this memo is a consolidated list of the potential action items from the draft Comprehensive Plan. The list is likely to be included as an appendix in the final Plan. However, the Planning Board can help identify achievable, high -priority action steps (whether or not from this list) and a timeline for when they must be accomplished. These high -priority action steps could be included in the body of the final Comprehensive Plan to help underscore their importance in the near term. On November 13, the Planning Board is scheduled to review and provide input on key action items and the year that each must be done. The Planning Board's input will help shape a set of final action items that can be highlighted in the final Comprehensive Plan. Note: staff recommends that the list of actions bed in number to help the actions stand out and be tracked. Below are some ideas that staff are considering including in the "high -priority" (and time -sensitive) category. However, they are not specifically included in the attached list of current "Potential implementation Action Items." Planning Board input at this stage would be very helpful. Draft High -Priority Action Steps: In 2025, develop code updates to: o Implement the "centers and hubs" approach adopted in the Comprehensive Plan; o Incorporate middle housing requirements from HB 1110; o Identify any updates needed for the city's critical area regulations In 2025 and 2026, work with two or more neighborhoods to develop urban framework plans for the design of public spaces. Next Steps: Following the Planning Board's review and feedback, staff will work to incorporate the Board's key ideas into a revised version of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The revised draft is intended to be published at the end of November. It will receive final public input and be further considered by the Planning Board and City Council. The revised Plan, with any final changes, is scheduled for City Council adoption on December 17, 2024. (Under state law, the Plan must be adopted by December 31, 2024, and submitted for state agency review.) Attachments: Potential Action Items Packet Pg. 54 7.A.a Below is the list of potential action items included in the draft plan published for each of the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The list outlines key action items that can be further explored to guide implementation efforts, considering the city's priorities, available resources, and other critical factors. These actions have been identified as potential opportunities to support the city's long-term vision, consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Housing Element Potential Action Items 1. Develop a "Housing Action Plan" every 5 years including assessments of housing supply relative to vulnerable populations' needs, in partnership with key stakeholders, such as Affordable Housing Alliance. 2. Establish local housing funds for relocation and eviction and/or foreclosure assistance, such as counseling services to educate tenants about their rights and directing residents to resources that may be available. 3. Conduct Racially Disparate Impacts Analysis every five years to ensure residential development helps meet Edmonds' housing affordability targets. 4. Establish a vacancy audit and reporting mechanism requiring property owners to report vacant units, with particular attention to ensuring that MFTE units are not left unoccupied. 5. Conduct a periodic review of the MFTE program to assess its effectiveness, including an analysis of occupancy rates, demographic reach, and community feedback. 6. Identify opportunities for shared parking lots that provide a net reduction in parking spaces while still reasonably meeting parking demand. Opportunities could include a shared parking system or parking districts. Packet Pg. 55 7.A.a 7. Develop pre -approved plans for ADU's for faster permitting. 8. Publish performance metrics and timelines for the permitting process 9. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes to ensure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing 10 Define key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the success of the Green Building program, such as the number of projects incentivized, energy savings achieved, and/or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Land Use Element Potential Action Items 11. Develop a `complete streets' street typology manual that considers land use in street design and functionality. 12. Develop a street activation toolkit to facilitate community led events that temporarily utilize the right of way for local gatherings in all centers and hubs 13. Utilize the Green Street manual as a tool to identify and design transportation and stormwater projects citywide 14. Conduct a well -reasoned analysis of local policies and regulations contributing to racially disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion at neighborhood level and take necessary actions to undo impacts. 15. Identify festival streets that could serve as periodic public spaces, designed with the goal of pedestrian comfort and providing flexibility to accommodate occasional events a .y _ E 0 U 0 _ _ 0 E 0 E L 0 CL 0 U) 0 U a 0 •L a N E 0 0 a r _ 0 0 a w m E M U f� Q Packet Pg. 56 7.A.a 16. Adopt tools to minimize impacts on adjacent lower -density residentially zoned properties, such as landscape buffers, tree retention, high -quality design elements, adequate parking, and low lighting and noise levels 17. Encourage developers to unbundle parking costs from rent, allowing tenants to opt out of paying for parking spaces they do not need. Waterfront 18. Create people centered hubs that are pedestrian -only zones, free of vehicular traffic, to expand usable open spaces for recreating, socializing and hosting events. 19. Develop signature pedestrian routes, with wide sidewalks, lighting and wayfinding, that connect parks, key activity nodes, and downtown Edmonds 20. Use interpretative signage and/or art to highlight the historic and ecological significance of the waterfront. 21. Develop additional pocket parks and open spaces along the boardwalk, connected by bike and pedestrian pathways for increased accessibility. 22. Provide diverse and inclusive amenities and activities that cater to all community members, visitors enhancing the recreational and cultural vibrancy of the waterfront. 23. Design a network of pathways, boardwalks, and trails that prioritize pedestrians and connect key destinations. 24. Continue implementing a continuous shoreline walkway (boardwalk/esplanade) from Brackett's Landing North to Marina Beach Park. Work with the Port of Edmonds to integrate recreation and marina functions into the long-term plan. 25. Rebuild Marina Beach Park to enhance access and incorporate green spaces, providing a revitalized recreational area for the community. 26. Restore and reclaim Edmonds Marsh as a vital ecological, educational and recreational area, designating it as an open space with water access for passive recreation. IE CU FL _ E 0 U _ E E L 0 CL U) 0 CU a L 0 a N E 0 a r _ 0 a w m tU M Q Packet Pg. 57 7.A.a 27. Support evaluation and establishment of a regional wildlife sanctuary and recreation area at the southern end of the Edmonds Waterfront. (Includes but not limited to the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary, adjacent wetland open spaces, the Unocal/WSDOT property, Marina Beach, city park, Willow Creek, and Shellabarger creek 28. Prioritize salmon restoration in all ecological planning and development. Support projects like Willow creek daylighting encouraging salmon restoration. Facilitate expansion of "Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery & Habitat Center" as the gateway to the restored Edmonds Marsh at SR 104/ Pine St. 29. Redevelop Marina Beach Park to enhance recreational amenities while preserving natural habitats. 30. Design boardwalk loop with viewing platforms, observation decks, educational signage, and wide landscape promenades to the Edmonds Marsh without impacting the environment, enhancing its ecological, educational and recreational value 31. . Create pathways to protect flora and fauna, minimize ecological disturbance, and prevent habitat destruction. 32. Rehabilitate and protect riparian zones along streams to improve water quality and provide essential habitat for salmon 33. Identify, remove or modify barriers such as culverts, dams, pipes and weirs that impede salmon migration, ensuring free passage for all life stages of salmon 34. Partner with organizations to educate community, partner with landowners, Tribes, government agencies, community groups, businesses and other nonprofits to develop supportive programs and exhibits to educate local residents and visitors about Edmonds unique ecosystems, ecological conservation and significance. 35. Encourage programs related to ecological education in local schools a E 0 U E E L 0 CL U) 0 U Q •L 0 a N 0 a r 0 a tU f� Q Packet Pg. 58 7.A.a 36. Facilitate the growth of the education centers such as Restoration Education Center or Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery, Watershed Education Center, to provide learning opportunities related to the local watershed and salmon habitat. H-99 37. Establish a structured and regular schedule for engaging with the Highway 99 community to ensure ongoing, meaningful participation and input. Critical Areas 38. Implement performance -based standards that encourage developers to meet specific environmental outcomes rather than prescriptive requirements Soil & Topography 39. Grading, filling, and tree cutting should be restricted to building pads, reasonable construction clearance, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces 40. Grading should not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property 41. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill should not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property 42. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope 43. Minimize deforestation and encourage planting of deep-rooted vegetation and mulch (of suitable native varieties) to prevent siltation of drainage ways and improve stability on steep slopes 44. Ensure proper design and maintenance of drainage systems to manage surface water runoff and prevent soil saturation 45. Tree Canopy 46. Reassess city tree canopy at five-year intervals to monitor change and make strategic management decisions. 47. Include a tree planting budget and a maintenance plan in all rights -of -way and other capital transportation projects CU FL _ E 0 U _ E 0 CL U) 0 U Q •L .s a N E 0 a 0 a w E tU f� Q Packet Pg. 59 7.A.a 48. Create volunteer programs to assist elderly or disabled residents with tree care tasks, leveraging community involvement and support 49. Consider a tree protection ordinance that outlines the criteria for significant trees (factors such as size, species, age, historical significance, and ecological value) and specifies the protections afforded to them 50. Consider requiring permits for any activity that could potentially impact significant trees, including pruning, removal, and construction activities within the tree's critical root zone 51. Consider the replacement of removed significant trees with appropriate species and sizes, ensuring no net loss of tree canopy Economic Development Potential Action Items 52. Develop relocation options in Edmonds for those displaced from mobile home parks and engage with communities to make those resources known 53. Provide additional support for safety, community space, and walkability improvements through securing grants and other financial support 54. Establish a shared metric for quality of life that incorporates the following measures as a starting point, possibly with the addition of other elements to be determined: • Connection • Mobility • Sociability • Stability — particularly with respect to housing stability FL 0 0 CL E 0 U CO _ E CL E w CL r W _ 0 a •L 0 IL 0 E a 20 _ 0 CL _ E a Packet Pg. 60 7.A.a • Health • Safety 55. Continue to foster an open and accepting community culture that respects diversity, in part because progressive communities are better able to attract and retain business. • Identify sources of risk where displacement risk is high • Develop programs that mitigate and manage displacement risk. • Identify meaningful investments in areas with lower economic opportunity. • Develop incentives to manage and preserve affordable commercial spaces within mixed -use areas that support small local businesses 56. Assist in applications for grants, subsidies, or if feasible, provide direct funding opportunities Capital Facilities Element Potential Action Items 57. Create and maintain a long-range Municipal Capital Facility Plan. Integrate preservation priorities into the long-term strategic planning. Q Packet Pg. 61 7.A.a 58. Develop program requirements for City departments to support the delivery of City services considering department adjacencies and square footage needed for current and future growth requirements. 59. Identify deficiencies, gaps, and areas of improvement in the existing capital facility asset inventory based on projected growth, service levels of public facing services and deferred maintenance backlogs. 60. A Implement a phased facility implementation plan that includes overarching strategic facility goals. Use an achievable funding strategy and phasing program, which considers financing options, impact fees, property sales or trades, and joint -use opportunities with partners. 61. Conduct feasibility studies for each existing building, projecting usage, utility costs, and carbon reduction goals over the next 10-20 years, while also assessing the cost -benefit of potential updates such as conversion to electric heating and hot water. Utilities Element Potential Action Items 62. Develop strategies to enhance the resilience of utility systems against natural disasters, climate change, and other potential disruptions Culture, History & Urban Design Potential Action Items 63. Work with local schools and youth organizations to dedicate spaces for youth perspectives in community -wide conversations. Packet Pg. 62 7.A.a 64. Support the maintenance of a strategic plan to guide the priorities and activities of the Historic Preservation Commission. 65. The city should invest in a set of "urban design frameworks" to be updated on an estimated 5-year cycle for each identified Activity Center, Neighborhood Center and/or Hub 66. Urban design frameworks should follow a standardized method, such as the 12 urban quality criteria" developed by the Gehl Institute and shown in figure x to assess urban design opportunities along with the utilization of the Gehl Public Life Data Protocol to inform public realm investments. These criteria center around three critical human needs — protection, comfort, and enjoyment. (Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings. New York: Van Nostra nd-Reinhold.) 67. The urban Design framework shall be developed with participation from relevant city departments including Planning & Development, Public Works, Community, Culture & Economic Development and Parks, Recreation and Human Services. 68. The framework should be developed with Edmonds' identity as an arts destination as one of the key criteria for assessment. 69. The Urban Design Frameworks shall include a "public life study" (Refer Appendix x for a sample of Public Life Study) The public life study should include data on items such as: ■ The scale and urban characteristics of the space ■ How many people are there, and for how long a _ L Q E 0 U d _ _ E E L 0 CL U) 0 U Q •L .s a N E d 0 a r _ 0 a w M tU f� Q Packet Pg. 63 7.A.a ■ Who is there, by gender, age, etc. ■ What activities are people engaging in ■ Mapping of existing public spaces, transportation networks and community amenities including art installations. 70. Using data collected through public life studies, the city should create Public Life Action Plans as a core component of each urban design framework to identify both design and programming opportunities, gaps and areas for improvement. integrating artistic expression and cultural activities to enrich the community's distinct character and enhance quality of life. 71. Update and develop policy to implement the goals as defined in the Community Cultural plan with a focus on strategies of the 'Creative Arts' to enrich Edmonds' physical environment, including public spaces. 72. Strategize distribution of restricted funds collected for the acquisition, installation ad maintenance of public art under 'Municipal arts fund' and `Public art acquisition fund'. 73. Based on Urban Design Framework and the completed Public Life Studies, identify areas with limited access to cultural resources and opportunities for artistic expression. Climate Element Potential Action Items CU FL 0 _ L Q E 0 U d _ _ E E L 0 CL U) 0 U a L 0 •L a N 0 a r _ 0 a w m E U f� Q Packet Pg. 64 7.A.a 74. Allocate resources to enhance climate literacy for the community with emphasis on educating community leaders, youth, and organizations by facilitating regular workshops and seminars on climate 75. Create a centralized resource providing information and updates 76. Conduct regular climate risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities, inform housing resilience strategies, and make relevant updates to the building codes 77. Establish advisory boards such as Climate Champions with representatives from vulnerable communities to guide program development and implementation 78. Conduct thorough climate equity assessments to evaluate how proposed city funded capital projects may affect vulnerable populations, with a focus on reducing disparities in climate resilience and access to resources 79. Conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIA) for large-scale projects to evaluate and address potential health impacts on vulnerable populations and neighborhoods. Define threshold criteria for determining which projects require an HIA based on factors such as project size and type, potential health impacts, and the characteristics of the affected populations 80. Expand responsibilities of the existing Climate Protection Committee to act as the Climate Policy Advisory Team as defined in Section 2.1 of the guidance document 81. Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for city government facilities and operations 82. Develop a climate risk assessment and impact analysis for the Edmonds community. Consider the potential impacts to economic, land use, and other community patterns due to the short- and long-term risks associated with climate change using tools specified in Section 3.1 of the guidance document CU FL 0 _ L Q E 0 U d t _ _ E E L 0 CL U) 0 U Q •L .s a N E 0 a r _ 0 a w E M tU f� Q Packet Pg. 65 7.A.a 83. Undertake a Climate Equity Strategic Plan that identifies issues, and targets actions that address climate equity. Include planning tools appropriate to both public and private participants. The following activities should be part of the plan: • Utilize Edmonds Equitable Engagement Framework to inform equitable public outreach processes and best practices. Incorporate surveys and other forms of data collection to find populations needing support. Engage with advocacy groups and elevate local needs and priorities. • Assess the effects of climate risk on vulnerable populations, e.g. seniors, and those on fixed incomes. • Develop recommendations for community programs responsive to findings. • Coordinate with, and leverage state and regional goals and initiatives. • Implement a monitoring schedule: Align the periodic assessment with scheduled updates to vulnerability analysis for regular evaluation and timely update of strategies and actions. 84. Undertake a policy review of City comprehensive, strategic, and specific plans to ensure that City policies are appropriately targeted to prepare for and mitigate potential impacts of climate change. • The reviews may be done to correspond with scheduled plan updates or accelerated where either a higher priority is identified, or the next update is not specifically scheduled • Develop and implement robust development standards that are adaptable to the impacts of climate change, enhancing the resilience of the city's infrastructure, buildings, and communities • Update building codes to incorporate climate -resilient materials and construction practices that can withstand extreme weather events such as heatwaves, floods, and storms FL _ E 0 U d _ E E L 0 CL U) 0 U Q L .s a N 0 a 0 a E M tU f� Q Packet Pg. 66 7.A.a • Update land use plans for climate adaptation and resilience based on the strategies identified within climate change risk assessment and impact analysis to address sea level rise, flooding, wildfire, extreme heat, and other hazards 85. Implement urban cooling strategies such as increasing green spaces, greater tree canopy, opportunities for water -based recreation, installing cool roofs and pavements, (Refer UDF goals in Community Design Element) 86. Develop and implement policies to enhance carbon sequestration through natural and engineered solutions, contributing to the city's climate goals and improving environmental health 87. Conduct a detailed vulnerability assessment of coastal areas, identifying critical infrastructure, properties, and natural habitats at risk from sea level rise 88. Establish and maintain monitoring systems to track sea level changes and the effectiveness of adaptation measures over time 89. Conduct an economic impacts analysis of sea level rise and the costs and benefits of different adaptation strategies 90. Regularly update and implement the City's Emergency Management Plan (EMP) including identification of multimodal emergency and evacuation routes. 91. Include measures to ensure resilience of local energy supply at City operated mass care facilities, such as solar power and battery storage, in the event of electrical outages due to extreme weather or fires 92. Conduct community drills and education programs to ensure residents are informed and prepared 93. Support local schools in integrating climate and sustainability education into curriculum 94. Explore carbon credits on the voluntary carbon market as a funding source for energy improvement programs/incentives for small businesses 95. Pursue the use of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies as a means of reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. 96. • Operational izing complete street approach a _ L E 0 U _ CL E 0 4- W CL U) 0 U Q •L s a N E d 0 U a M 0 a w E U f� Q Packet Pg. 67 7.A.a • Explore a market -based vehicle, bike and scooter share program in Edmonds. 97. Promote the use of electric vehicles (EVs) by expanding charging infrastructure especially within City -owned facilities including parks 98. Partner with utility companies to create favorable EV charging rates and infrastructure development programs 99. Establish a monitoring program which should include measures that: • Enable a comparison between measurement periods • Measure progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals • Identify opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets • Evaluate the effectiveness to achieve these goals. 100. Develop benchmarks and indicators to measure progress toward sustainability goals. They should be both understandable and obtainable so that they can be easily explained and used. Q Packet Pg. 68 10.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/13/2024 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Discuss the attached extended agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: November 13 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 69 10.A.a Planning Board Extended Agenda - November 13, 2024 N l6 O I dA Qi 110 Q T r1 Q O N Q 00 cn rl �n Ln u �i u O M N u O O M O z M .--I O z I� N N 0 ri 1-1 N 0 lD rl N 0 L� N Ln N — \ r-1 ra (V N (1) LL N —A v � l6 N N —A l6 N Q Qi N Q M N 4 c-i 00 N r-I —1 Lf N Ol M N Q M —1 Q 1" N Comprehensive Plan Transportation D/R D/R Land Use D/R D/R D/R Housing D/R D/R D/R Waterfront Vision - Preliminary Concept B Draft Comp Plan Element Review D/R D/R Draft Perferred Alternative Recommendation D/R Future Land Use Map Review D/R Action and Implementation Items D/R Recommendation on Final Draft D/R Code Updates Green Building Incentives PH D/R Climate Legislative Package I PH D/R Middle Housing (HB 1110 - mid 2025) 1 D/R D/R PH D/R Design standards and processes (HB 1293 - mid 2025), including multfamily design standards I D/R D/R PH D/R CAO Update (RCW 36.70A.130 - end 2025) 1 Land use permit timelines (SB 5290 - end 2024) R PH Tree Code Update Long Range Capital Improvement Program/Capital Facilties Plan I PH Tree Canopy Policy D/R Administrative Site specific rezone request PH Election of Officers I Planning & Development Annual Work Plan B Annual Retreat (start at 6) I Planning Board report to City Council I B Possible Park Renaming I Parks, Recreation & Human Services Report R B KEY I- Introduction & Discussion PH- Public Hearing D/R- Discussion/Recommendation B- Briefing/Q&A R- Report with no briefing/presentation Regular meeting cancelled Future Items Neighborhood Center/Hub Plans Code Modernization Projects: 1. Unified Development Code (late 2025 - 2026) Comp Plan Implementation Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Special Meetings/Presentations October 17 & 30, November 25, and December 16 are special meetings January 28, 2025 is a presentation to Council r Q Packet Pg. 70