Loading...
2024-11-04 Council Special Minutes BEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES November 4, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "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." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Rosen invited Diana White to join him at the podium as he read the proclamation. He explained Ms. White is on the Hazel Miller Foundation Board, an enrolled member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe, a member of the Blue Heron Canoe Family, a trustee for the Seattle Foundation, past Edmonds School Board Director, past Edmonds Center for the Arts Board Member, and a darn fine person. Mayor Rosen read a proclamation proclaiming November as National Native American Heritage Month in the City of Edmonds and encouraging our community to actively seek knowledge about the original Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 1 inhabitants of North America and commit to preserving Native American heritage and traditions for generations to come. Ms. White explained when she moved to Edmonds 23 years ago, one of the things she would tell her family was there's nothing native in Edmonds, something that went on for a quite a few years. Now, she is proud to say there is a lot of native art in Edmonds including at the Waterfront Center and across the street. She was proud of the role she has had in helping to educate people on native causes. She was happy to say this next year she will be working on a project with other native persons to create a booklet called the Indigenous Walking Tour of Edmonds that will highlight native art, native murals and anything they can find in the community and also tell the story about what the art means and who the artists are. She thanked the council for the proclamation, migw6ch in Potawatomi. 2. MAYOR'S FINANCE UPDATE Mayor Rosen relayed the council spent time together Saturday and a good deal of the earlier meeting talking about finances. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DELETE COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 10.3, COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, WHICH WAS COVERED IN THE EARLIER MEETING. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO CHANGE THE EXPECTED DURATION OF 13, EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, FROM 30 TO 45 MINUTES. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Arlene Williams, Edmonds, representing herself and 13 other residents on 227"' Place SW and 228"' Place SW who are asking for a small transition zone in the proposed alternatives for the Westgate Center. They want reduced building heights for 22805 and 22811 100'b Avenue West to create a buffer for the adjacent single family homes on 227"' Place SW which are at the same elevation as these two commercial lots. There is already a subarea on the southern border of the proposed Westgate map and there is no reason not to include one on the northern border. The lot at 22805 100"' Avenue West is currently restricted to two stories with no incentive for an extra floor. Proposed Alternative A would add three floors to that lot for a total of five floors which is unacceptable. They are proposing three stories without incentive for these two lots as a transition between Westgate Center and the single family homes. She believed the current momentum behind Westgate Center Alternative A is based on a mistaken assumption that the city code currently allows four stories everywhere in Westgate; instead as shown on pages 3-5 of the materials she provided, only the southwest corner allows four stories. A majority of lots are three stories with some two story around the boundaries where low rise single family homes are at the same elevation as the commercial lots. These two lots also contain protective slopes above the 340 elevation mark (see pages 6 and 7) where existing trees and vegetation shall be retained and no development activity like grading or construction can occur. These two commercial lots have stormwater and drainage issues as well which she explained in her written comments on pages 1-2. Currently there is excess capacity in the combined preferred alternatives to allow the council to make this change. The surplus capacity for Edmonds is a whopping 1,800 units above the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 2 2,400 units the City needs to find which is 175% of what is needed. The planning board is recommending restricting the whole Five Corners Center to three stories with no incentive. It is only fair to treat these two Westgate lots the same and spare residents on 227tb Place SW. She urged the council to make this change at the comprehensive plan level and not leave it for later zoning. She provided written material. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, suggested one way the city can increase revenue is to lease or sell surplus items that the city owns. For example, land, property or equipment acquired in the past for public utility purposes can be leased or sold under RCW 35.94.040. This RCW was not complied with when public ownership of stormwater facilities at 22901 Edmonds Way was conveyed to a private party under Ordinance 4061. He questioned how this happened and if there was ever any accountability. During last year's budget process, a presentation involving red light camera revenue was made even though city council had not adopted legislation allowing red light cameras. On June 25, 2024, council voted to adopt Ordinance 4361 related to red light cameras; the ordinance claims it was adopted pursuant to RCW 46.63.170 which is not possible as RCW 46.63.170 was repealed prior to June 25, 2024. He urged the council not to rely on red light camera revenue before they have confirmed that Ordinance 4361 was adopted pursuant to existing state law. Next, Mr. Reidy said he has informed the city that there are signs posted in Civic Park that are not consistent with city law. The signs have not been removed. He recommended looking at ECDC 20.60.075 to see if a policy needs to be added requiring the mayor or a director to verify that all wording on governmental signs is consistent with city code before city staff purchases and installs signs. As the council adopts the budget for 2025-2026 in the weeks ahead, he urged council to consider what should happen if the budget is not executed. For example, the code rewrite has been budgeted on multiple occasions, yet it has never been executed. Finally, he has asked questions about the hearing examiner for years. For example, what should happen if city staff and the city attorney choose not to provide a hearing examiner all relevant code sections for a hearing. On March 29, 2023, he informed city council that the hearing examiner term was set to expire at the end of 2023 and that he was hopeful Edmonds city government would not overlook that expiration for the third time. He asked that all his questions be considered by city council prior to confirming the mayor's appointment of a four year term starting January 1, 2024. His questions were never answered and no appointment or reappointment to the office of hearing examiner for a new four year term was ever made. He questioned how that happened. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 2. BUDGET QUERIES 3.0 - COUNCIL BUDGET QUESTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION/STAFF RESPONSES 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENTS FOR PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINES AND PUBLIC NOTICE TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATES IN SB 5290 AND HB 1105 (FILE AMD2024-0002) 9. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON DISPOSITION OF SEWER EASEMENT — ANTHOLOGY SENIOR LIVING City Engineer Rob English reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 3 • Project Location j3P 204TH ¢ y. S i i L MONDDI EDMONOS " 208TH ST SW 3 I92THSTSW N1 l N`OJ 3 4N, •J 220TH ST SW • Survey of Sewer Easement o Originally easement recorded in 1977 as a 10-foot wide sewer easement with the bulk of the easement on Lot 3 to the northwest and crossed into Lot 4 where the Anthology development is occurring o Easement encumbers a portion of the south side of property — 216 sf Easement Area on Lot 4 o Prior building was served by a sewer pipe line connected to that building o When building was demolished for development of Anthology, the sewer was capped and service was no longer provided EXHIBIT C DEP—ON OF AD —ON OF EASEMENT F.I.—WISH-1 c 212TH ST SW $ �� M (PD6UC RIGHT OF WAY) GRAPHIC SGLI 30' a zs sI 2•-sD' LOT G TPN:QH5NO]000OO— I PaRnaN OF g RASEMENBE RFIINWISHEDTTO POINT OF Q� NJ9'59'21"E LOT Co'. g 10.00� N50tl0'J9'W SE COR. 4 4 v 21.9J' POMT OF IiE01111q 30' ^ a AS A, N8852'S3"W 128.08' 1 NSOtlO'J9"W 10' EASEMENT SEWER 15.115' 15.W0' EA9EM11 2 . N0. Raevr ---------------------------------- LOT 3 CFIV OF EDUDIN08 SH W PLAT 8.77 MC. NO. 7706710Y PARK 212 APT LLC - E(HIBIf NOTE THI5 EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ASSIST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCOMPANYING z L17p LEGAL DESCRIPTION- IF THERE 6 A CONFLCT BE EN THE W—EN LEGAL DESCRIPTON ANO 1. THIS SKETCH, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHALL NW 1/4, NW 114. SEC. 29, TWP. 22x., RGE. 4F., WY Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell reviewed: • Proposed development — Anthology Senior Living Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 4 0 127 senior living units o Located in CG zone which has different frontage improvements than existed prior to construction of this development o Future development will include ■ Landscape buffer between the street and sidewalk ■ New wider sidewalk ■ Sidewalk encroaches onto private property for which pedestrian easements were retained Proposed Development o Subject sewer easement only serves subject property o Existing public sewer abandoned with project o New sewer connection direct to 212th St SW o Public pedestrian easement o Public water vault easement 21M STREET 8W J ^^��� I 1 PROPOSED 6-FLOOR SENIOR _NG FACILITY WITH I -LEVEL /l(� UNDERGROUWUPARING r'I �-��. �I . 4 Mr. English continued: • Disposition of Easement o RCW 35.94.040 ■ By resolution and pursuant to a public hearing, City Council may release or otherwise sell, the surplus lands or property at its fair market value or rent or other consideration to be paid o Resolution 1560 approved by City Council 10/22/2024 o Appraisal — Fair Market Value $8,700 o Other Consideration ■ City ownership & maintenance responsibilities eliminated ■ Public pedestrian & water vault easements granted ■ Frontage improvements constructed — 212th St SW & 72nd Ave W Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 5 o Easement Comparison ■ Pedestrian & water vault easements to be granted - approx. 1823 sf ■ Sewer easement proposed to be released — 216 sf Staff Recommendation o Approve release of sewer easement o No monetary compensation in consideration for the improvements being built and the easements granted to the city o Acceptance of public pedestrian and water vault easements ■ (Approved by City Council February 15, 2022) Mayor Rosen opened the public testimony portion of the hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented a much different item was presented to the PPW Committee at its March 8, 2022 meeting. The committee was told the city wanted to release a utility easement. Somebody had taken the time and spent public resources to prepare a final draft of a release of a utility document and there was no mention of the need for a public hearing in the committee agenda packet. He emailed the committee on March 5, 2022 and informed the committee of the following: "The City of Edmonds does not release or relinquish a public easement. The City of Edmonds vacates public easements. ECDC 20.70.060.G states that an appraisal that not required if a utility easement only is proposed to be vacated. Please requires Mayor Mike Nelson request the City of Edmonds to comply with Chapter 20.70 during this process. This is Mayor Nelson's duty per ECC 2.01.010. It is not my duty as a citizen to make sure all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the City. Why should any citizen ever feel a need to write an email such as this. Sadly I fear that if I do not write this email, our laws and ordinances will not be faithfully enforced. ECDC 20.70.000 states this chapter establishes the procedure and criteria that the city will use to decide upon vacations of streets, alleys and public easements. Ordinance 2933, adopted January 1993. For one example of us doing this in the past, please refer to Ordinance 3289 which vacated a portion of a utility easement. ECDC 20.70.110 states the city council shall hold a public hearing on each requested vacation. Again, please request Mayor Mike Nelson require the City of Edmonds to comply with Chapter 20.70 during this process. This is Mayor Nelson's duty per ECC 2.01.010." Mr. Reidy continued, despite his efforts in March 2022, here we are over 2'/2 years later and council is conducting a different type of public hearing under RCW 35.94. 040. RCW 35.94 says nothing about the disposition of a sewer easement. Chapter 35.94 RCW deals with the sale or lease of surplus land, property or equipment acquired in the past for public utility purposes. Utility easements are not real property. He urged the council to respect the city code and comply with ECDC 20.70 and vote to refund the cost of the appraisal found on packet pages 66-138 to the property owner. With no further public comment, Mayor Rosen closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE RELEASE OF THE SEWER EASEMENT. Councilmember Dotsch asked if the property is there and it is an easement for an underground pipe, who is paying the property tax on that, and whether it was the property owner. Mr. English answered it is fee title so they own that and would be paying the taxes. Councilmember Dotsch asked whether they use it or not, property tax is still paid by the current owner. Mr. English answered that was correct. Councilmember Dotsch said she was still trying to understand how it is a physical thing to release versus vacating since the City is vacating what is under the ground, not the property above it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed his understanding of the way property taxes work is the assessor assesses based on an appraisal of the value of the property. The more a property is encumbered by easement drives the value of the property down, so theoretically the property is paying less tax on something that is burdened than something that wasn't burdened. With regard to Councilmember Dotsch second question, he explained an easement is a form of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 6 real property. There are lots of different types of real property, an easement is a permanent right to use someone else's real property and is considered a real property interest. To the question of why not use the street vacation process, Mr. Taraday explained state law provides two separate processes for different types of easements; there is a street vacation process in RCW 35.79 which is a different process than the process set forth in RCW 35.94. The state legislature distinguishes between utility interests, property or in this case easements, and directs the city to follow RCW 35.94 for utility related things. It is a similar process, but not identical. For vacations, there is a process under RCW 35.79. There are different considerations at play; the main issue with vacation and how to know whether the process is a vacation is all the things that can be vacated are basically related to public travel and access such as a street, alley, a public pedestrian easement. For example, if the city were ever to get rid of the public pedestrian easement, the street vacation process in Chapter 20.70 would be followed. In determining the process, staff looks to the underlying purpose of the utility easement to determine if it is related to public travel; if it is, the street vacation process is used. If it is for a utility, then the RCW 35.94 process is used. Councilmember Dotsch commented part of it goes under the building and the City doesn't own under their building, the City can't just go under their building because the easement exists. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on whether there is an easement or not. If the City has a right to the underneath of someone's building, the City can go under it. That is how easements work; a utility easement often gives someone the right to go in, tear the property up, make repairs, replace what's there and put it back together. Councilmember Dotsch commented it's access; like going to a movie theater, this is the ticket to get in that the City is monetizing. Mr. Taraday answered the sewer easement is worth something. If the City needed to extend a sewer over someone else's property the City couldn't just do it. The City would have to go to the property owner and say the City would like to extend a sewer across your property and the property owner would ask how much are you going to pay me and the City would pay fair market value or just compensation. That is how that sewer easement would be acquired. This is just the undoing of that where money flows in the opposite direction. In this case it is not a money flow, it is a right of property flow but it is basically undoing what would be done if a sewer line was being extended. Councilmember Dotsch said with that logic of putting something across someone's property, it devalues their property. She asked if that was what the City would be paying for. Mr. Taraday agreed that was how it worked. Anytime an easement is acquired, whether it is for a water main, sewer main, pedestrian easement, etc., all those burden property and devalue it. The reason they devalue property is because if a property owner gives the City permission to use their property, the property owner has less ability to do things on their property. Because of that, the City has to pay when it acquires easements because easements have real value. That is why condemnation exists; sometimes the parties can't agree on what to pay and the imminent domain process is used to acquire those easements and let the court decide what just compensation is. The City is basically doing the opposite of condemnation. Councilmember Dotsch recalled the development is providing a pedestrian easement on the front and side and because of that, staff s recommendation is no monetary compensation. Mr. Taraday commented if the City wasn't getting any easement in return, the City would be acquiring cash. Because the City is getting easements, it does not need to acquire cash to be justly compensated. Using the opposite of condemnation example, the City feels it is being justly compensated by receiving these easements in exchange versus taking cash. Councilmember Nand said under normal circumstances she wouldn't question the staff recommendation to release the easement without seeking compensation, but the City is in such a desperate financial status this year. She asked for a ballpark estimate for how much the City is receiving in permit revenue from the Anthology development. Mr. English answered knew they paid a substantial traffic impact fee, a building Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 7 permit fee, and general facility charges for water, sewer and storm connections. He did not have the amounts with him but they were sizeable because of the size of the development. Councilmember Nand said it was her sense this type of relinquishment without compensation was standard practice for the City. She asked if was worthwhile to ask for the $8,700 appraised value. Mr. English answered staff s evaluation of what the project is providing offsets that $8,700 payment. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2024 OCTOBER BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe reviewed budget amendments beginning on packet page 155: • HR - increase spending authority by $12,729 with corresponding, offsetting revenue. Total effect to General Fund is -$800 (packet page 155) • Police Department — most of increased spending authority offset is by revenues, totally budget neutral and results in zero dollar effect to 2024 • Request to increase General Fund spending authority by $550,000. The most controversial and an item the council may want to discuss. Required to keep budget appropriation in line with forecast spending authority and what spending authority at the end of 2024 will actually be. This keeps the City from having a finding in the audit and other more substantial ramifications (packet page 158) • Community, Culture & Economic Development — request to increase spending authority to accommodate grants and other spending. Spending across 2024 and 2025 does not require more General Fund spending, just an increase in spending to allow some of grants and donations to be spent (packet page 159). • Grants using ARPA funds provided in previous years that were unable to be spent and entity will send the funds back to the City. City has until December 31, 2024 to spend the money. Request is to apply the funds to the fire contract. • Related to utility bond fund issuance earlier this year. True up the bond issue and refinancing related to 2013 refunding and bring spending and repayment of 2013 bond issuance and increase spending authority to accommodate that. • Offset to above and put the 2024 bond issuance into the budget. o To the question of why this was not included in the 2024 budget, it was unknown at that time if this would be approved. Now that the refunding is complete, need to have spending authority to accommodate payback of refunding of 2013 bonds, bond issuance and payment that will occur in December for the bonds issued in 2024. • Increase spending authority for Fund 511, ER&R Fund to accommodate carryover missed from 2023 into 2024 to accommodate outfitting police vehicles purchased in 2023. Mayor Rosen relayed staff was seeking council action tonight to approve an ordinance to amend the budget. Ms. Dunscombe agreed. Councilmember Nand asked for clarification that the administration was proposing to sweep funds in 018 Edmonds Homeless Response Fund with these amendments or have those funds already been swept. Ms. Dunscombe answered that was a request made in the July amendments which was declined and is not part of this amendment. Councilmember Nand referred to Exhibits B and C which indicate the funds had been swept. She would not be resistant to sweeping if those funds could be allocated toward preserving direct human services staffing, equipment resources, etc. Ms. Dunscombe responded Exhibit A Fund 018, the Edmonds Homeless Response Fund, shows the unaudited beginning fund balance is $200,000. She was certain that would be the result after the audit and $200,000 is shown as the 2024 ending fund balance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 8 Since council denied the request during the previous budget amendment process, she was not proposing to spend any of that fund in 2024. However, as part of the 2025 proposed budget, there is a proposal to spend $130,000 of that $200,000 to fund the social worker position in the police department. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS ATTACHED TO THE PACKET AMENDING THE 2024 BUDGET. Councilmember Paine commented it will be good to tidy up all the loose ends going into the budget season. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REMOVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT ON PAGE 158 TO INCREASE GENERAL FUND SPENDING BY $550,000. Councilmember Chen observed the description states the 2024 budget originally budgeted $3.2 million as savings supposed to be realized by projected staff vacancies which has been discovered is difficult to realize. In addition, to spending the $3.2 million, that spending authority is expanded even further, another $550,000 which was heading in the wrong direction given the City's current financial situation. This $550,000 was based on cashflow estimates that that amount would be spent by year end. He cautioned the spending limits are heading in the wrong direction. He understood there was an audit concern, but if it was truly needed by the end of the year, a yearend budget amendment could be approved. At this time, he was hesitant to approve that amendment. Councilmember Nand recalled Ms. Dunscombe and Finance Committee Chair Councilmember Chen had a robust discussion about lifting the spending limit by $550,000 during the Finance Committee meeting. She seconded Councilmember Chen's motion for discussion to raise this issue for the council and the public to show the council is paying assiduous attention to every dollar in the budget book. She was comfortable with raising the spending authority by $550,000 but wanted to provide an opportunity for Councilmember Chen to explain his concerns. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND DOTSCH VOTING YES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PLANNING BOARD PREFERRED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE AND FLUM DISCUSSION Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope explained tonight is aimed at selecting a preferred alternative for further growth. She reviewed: • Task at Hand o Selection tonight of Preferred Alternative to guide growth ■ Council's November 4 selection critical because Draft Comp Plan must be revised to reflect the selection and other information; this will take 2-3 weeks; ■ Delay in selecting Preferred Alternative would make it nearly impossible to complete the Comprehensive Plan update before the end of 2024 (when it is due to the State). ■ About the only way the Comprehensive Plan can be completed by the end of 2024 is if nothing else changes and the council holds an additional meeting between Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. • Recap of Proposed Alternatives Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 9 Step 1: Growth Target City needs to plan for Step 2: Counting the existing capacity Tar at usin L_ ]�J County adopted housing units target (includes existing capacity including H-99) Edmonds currently has capacity for 5148 units, but only 4,948 units can be counted towards growth targets. • 4862 units that are mufti family, senior apartments Le low rise or mid rise • 84 units that must are middle housing • Capacity for ADUs has not previously been evaluated • 201 units that are single family (Not Counted as they do not satisfy HB 1220) 4,946 L Existing Ca ac' Per BLR 9,069 — 4,946 = 4,123 Required Typology for the total 4,123 • 1952 - low-rise or mid -rise multi- family apartment category. • 2129 ADUs or low-rise or mid - rise multi -family apartment category. • 42 units that are middle housing low- rise or mid -rise multi -family apartment category Step 3: Capacity we need to plan for after considering existing plus capacity achieved by the enabling house bills HB1110-HB1337 Achieved Caoacily 4,946 2,019 Existing Ca aci Per BLR •t , 11 T 300 units approx. Loss of tines In UNOCAL 2,400 units City to find potential growth locations feasible to accommodate this additlonal housing Growth Alternatives A and B o To accommodate needed capacity for housing and jobs ■ Both alternatives include capacity on Hwy 99 and along SR 104. ■ Each alternative varies in where and how much future development would occur NIONDS Alternative 4 gD • • Growth „setae,. Neighborhood Residential„,,. (Housing Bill. Compliance( Middle housing: Duplexes, Triplexes, ADUs. townhomes, quedplexes (only with one affordable unit, stacked flats, cottage style and courtyard apartmerrts J Neighborhood Center t e Mld-scalemix-,,e:Apertmentsorcondos with retail/ commercial/offices on ground floor in select locations 4' Floors •Neighborhood Hub .n.r e n i Low stele mized-use: Apertinents ar <ontlos with rate!/ An.;ry t•me, ��: commercial/ offices on ground floor in select locations 3 Floors,\ gF'�' . OTransit Oriented Housing V Total Capacity Enabled in ALTA L �� 3,860 --------------------------------------------- n.a.e ao J None_ Capacity meMrs shown are approximate values Neighborhood Residential (Housing Bills Complience) Middle housing: Duplexes, Triplexes, ADU%townhomes. uadplexes q(only with one affordable unit), stacked flats, cottage style and courtyard apartments Neighborhood Center Mltl-scale mixetl-use: Apartments or condos with retell/ cial/oMlcos on grwntl floor In select locations 3' Floors •Neighborhood Hub Low scale miw,r} e: Apartments or con dos with retail/ commercial/ once, on ground floor in select locemns 3Floors GTransit Oriented Housing 'Maplewood Hub: Cannot count towards GMA Capacity Total Capacity Enabled in ALT B - 4,285 Note_ Capacity metrics shown are approximate values r�,o•k wx•a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 10 Alternative A: s Focused Growth Total Capacity Enabled in ALT A - 3,860 t rn�amai oav a F n Alternative B: Distributed Growth Total Capacity Enabled in ALT B - 4,285 t r C«^ers I \ MgTaY 99 I a - 9 5 aY 9 �S awa 1 SuOa W FE as WLaY , aa,a. ea 11 lib9e Te7vo ve fl.i Urban Planner Navyusha Pentakota reviewed the Planning Board Recommendation for Preferred Growth Alternative: • Draft Area Details of Planning Board's Recommendation (with capacity achieved) o PB Preference: Westgate ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt A as proposed ■ Heights — Alt A as proposed Neighborhood Commercial Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 4 floors I 1800 units o Future Land Use Changes: Westgate Comprehsnslrs Plan 2020 - Community Commercial Single Family Urban 1 Mixed Use 5 Up to 4 floors is with 45' max incentive) 25' Mixed Use 4 Up to 4 floors Low density Residential 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 11 o PB Preference: Five Corners ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt A as proposed ■ Heights: Max height of 3 stories (no bonus) � Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) � Up to 3 floors V420 UNITS ,� axnsc t all o Future Land Use Changes: Five Corners Comprehensive Plan 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Neighborhood Commercial 25' % Mined Use 3 Up to 3 Floors Single Family Urban 1 25' Lou, Density Residential 1 Multi Family Medium Density 25'-30' - MOtl¢rote Density Residential o PB Preference: Medical District ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed ■ Heights: Mix of what's proposed in Alt A, Alt B - Parcels on either side of 212th — Heights same as proposed in Alt A — Up to 4 floors (5 with incentives) - Rest of the parcels (E of 76th, west and south of Woodway High School) — 3 Floors max (No incentives) Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 4 floors Up to 3 floors 750 UNITS EL o Future Land Use Changes: Medical District Expansion Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 12 - MedicalyHwy 99 Activity inter \ law W0 \r Comprehensive Plan 2020 Mixed Use Commercial 25-75' Single Family Urban 1 25' Multi Family Medium Density 25-30' - Mixed Use 5(Medical) Up to 4 floors is with incentive( Mixed Use 4 Up to 4 Floors Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors Low Density Residential 1 Moderate Density residential o PB Preference: Firdale (Hub & Center) ■ Firdale Center - Same as proposed - Alt A and B are exactly the same ■ Firdale Hub - Growth Area Extent: Alt A as proposed - Heights: Alt A - as proposed Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Up to 3 floors .t it ■ —30 units I `290 units o Future Land Use Changes: Firdale Comprehensive Plan 2020 Neighborhood Commercial FVMU - Up to 52' BN- 25' - Single Family Urban 1 25' Multi Family High Density 25-30' o PB Preference: North Bowl Comprehensive Plan 2024 Mixed Use 5 Up to 4 floors (5 with incentive) Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors - Low Density Residential 1 Moderate Density Residential Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 13 ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed ■ Heights: Alt B as proposed Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Up to 3 floors -200 units a o Future Land Use Changes: North Bowl ! �-,-!-f 21 / / -sr, ., ' Edmc Comprehensive Plan 2020 4� Q Comprehensive Plan 2024 Neighborhood Commercial 25 OA� Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 Floors Single Family Urban 3 25 Mixed Use 4 Up to 3 Floors (4 with incentive) tow Density Residential 2 o PB Preference: Perrinville ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed ■ Heights: Alt B as proposed Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Illlllllll� Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) o Future Land Use Changes: Perrinville Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 14 Comprehensive Plan 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Neighborhood Commercial 25 - Mixed Use 4 Up to 3 floors 14 with incentive) Single Family Urban 1 25 Low Density Residential 1 Single Family Urban 3 25 Low Density Residential - Multi Family Medium Density 25-30 Moderate Density Residential o PB Preference: East Seaview ■ Growth Area Extent: Modified Alt B. Removed few parcels north of 196"' ■ Heights: Alt B as proposed Existing Multi -Family (3 floors) Up to 3 floors � s4 rs `yes vt sw r��sr sw amr n aw � 4 I LY/ytyyypp0 3p i g Warn e� svr � I o Future Land Use Changes: East Seaview Comprehensive Plan 2020 Single Family Urban 1 25 Multi Family Medium Density 25-30 Multi Family High Density 25-30 Comprehensive Plan 2024 iVA Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors Mixed Use Up to 3 floors (4 with incentive) Low Density Residential 1 _ Moderate Density Residential o PB Preference: South Lake Ballinger ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed ■ Heights: Alt B as proposed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 15 Up to 3 floors E 70 hits 8 w tto� 3 2 Fiat- IS lake Bapkrger INF 205th St. o Future Land Use Changes: South Lake Ballinger I Comprehensive Plan 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Single Family Urban 1 25 &A' Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors Single Family Urban 1 25 Law Density Residential 1 ® Corridor Development 25-30 o PB Preference: West Edmonds Way ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed ■ Heights: Alt B as proposed — Up to 3 floors -35 units ,rat F-AN A o Future Land Use Changes: W Edmonds Wav Comprehensive Plan 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2024 Planned Neighborhood 25-30 / Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors o PB Preference: Maplewood ■ Growth Area Extent: Alt B as proposed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 16 ■ Heights: 3 stories (no height incentive) Up to 3 floors 20 units ro s• o Future Land Use Chamws: Maplewood �56rH Sr sw A 524 Comprehensive Plan 2020 Single Family Urban 1 25 Multi Family Medium Density 25.30 Single Family Urban 3 25 o Planning Board Recommendation S Alt A as proposed Alt A area extents Mix of Alt A+Alt B Alt A as proposed Alt B as proposed Alt A as proposed Modified Alt B Alt B as proposed Alt B as proposed Alt B as proposed ee• Alt o Planning Board Recommendation Comprehensive Plan 2024 Mixed Use 3 Up to 3 floors Low Density Residential 1 Moderate Density Residential 4 Floors, Bonus Floor height incentive allowed 3 Floors 3, 4 Floors, Bonus Floor height incentive allowed on some parcels. 4 Floors, Bonus Floor height incentive allowed 3 Floors Bonus Floor height incentive for few parcels 3 Floors 3 Floors Bonus Floor height incentive for few parcels 3 Floors, Bonus Floor height incentive 3 Floors 3 Floors 3 Floors Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 17 Note: Capacity metncsshown - 750 are approximate values 1,800 wr+•�"i0` PordMllk J IiJ 420 290 North Bowl' Mdpl C ��East Seeview 200 Do 30 wm°w" w:,l�.r,o�•l Modmdl DAWtr A,,,,.,y C,,mi r Up... 250 s Frve Doge„ lliN 100 35 a t 70 ' Hghway 99 rN11% s.ha,aa 20 West Edmonds Way i 3,965 m Sorts Lake F rdTW N-1 iJ �" Bd11M9N f F,,dale Vllle9e Total Capacity Available per Planning Board Recommendation 42 Middle Housing 4,947 3,965 1,977 42 10,931�qqW City's Growth Target'® Surplus Capacity I_ ■ Existing ■ Centers & Hubs ■ ADUs ■ MU Future Land Use Map Based on Planning Board Recommendation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 18 Ms. Hope reviewed: • Next Steps o Tonight: Council selection of Preferred Alternative (critical step) o Revision of Draft Comp Plan, including for transportation projects & other information: 2 -3 weeks o Continuation of Planning Board & City Council review of other Draft Comp Plan elements o Revised Draft Plan to be ready for Council's Initial Review — December 3 o Public hearing on revised Plan -- Dec. 10 o City Council adoption of revised Plan, with any changes — Dec. 17 NOTE: Due date to State is December 31, 2024; Then begins Code Updates to implement Comp Plan, due July 31, 2025 + Critical Area Code updates due by Dec. 31, 2025. Planning Board Chair Jeremy Mitchell requested an opportunity to add context since the Planning Board's recommendation was communicated quickly and this is a sensitive discussion for the community. He referred to the old saying that every person who moves to a small, quiet town wants to be the last person. Here especially, given the sensitivities with heights and growth, he acknowledged at the same time the City needs to plan from a long range perspective. This is a culmination of the last year; he recalled the introduction to the comprehensive plan from the Planning Board's perspective kicked off last November, but the Planning Board did not get into the meat and potatoes until this February. A lot of it was condensed to the point where the Planning Board has been meeting every Wednesday for the past month and a half in order to get to this point. He wanted the community to know the Planning Board does not take this lightly as it involves drastic zoning changes that in a sense are a departure from how the City used to deal with growth. He was happy to provide any contextual background to any of the Planning Board's decisions. Mayor Rosen thanked Chair Mitchell for those additional comments and the amazing amount of time and wisdom the Planning Board has invested. With regard to consideration, and format for council action, Councilmember Nand asked if it would be possible for council to consider and make motions for each hub as the council works toward establishing a preferred alternative. Ms. Hope answered that would absolutely be possible and recalled that was what the Planning Board did as well. The Planning Board wanted to look at what made sense for each hub and neighborhood center and didn't count capacity as they did that. The Planning Board considered each neighborhood, the form, and the conditions and made their preferred selection and added it all up. Councilmember Paine commented she had watched several of the most recent Planning Board meetings. With regard to the Planning Board recommendation, she asked about their discussion regarding incentives and why there were no incentives at Five Corners. Chair Mitchell answered to preface that question requires understanding the intent to plan the City in a way that creates places. An opportunity for placemaking is essential for all the centers and hubs and is the premise around which the Planning Board was originally planning. Ultimately it comes down to size and area of each hub and center. What made sense from the Planning Board's perspective with existing topography, land area, and that some centers over others could accommodate additional incentives for bonus height. Councilmember Paine referred to Maplewood and asked why it was not included in the GMA capacity count, only 20 versus the uncounted capacity of 200. Ms. Pentakota answered when Alternative B was initially proposed, that contributed around 200 units. After the Planning Board decision was made, the height was limited to only three floors which reduced the number of units achieved to 20. There is one church parcel and the capacity achieved from that parcel is not counted toward the target. The rest of the parcels can be counted toward the target which is the 20 housing capacity. Ms. Hope answered sometimes when looking at what's feasible for development, it is not simply clipping off in theory different floors, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 19 etc., it is if a floor is added or taken away, does that change the feasibility of development. If it changes on paper but it doesn't really change the feasibility of development, that is where it doesn't count. Councilmember Paine referred to Westgate, recalling a person during Audience Comments requested consideration for building heights on two parcels adjacent to where taller building incentives are proposed. She understood that information was also provided to the Planning Board and asked about the Planning Board's discussion regarding reducing the incentive on those two parcels. Chair Mitchell said it was not a reduction in the incentive per se, it was a discussion regarding the next exercise after the council selects a preferred alternative which will be diving into these more granularly and looking at where transition zones could be. He pointed out there are already transition zones via building stepbacks in existing ordinance. There are also critical area ordinances for mitigation. He summarized some of the concerns are covered by the existing building code. Councilmember Paine observed the council would be able to look at transitions in the next round. Ms. Hope agreed, recognizing geographic characteristics of that area and the fact that in some cases the Planning Board discussed slopes that help provide transition. There are also steep slopes that can't be built on or that would required serious alteration to meet all the geotechnical requirements and construction techniques so may not be able to accomplish as much as planned. It would be considered on a site by site basis. Councilmember Dotsch clarified the Planning Board did not go through the DEIS. Chair Mitchell answered not in a meeting; the Planning Board was provided the DEIS as supplemental reading before a meeting. Councilmember Dotsch said in working through some of the numbers at a high level, the population target between now and 2044 is 13,113. The City will go from a 2020 population of 42,853 to a target of 55,966 or 6,288 people per square mile for the City's 8.9 square miles. The Planning Board preferred option includes the additional 1,862 units to 10,931. With Alternative A or B, there are also surpluses, greater than 1,800 on one and 2,181 on the other. She found it interesting in looking at the history of Edmonds, the City has been around 2.1-2.2 capacity, consistently above 2.0 for decades. The City was tasked with planning for 1.44 capacity for the next 20 years which created the population number and minimum units. Adding the Planning Board's additional capacity beyond what is required, the capacity per unit goes down to 1.19. In Planning Board Alternative A with excess, the capacity is 1.2 per unit and down to 1.16 in Alternative B. Lynnwood is planning for 1.7 capacity per unit. She was trying to figure out what Edmonds is actually planning for through this process, whether it is for Edmonds to become a single person per unit type development when Edmonds is a very family friendly suburb at this time and not highly urbanized with very limited roads. She understood the need for some flex, but feared the alternatives took the City in a highly urbanized direction, even more so than Lynnwood which has light rail. She wanted the council to be mindful of these numbers during their consideration and understand as more is added, especially to certain areas, the density is out of sorts for Edmonds. Councilmember Dotsch asked whether the ADU count looked at existing housing sizes and considered internal ADU options such as over a certain square footage of a house. Ms. Pentakota answered yes. Councilmember Dotsch said Mukilteo did that and she hadn't seen it in Edmonds' calculations. Next, Councilmember Dotsch referred to the medical district expansion. She attended nearly all the public hearings and public meetings over the past year; the extent of the land grab in this alternative was never described to the neighborhood. No information was provided, yet the Planning Board recommendation puts some of the highest capacity in this area. She acknowledged there was capacity to reduce that, but this area was not informed of the plans for it to absorb some of the highest density changes of any neighborhood. She wanted to ensure the council understood that, noting it is a heavily treed area with limited ability to get in and out, with a lot of schools, which raises safety concerns. She relayed concern the medical district got ballooned out, noting down to 220th was never on the original map which had the circle at 212th, not down at 220th. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 20 Ms. Hope responded she was not here for that part and suggested Ms. Pentakota speak to how that came about. Ms. Pentakota explained initially when the neighborhood meetings were held, there was a separate meeting for Highway 99 which included discussions of three districts. As part of the medical district conversation, there were a few things people wanted and the potential was identified based on that. There were discussions around temporary residential units for people visiting people in the hospital or for medical purposes. Due to the location and its proximity to the corridor and transit, it is identified as one of the biggest opportunities when identifying locations for centers and hubs. It was considered based on multiple factors and there were conversations in general with the community. There was no separate meeting after centers and hubs were determined for each location. There was initially a plan for that, but it was not done due to the tight timeline. These were the discussions that occurred at the time and questions asked at the time of the open house as well as multiple comments from the community in the process. In response to Councilmember Dotsch's comment about excess capacity, Ms. Hope acknowledged there is excess capacity as calculated partly to ensure choices can be made and to provide flexibility for some reductions. At the same time there is a need to recognize that critical areas, trees and other things may further limit development or areas with special issues where the growth capacity that was identified won't be possible. The excess capacity was intended to leave some room for decisions either at the comprehensive plan stage or development code stage. Councilmember Eck recognized the work done by Staff and the Planning Board over the past year, recognizing everyone took this very seriously and trying to amplify voices of community members as conversations have occurred. The Planning Board recommendation fundamentally keeps true to the fact of spreading equitability while also taking into account certain sensitivities based on different areas, hubs, and centers. The Planning Board's analysis has been thoughtful and she supported their recommendation. Council President Olson commented in addition to planning for additional housing units, there was a requirement to look at certain levels of affordability. It is important for the community to know that was part of the task, and the City could not just add more single family houses. She asked how much of a consideration the question of infrastructure upgrades was for the Planning Board and Planning Staff. She recognized each neighborhood would love to have an extra space, a third place. She commented on the neighborhood by Edmonds Elementary that has Portofino, which although it is a small commercial hub, it is someplace to go with neighbors or to walk to. She liked the idea of neighborhood hubs for that reason. In view of the financial struggles the City is having and the need to bring sidewalks up to code, etc., she asked whether consideration had been given to whether hubs are supportable and practical from an infrastructure standpoint, whether it was a good choice in that way. Ms. Hope responded the concept of neighborhoods and having vibrancy, mixed use opportunities, coffee shops, etc., was definitely part of the reason for looking at neighborhood centers and hubs. The idea of having more places that are walkable or accessible to people in the neighborhood without driving was part of that consideration, making those more livable. In considering the infrastructure needs for each of those, there are probably a few things that would be changed in the transportation projects to reflect which neighborhoods are focused on, but to some extent there are assumptions there will not be wholesale changes in infrastructure; things will be added incrementally as they have in Edmonds for years. This is a 20 year plan and things will not change overnight or even in five years, this is a long term process. Those things have been thought about. There could be some transportation projects in specific areas where there is a high need, but in general the EIS shows there will need to be some improvements over time, but none of them are immediate, big ticket items. Council President Olson observed there were three Planning Board Members in the room. She recognized they had received thanks and kudos, but there has never been a year when the Planning Board has worked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 21 as hard as they have this year. She offered her thanks to the entire Planning Board. To the extent things came fast and furiously to the Planning Board, she asked if there was anything they agreed to in Planning Board meetings that they have had second thoughts about that and wanted to put on the council's radar. Chair Mitchell answered there was a lot of emphasis on relooking at Highway 99 from a capacity standpoint and figuring out how to best make the hubs and centers approach work there as well while looking at areas beyond the centers and hubs to shoulder some of the growth that Highway 99 is currently shouldering. Planning Board Member Judi Gladstone agreed with Chair Mitchell's comment, noting that was very important to her because she viewed it as a error in the subarea plan, that the Highway 99 area would bear the brunt of so much growth and this update needs to take an integrated look, not just here's Highway 99 and then the rest of the City, so there are clear hubs and centers and there no longer saying there's a two mile stretch of development because that does not support placemaking. She hoped some of that could be addressed during the next stage, the development code. In the same way, the Planning Board heard the public's concerns with the Westgate area and the public's concerns that allowing this level going forward those concerns can be addressed via development standards. As long as that is tracked and the intent is known, it is okay to think that way, being thoughtful at that stage knowing what some of those concerns are. Board Member Gladstone continued, on Highway 99 there was discussion about 55 story buildings in between hubs and centers so there was clear definition of where the hubs and centers are. The Planning Board was told that can happen during the design standards phase. She wanted to ensure those things were kept in mind and carried forward so there is flexibility because where the City says growth can occur is not necessarily where developers will go. Having those higher numbers will be helpful to accommodate where developers want to go, but it is up to the Planning Board and the Council to define those development standards so the end result looks like what was envisioned. With regard to infrastructure, Chair Mitchell said it was brought up early on in the process and throughout when the Planning Board was reviewing hubs and centers that PSRC policy goals want cities to place growth were infrastructure currently exists. Staff is waiting on the council to adopt a growth alternative so they can form their CFP/CIP projects around that. Council President Olson suggested a little more focus on the transition zones, if a couple properties change things for a neighborhood and apparently they do because the council received a petition saying they do. If there is excess capacity, maybe that would make sense. If the Highway 99 Subarea was left as a whole, she was hopeful the comprehensive plan would achieve somewhat of a transition zone. Ms. Hope answered one of the things that having excess capacity allows for is making some reductions where it makes sense. For example, if the intent is full capacity, but some transition zones reduce that capacity, it either doesn't add up to the total because it's not needed or its traded off with something else. Looking at the zoning code updates that will be needed, not only will some things need to be done related to housing overall in the City per state legislation, in each of the neighborhood centers, there needs to be careful consideration regarding how the zoning codes, the design standards, amenities, etc. are laid out to make a real different to those being livable, great places to be. Council President Olson summarized she thought the Planning Board recommendation was quite good. Councilmember Tibbott reflected on how much he would have liked to have been on the Planning Board doing this work. The ability to have time to do a deep dive in all these neighborhoods is a great luxury and he thanked the Planning Board for giving the council their views on how to handle the hubs. In general he appreciated the adaptations the Planning Board made to Option B which he was finding a lot of affinity for. In addition to transition zones such as height adjustments between taller and shorter buildings, there are also transitional uses in many of the areas. There are some areas where buildings are 60-70 years old and the transitional uses are moving to higher and better uses. That is one of the reasons why hubs are so Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 22 effective for the City, it gives a chance to upgrade all around the hubs, something he wanted to lean into for many of the reasons that have already been stated. Councilmember Tibbott continued, recalling at the open house all of the hubs already have higher density and multifamily uses so it's not like something completely new is being introduced, only creating potential or upgrading what's already there. For example, one story apartments to 2-3 stories which would serve the neighborhood better. He applauded the work that had been done there. With regard to excess capacity, he asked at what point in the process an adjustment would be made. For example, if the council approves the Alternative B, would reductions be made before the comprehensive plan is adopted. He was unsure where or if any reductions would be made. Ms. Hope answered there are different options; one is to make those adjustments during council's deliberations today. Another time to make adjustments would be before the final comprehensive plan is adopted. Setting the future land use does not necessarily lock the City into using the full capacity as the code is updated as long as the overall targets are met. Another time an amendment could be considered is during next year's comprehensive plan amendment process. Councilmember Tibbott said he would like to see a bigger map. The map is shown on a small screen and he would like to see it printed in color on larger paper. It also seems the discussion is floors instead of heights and he was concerned what that means. He recalled Ms. Pentakota said 25 feet is 2 floors and asked if 36 feet was 3 floors. Ms. Hope referred to her email to council, explaining specific numbers of feet were not included because that will depend on the zoning code. For example, the council could choose 22, 24 or 28 feet for 2 stories. The same could be decided for 3 stories, conceivable 3 stories can be achieved in 30 feet or maybe slightly more depending on the height of the first floor. That is a zoning code decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked when the council will have input on the zoning. Ms. Hope answered the first six months of 2025. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the council was agreeing to 1, 2, 3, 4 floors and then will accomplish clarification of the heights during the zoning process next year. Ms. Hope agreed that would occur early 2025. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Planning Board Members had any thoughts relative to floors and heights. Mr. Mitchell answered it was difficult because a lot of people think floors are 10 feet, but it really depends on the proposal. For example, there is a project in Seattle, Mosler Lofts, that was advertised as a 10-story building but in reality it is 18, but the unit are lofts so they count one loft as a single story. As Ms. Hope said regarding stories and heights, it is development centric related to what the developer wants to do. Ms. Hope said in areas with mixed use which may be a good place for a taller first floor, that is one decision; if it is purely residential, that is a different decision regarding the number of feet. Board Member Gladstone said from a layperson's standpoint, people can relate to floors better than feet. Floors give Edmonds' residents a feel for what it will look like, not necessarily the actual dimensions. Councilmember Tibbott referred to green building incentives, if there is a 2 foot space between the first floor and 2nd floor, that automatically adds height to a building. If for example, one of the areas has a 3 floor standard at 35 feet and they get a green building incentive, the height goes up to 40 feet. Ms. Hope answered it could. Councilmember Tibbott observed that would be addressed during the zoning discussions. Ms. Hope advised the green building incentives had not yet been approved. Councilmember Tibbott said he would have difficulty approving this tonight without having a bigger map to look at versus the tiny little map on the screen. He looked forward to having that before the council makes a decision. Mayor Rosen reminded staff was hoping to get a decision tonight and without one, everything backs up into potentially needing a meeting between the holidays or not being able to meet the state deadline. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 23 Councilmember Chen echoed his appreciation for the hours of hard work. He was glad the blanket upzone on Highway 99 was being reconsidered as well as the opportunity for third places. He liked Alternative B over Alternative A because it spreads the love and lowers building heights which is more suitable for Edmonds and maintaining Edmonds' charm while meeting the state's requirements. With regard to spreading the love, he noticed most of the hubs and centers are in central and south Edmonds and not in north Edmonds. He asked if there was a specific reason for that. Ms. Hope asked if he was thinking of the Highway 99 area when he refers to north. Councilmember Chen said like Meadowdale neighborhoods. Ms. Hope answered that was probably because there is no existing commercial in that area. The intent was to stick to areas where there was existing commercial or multifamily development. Those were the bookends that were selected early on, focus on those areas instead of areas developed exclusively with single family residences, and that have a lot of infrastructure and critical area issues. Councilmember Chen reiterated Alternative B with the inclusion of SR-104 and 76tb area has good potential. He preferred Alternative B. Ms. Hope relayed in her observation, the majority of the Planning Board's recommendations aligned with Alternative B other than a few exceptions where they added Alternative A as a preferred option. Councilmember Chen echoed Councilmember Tibbott's comment that at the appropriate time the council would nail down and right -size ethe number of units to meet the state requirements. Ms. Hope commented the first six months of 2025 will be busy trying to accomplish that. As the council questioned individual board members, Councilmember Dotsch reminded the Planning Board as a body made the recommendations and not all members are present tonight. She expressed concern Alternative B for Five Corners extends behind the water tower into the Yost area on the hillside. She was concerned because the DEIS was not used and the final EIS has not been issued, she knows that area is getting closer and closer to becoming a Perrinville issue. She recommended avoiding any development on the northwest side on Bowdoin beyond the existing capacity. The other area she found interesting was when the Co -Chair picked Maplewood, she saw a roundabout going in on 196th & 88th. In the new plan, it looks like right -turn only due to safety. That is an extremely dangerous area; coming out of 88th and looking down the hill, it is the shadows due to trees on Puget Drive and unless a car has its lights on, a driver cannot see a car coming up the hill. People try to cross there to get to Seaview which is also very dangerous. The new plan to create safety via right turns in an area that will only provide 20 units on a very dangerous corner and the total 200 does not count toward the GMA, she believed from a safety standpoint and now the transportation change for that intersection it was not necessary to retain those few properties in this plan. Council President Olson commented the Planning Board has spent a lot of time vetting this and deciding which hubs to leave out. She was very concerned about choosing the hubs version without going through another workshop for the council to learn about why the Planning Board left them out because she did not watch all the meetings. She felt very good, better than she thought she would, about the Planning Board's proposal and felt the feedback and lack of feedback from residents was also a positive sign that they feel they were listened to and this plan represents something they can live with. There will be an opportunity to address the number of units in the future. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. For those who wanted to see a larger map, Council President Olson suggested taking a five minute break before beginning deliberations on the motion. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. Mayor Rosen suggested councilmembers offer amendments which would be discussed one at a time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 24 Councilmember Dotsch did not support going directly to the Planning Board recommendation, recalling at the beginning there was an indication that the council would discuss each area. She did not support the motion, preferring to do as was originally intended. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR WESTGATE BE CAPPED AT 4 FLOORS AND REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR A 5TH FLOOR. Council President Olson requested Staff and/or the Planning Board weigh in on the amendment. Board Member Gladstone explained Alternative B is up to 3 floors with the 4"' floor incentive. She asked for clarification if the intent was 4 stories or 3 with a 4"' floor incentive. Councilmember Tibbott recommended Alternative B. Mayor Rosen advised the amendment had been revised with approval of the second. Councilmember Nand spoke in favor of Alternative B. She thanked the community member who presented the petition. She was hopeful the City can continue to engage with the neighborhood during the zoning process to address their concerns with transitions. Currently the council is at the policy stage and not adopting zoning. Councilmember Dotsch asked for clarification regarding the motion. Mayor Rosen clarified it was to adopt Alternative B in the Westgate area. Councilmember Dotsch asked if that removed 5 floors with an incentive as the Planning Board did. Ms. Hope answered that was correct. Mayor Rosen advised Alternative B was on packet page 223. Councilmember Dotsch clarified the motion was Alternative A removing five floors with incentive. Councilmember Tibbott clarified his amendment: AMEND THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FROM ALTERNATIVE A AT WESTGATE TO ALTERNATIVE B AT WESTGATE WHICH IS UP TO 4 FLOORS WITH AN INCENTIVE. Amendment 1A AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED, TO AMEND TO HAVE THE EXTENT OF ALTERNATIVE A INCLUDED, NOT JUST THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUT A LARGER LAND AREA, NOT THE SMALLER ONE IN ALTERNATE B. Councilmember Paine said when considering distributed growth, one would expect a bit more space. More space would offer additional units as well as greater potential for transition zoning in the Westgate neighborhood which is one of the biggest hubs. She was supportive of the height limit in Alternative B with the incentive, but wanted to have the extent of the map in Alternative A. When Councilmember Tibbott first suggested this, she thought he would keep Alternative A and remove the height incentive. Councilmember Tibbott referred to page 189 and the additional parcel in Alternative A. He asked about the additional parcel in Alternative A, recalling there was a church on that corner. Chair Mitchell agreed it was a church. Action on Amendment 1A AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. Amendment 1B COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO HAVE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER STAY AT 3 FLOORS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 25 Councilmember Dotsch recalled a neighbor saying there was a steep slope behind and houses at the end of the street and going up to four stories would mean looking into their houses on the bluff. The other three sides do not have that same issue. With development backing up to the steep slope behind it, that is the one corner that would literally allow an apartment to look into the houses on the bluff. Council President Olson asked about parcel numbers and whether this would be executed during the development code phase. Ms. Hope answered it can be done at the development code phase or that call here made by accepting the amendment to the amendment. Council President Olson commented there are other parcels on the council's radar such as the ones that were the basis of today's comment and the council intends to circle back on those. She asked staff s recommendation. Ms. Hope answered that would be circling back at the zoning code stage. Council President Olson asked if that would be appropriate and an option for the other one as well. Ms. Hope answered yes. Council President Olson said in light of that answer, she was inclined to wait for that stage. Action on Amendment 1B AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH VOTING YES. Action on Amendment 1 as amended AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO AMEND TO REMOVE THE MAPLEWOOD 20 UNITS COUNTED FROM THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION. Action on Amendment 2 AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Amendment 3 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO AMEND MEDICAL DISTRICT TO REMOVE UP TO 4 FLOORS (5 WITH INCENTIVE) AND THREE FLOORS ON 80TH AND 220TH TO MATCH. Action on Amendment 3 AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Amendment 4 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO REMOVE THE 30 UNITS IN THE FIRDALE NORTH SECTION OVER THE CARA. Councilmember Dotsch commented in addition to being a crazy intersection, when this came out and the state did their buildable lands report, the CARA had not been identified. Councilmember Nand was unable to support the amendment, preferring to wait for the Department of Ecology to provide further guidance on how to alter zoning around CARAs to ensure it is protected as a critical area before singling out or burdening these parcels. With regard to Councilmember Nand's comments, Council President Olson pointed out the critical area code still applies and it is possible development could not occur there as a result. It is such a small number of units and an easy protection to put in place and could be added later if it was determined that it was easy to carefully develop there. Action on Amendment 4 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 26 AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Amendment 5 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO REMOVE FROM NORTH BOWL ALTERNATIVE B THE L-SHAPED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE NORTH. Councilmember Dotsch said this is a cul-de-sac on a very small street and changing it to multifamily from single family disturbs that small road. The Planning Board removed a similar single family cul-de-sac in the east Seaview neighborhood. Councilmember Paine was unable to support the amendment. She was very familiar with this area; there are some good sized apartments and condominiums developments in this area. Adding this capacity in the area offers more diversity of housing options at all levels. Bulldozers are not arriving tomorrow; there are some single family buildings being used for other purposes that could stand to be refreshed. This would be a great opportunity for some of the homeowners. Redevelopment won't happen tomorrow or even in the next four years, but this provides great potential for that neighborhood. Councilmember Tibbott recalled there are single family homes in that L-shaped area. This would provide incentive to develop it from single family to multifamily and he wondered about the impact of 3 stories to development to the north as there is no transition zone. He asked how many units that L-shaped section represented. Ms. Pentakota answered she could not provide that right now and would need to check with the consultant to provide the number. As the numbers were not available, Councilmember Tibbott asked if that could be added later during consideration of the zoning for that area. Ms. Pentakota answered it could. Councilmember Tibbott expressed concern with allowing 3 stories in that location on top of a single family block of homes. Ms. Pentakota answered it is existing Multifamily Medium Density. In the proposed maps, there are two shades of purple, Mixed -Use 3 and Mixed -Use 4, but the existing comprehensive plan maps that as Multifamily Medium Density which already allows up to 30 feet height. Councilmember Tibbott said he was only talking about the L-shaped section. Ms. Pentakota reiterated it is Multifamily Medium Density in the existing comprehensive plan, not single family. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the transition zone could be adjusted between the higher and lower density during the zoning discussion. Ms. Pentakota answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott said he could accept that. Councilmember Nand said unfortunately she was unable to support this amendment. She noted for the public, under the GMA, the City is obligated to plan for additional residential units, but those don't necessarily get built. If she recalled correctly, there were 4300 banked units allocated to Highway 99 that have never been built. Just because the City was saying to developers if they want to invest in the community and bring something that some might think is better and others might think is worse, this is where they can do it. It doesn't mean the market will support that or even that the property owners will want to sell their properties for that vision. A lot of people prefer to sell to young families who they know will keep the property as a single family home no matter what the zone capacity is. She has known people who have made that decision and turned down higher bids from developers because they want their property to remain a single family property. She recognized anxiety in Edmonds about building heights, density, etc., but this is still at the policy level. Councilmember Eck agreed the discussion was at the policy level. She appreciated these well-rounded, necessary conversations, but was concerned whittling away at the areas was reducing the buffer units and the zoning effort will reveal areas that cannot be developed. She was also concerned with equitability and spreading this in gentle, modest ways throughout the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 27 Council President Olson emphasized the development code is where transition zones and stepbacks will be addressed. She supported having a nice transition, anticipating it would be terrible to be living in a single family home and have a large building built next door. There need to be plans for that in the development code and she will be vigilant to ensure that occurs at that point. Action on Amendment 5 AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES. Councilmember Dotsch said East Seaview Alternative B originally included the parcel north of 196th, also a cul-de-sac and was removed. She wondered why that was singled out versus the others. Chair Mitchell answered that was removed because it goes deep into a low density residential zone. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out it is in the same block as multifamily to the east. Chair Mitchell agreed. Councilmember Dotsch asked why that was singled out and not other areas. Ms. Hope answered it may have been related to the existing zoning on that other property. Councilmember Dotsch was curious why this area was singled out when it is not being done in other areas. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the Planning Board preference for East Seaview on packet page 208, commenting it was all 3 stories with no incentives. Chair Mitchell agreed. Councilmember Dotsch said Lynnwood is keeping that area commercial. She expressed support for the Planning Board's preference. Councilmember Dotsch referred to South Lake Ballinger (packet page 210), pointing out 76"' and 205"' is high capacity transit to the light rail and other areas such as the Medical went up to 4 stories. Amendment 6 AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND SECONDED TO AMEND DISTRIBUTED GROWTH TO ADD THE ONE BONUS FLOOR TO LAKE BALLINGER. Councilmember Dotsch said because it is high capacity and seems like a prime area for people who use light rail to live and across the street is a very big bus area and most of it is in a ravine so it's very low with nothing behind it, it's a good opportunity to add the one floor incentive. Councilmember Nand said she definitely did not support this motion. She grew up in a house just down the street and remembered the last time a developer in the 1990s wanted to build a big development, the entire neighborhood mobilized very fast. Three stories is comfortable for this area and attempting to add a fourth story from the dais, completely bypassing the public process and the Planning Board effort and work and tell the neighborhood they are getting an extra story of height based on a whim from the dais when every other part of the comprehensive plan has been so carefully handled would be insulting to the neighborhoods. Councilmember Chen did not support the amendment. There is no infrastructure to accommodate a fourth floor. It is very close to the Interurban Trail but there is not enough lighting. Adding an additional floor is not respectful to the Planning Board who put in so many hours studying and holding numerous meetings. Council President Olson said the reason for considering it was a good one. The points made about the process and ensuring something was fully vetted were also valid. She won't support it now, but it may be something to look at more closely in future updates. Action on Amendment 6 AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES. Amendment 7 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO AMEND THE PERRINVILLE RECOMMENDATION TO REMAIN AT 3 FLOORS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 28 Action on Amendment 7 AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Action on Main Motion as amended MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 4.2. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand reminded it is a great time to engage in democracy. Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone who has emailed and participated over the past two years. She wished the Medical District had had better representation because she anticipated that will be a surprise for a lot of people. She thanked the Planning Board and Ms. Hope for their work. She also thanked Ms. Dunscombe for preparing information for Saturday's workshop and tonight's budget discussion. Council President Olson reminded there is an election tomorrow and encouraged everyone to vote, assuring every voice matters. Councilmember Tibbott reported on a Creative District Advisory Committee meeting that included representatives from arts and creative organizations across the city, from theater to ballet, to restaurants. One of the common themes was how robust each of those creative enterprises is and the arts and entertainment and activities that will be going on the in City for many decades. Whether the City's budget is up or down, the Creative District is still planning ways to offer creative expression in the City. There is so much for residents and visitors to take advantage of. He reminded there are tremendous opportunities in Edmonds despite budget challenges the City is facing. Councilmember Chen reminded those who are not registered to vote can register in person up until 8 pm. He urged the public to vote. Councilmember Eck gave a shout out to the Multicultural Association of Edmonds who put together a celebration of Dia de Muertos last Friday night. She heard it was divine; she was unable to attend due to illness in her household. She urged the public to exercise their fundamental right to vote. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen had no comments. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:45 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) At 9:45 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of 45 minutes. Meeting Extension At 10:30 pm, Mayor Rosen announced that the executive session would be extended to 10:45 pm. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 29 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmembers Eck, Paine and Tibbott were not present for the vote). WITH ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. At 10:45 pm, Mayor Rosen announced that the executive session would be extended to 11 pm. At 11 pm, Mayor Rosen announced the executive session would be extended to 11:10 pm. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting reconvened at 11:10 pm. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 11:10 pm. SCOTT PASS EY, CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 30