2021-12-08 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBNO9OaWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 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
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Announcement of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5975)
Residential Occupancy Code Amendment
Background/History
The Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 5235 during the 2021 legislative session to
address "Housing Unit Inventory - Removing Limits." It was signed by the Governor in May 2021 and
addresses local control over residential occupancy restrictions. Specifically, it limits a local government's
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 121612021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda December 8, 2021
ability to regulate the number of occupants living within a household (dwelling). The only exceptions are
for occupancy limits assigned in the Building Code, group homes, and short-term rentals.
The applicable portion of SB 5235 is provided as Attachment 1. Note: The majority of SB 5235 was
vetoed by the Governor. To avoid confusion, the vetoed and non -applicable sections have not been
included.
An Introduction of the topic was presented to the Planning Board on October 27, 2021. The introduction
discussion covered:
- The specifics of the SB 5235 that apply,
- The City's code sections that need amending, and
- Possible actions to comply with the legislation.
Staff Recommendation
Review the draft code amendment and schedule a public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - SB 5235 (Simplified) (PDF)
• Attachment 2- Draft Code (PDF)
• Attachment 3- Presentation (Draft) (PDF)
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5977)
Multifamily Design Standards: Intro and Scoping Exercise
Background/History
On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for
multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options
recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that
green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes
pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1).
Staff has also begun initial discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on October 6
and December 1, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated) (PDF)
• Attachment 2- Residential Multifamily (RM) Zoning Regulations (PDF)
• Attachment 3 - Presentation Draft (PDF)
B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5973)
Election of Officers for 2022
Background/History
Elections are held at the end of the year for the upcoming year.
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 121612021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda December 8, 2021
Staff Recommendation
Elect a Chair and a Vice Chair
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5974)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
• 12-8-2021 PB Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 121612021
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/8/2021
Residential Occupancy Code Amendment
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
The Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 5235 during the 2021 legislative session to
address "Housing Unit Inventory - Removing Limits." It was signed by the Governor in May 2021 and
addresses local control over residential occupancy restrictions. Specifically, it limits a local government's
ability to regulate the number of occupants living within a household (dwelling). The only exceptions are
for occupancy limits assigned in the Building Code, group homes, and short-term rentals.
The applicable portion of SB 5235 is provided as Attachment 1. Note: The majority of SB 5235 was
vetoed by the Governor. To avoid confusion, the vetoed and non -applicable sections have not been
included.
An Introduction of the topic was presented to the Planning Board on October 27, 2021. The introduction
discussion covered:
- The specifics of the SB 5235 that apply,
- The City's code sections that need amending, and
- Possible actions to comply with the legislation.
Staff Recommendation
Review the draft code amendment and schedule a public hearing.
Narrative
The purpose of this meeting is to review the draft code amendment needed to address changes made
by the State Legislature in SB 5235. This legislation removes the City's ability to set limits on the number
of people living in a household. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains several
references to occupancy limits in the definitions section of the code. The definition for Families (ECDC
21.30.10) and the Criteria for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ECDC 20.21.030) both currently
contain limits on the number of unrelated persons that can live in a dwelling unit.
The purpose of this code amendment is to remove these specific occupancy limits and replace them
with other criteria and standards to address how a single-family dwelling (structure) operates. This will
ensure that the intent of single-family dwelling units and single-family zoning remains intact. The draft
code language is shown in Attachment 2 and the draft presentation in Attachment 3.
Packet Pg. 4
7.A
The draft amendment covers three main areas:
1) Updating the definition of a Family in ECDC 21.30.010 to remove residential occupancy limits.
2) Strengthening the definitions for single-family dwelling units.
3) Updating accessory dwelling unit (ADU) requirements for consistency.
The main element of the code amendment is removing the limitations for unrelated people living in a
house from the definition of a family. The definition will maintain limitations on certain group usages
such as halfway homes. It also maintains other provisions of the family definition in ECDC 21.30.010.
The other major component involves finding other ways to maintain and protect the single-family zoning
and usage. To do that, staff has focused on including tangible and objective criteria to the single-family
dwelling (unit) definition in ECDC 21.90.080. It includes adding structural requirements, such as
limitations to one mailbox, gas meter, and gas meter. It will codify the requirement for common access
to living, sleeping, cooking, eating areas. This should help ensure single-family zoning and usage remain
without relying on residential occupancy limits.
Lastly, It updates several accessory dwelling unit code sections to remove residential occupancy
requirements. It does however maintain the owner -occupancy requirement and rental limits that
currently exist.
Action Needed
None at this time. This action is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will review the
proposed code language (when presented) and make a recommendation to City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - SB 5235 (Simplified)
Attachment 2- Draft Code
Attachment 3- Presentation (Draft)
Packet Pg. 5
7.A.a
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235
Chapter 306, Laws of 2021
(partial veto)
67th Legislature
2021 Regular Session
HOUSING UNIT INVENTORY —REMOVING LIMITS
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2021
Passed by the Senate April 14, 2021
Yeas 30 Nays 18
DENNY HECK
President of the Senate
Passed by the House April 7, 2021
Yeas 57 Nays 40
LAURIE JINKINS
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Approved May 13, 2021 11:53 AM with
the exception of sections 1, 3, and
4, which are vetoed.
JAY INSLEE
Governor of the State of Washington
CERTIFICATE
I, Brad Hendrickson, Secretary of
the Senate of the State of
Washington, do hereby certify that
the attached is ENGROSSED
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235 as
passed by the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the dates
hereon set forth.
BRAD HENDRICKSON
Secretary
FILED
May 13, 2021
Secretary of State
State of Washington
Q
Packet Pg. 6
7.A.a
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
Passed Legislature - 2021 Regular Session
State of Washington 67th Legislature 2021 Regular Session
By Senate Housing & Local Government (originally sponsored by
Senators Liias, Das, Nguyen, Nobles, Saldana, and Wilson, C.)
READ FIRST TIME 02/05/21.
1 AN ACT Relating to increasing housing unit inventory by removing
2 arbitrary limits on housing options; amending RCW 36.70A.696,
3 36.70A.697, and 36.70A.698; adding a new section to chapter 35.21
4 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.21 RCW; adding a new section
5 to chapter 36.01 RCW; and creating a new section.
6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
7 *NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that local zoning
8 laws can contribute to limiting the housing available for
9 Washingtonians. The legislature finds that reducing these barriers
10 can increase affordable ho g options. The legislature finds that
11 accessory dwelling units can one way to add affordable long-term
12 housing and to provide a needed �Krease in housing density. However,
13 the legislature finds that resea from several cities shows that
14 when accessory dwelling units are b)lt and offered for short-term
15 rental for tourists and business vis" rs, they may not improve
16 housing affordability. Therefore, it is t �.-ntent of the legislature
17 to encourage reducing barriers to accessoryvapelling units when local
18 governments have programs to incentivize or assure that they will be
19 utilized for long-term housing. The legislature finds that owner
20 occupancy requirements may provide an appropriate means for local
21 governments to ensure community impacts of accessory dwelling units
c
a�
E
c
a�
E
a
0
U
U
c
0
a
O
r
c
m
.N
a�
as
.Q
E
in
LO
M
N
LO
m
c
a�
t
a
c
as
U
0
a
P. 1 E S S Packet Pg. 7
1 applicable health and safety provisions as established by applicable
2 building code or city ordinance, a city or town may not regulate or
3 limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or
4 dwelling unit.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NEW SECTION._ Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21
RCW to read as follows:
Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements regulated
under state law or on short-term rentals as defined in RCW 64.37.010
m
and any lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or generally
E
applicable health and safety provisions as established by applicable
building code or city ordinance, a code city may not regulate or
a
limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or
m
o
U
dwelling unit.
c
c�
a
NEW SECTION._ Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 36.01
RCW to read as follows:l�
70
Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements
=
m
;a
regulated under state law o n short-term rentals as defined in RCW
m
64.37.010 and any lawful limit occupant load per square foot or
�gn
generally applicable health and Q�ety provisions as established by
m
applicable building code or couni>ordinance, a county may not
E
regulate or limit the number of�(Ctnrelated persons that may
in
occupy a household or dwelling unit.
N
Passed by the Senate April 14, 2021.
co
Passed by the House April 7, 2021.
r
Approved by the Governor May 13, 2021, with the exception of
certain items that were vetoed.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 13, 2021.
Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto is as follows: Q
"I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 1, 3, a
and 4, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5235 entitled: E
z
"AN ACT Relating to increasing housing unit inventory by
removing arbitrary limits on housing options." Q
Section 3 allows cities to delay local implementation of statewide
requirements around siting of accessory dwelling units until two
years after their next required comprehensive plan update. Accessory
dwelling units play an important role in creating additional housing
options in urban areas and the state is currently facing a housing
crisis.
Section 4 limits the ability for local governments to require owner
occupancy on lots containing an accessory dwelling unit, but it also
creates numerous exceptions to that limitation which are problematic.
I am concerned that the language may allow a local government to
p. 6 E S S Packet Pg. 8
prevent the siting and development of accessory dwelling units in
perpetuity with very little justification.
Section 1 establishes the intent of the bill. Due to the vetoes of
Sections 3 and 4, the original statement of intent no longer fully
applies to this bill.
For these reasons I have vetoed Sections 1, 3, and 4 of Engrossed
Substitute Senate Bill No. 5235.
With the exception of Sections 1, 3, and 4, Engrossed Substitute
Senate Bill No. 5235 is approved."
--- END ---
p. 7 E S S Packet Pg. 9
7.A.b
Residential Occupancy Code Amendment,
Mark -Up Version
Section Modified
20.21.020 Density limitation — Limitation on the total occupancy (ADUs)
20.21.030 Criteria for attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
21.20.050 Dwelling unit.
21.30.010 Families.
21.90.080 Single-family dwelling (unit)
ADU Changes (Chapter 20.21)
20.21.020 Density limitation — Limitation on the total occupancy.
Exeept rrnr 2n jInon/C1 for thaceemmedlateen Af+h HkAhipJ ^ No lot shall be
occupied by more than one family as defined in ECDC 21.30.010. This limitation shall be interpreted to
accomplish its purpose, which is to ensure that the approval of an accessory dwelling unit shall not
increase the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood.
20.21.030 Criteria for attached accessory dwelling units.
F. Occupancy. Either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be owner -occupied.
"Owner -occupied" shall mean a property owner who makes his or her legal residence at the site, as
evidenced by voter registration, vehicle registration, or similar means, and actually resides at the site
more than six months out of any given year, and at no time receives rent for the owner -occupied unit.
The owner(s) shall not rent the designated owner -occupied unit at any time during the pendency of the
ADU permit; any such rental shall void the permit. The owner(s) shall not rent any portion of the owner
occupied residence either during the owner(s)' occupancy or while the owner is absent from the owner
occupied unit for any period. In no event shall the +^+a' ^-,rr,h^ir ^f occupants of the lot exceed one
family as defined in this code; previded, hewever, that ;f the aeGessery dwelling nit ; occupied by
NMI' =11" M.M.N.
IMM
12.08.21 Proposed amendments are shown with stFikethFaugh to denote text to be deleted and
underline to denote text to be added.
Packet Pg. 10
7.A.b
Changes to Definitions (Title 21)
21.20.050 Dwelling unit.
Dwelling unit means a building, or portion thereof, providing complete housekeeping facilities for one
family, which includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Dwelling
unit does not include recreation vehicles or mobile homes. (See also, Multiple Dwelling Units and
Family.)
21.30.010 €ailies Family.
A. Family means individuals GOASiS+i^^ of twe 9F mere peFSeRs related or unrelated by genetics,
adoption, or marriage, eF a gFeup of five eF fewer peFsens .,he -Aree t ^lateed by genetics, adeptien ,.
,
er marriage +^ -,ii .,f rh^ P.Q.permbh .,f such group living in a dwelling unit.
B. The term "family" shall include:
1. State licensed adult family homes required to be recognized as residential use pursuant to
RCW 7 42S490 70.128;
2. State licensed foster family homes and group care facilities as defined in RCW 74.15.180,
subject to the exclusion of subsection �Q of this section;
3. Group homes for the disabled required to be accommodated as residential uses pursuant to the
Fair Housing Act amendments as the same exists or is hereafter amended.
C. The term "family" shall exclude individuals residing in halfway houses, crisis residential centers as
defined in RCW '^.' ^ (9)(g- 74.15.020.1.c, group homes licensed forjuvenile offenders, or other
facilities, whether or not licensed by the state, where individuals are incarcerated or otherwise required
to reside pursuant to court order under the supervision of paid staff and personnel.
12.08.21 Proposed amendments are shown with stFikethFaugh to denote text to be deleted and
underline to denote text to be added.
Packet Pg. 11
7.A.b
unit, regardless ef whether a pertien of the.m. are Fel-ated by geneties, adeptien er marriage, s4A
D. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). When an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is approved
pursuant to Chapter 20.21 ECDC, only one of the dwelling units, either the primary residence or
the ADU, shall be used to house renters .,nd/er unFelated peFsens vihe_ stud- 9GGHPaRGY e#
the F-A 1 Shal A.At PMP.PPPJl ^ ^ family de-fi^.,.d (A) of this Sec_-tiep.
4, E. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit normal hosting activities associated with
residential use.
21.90.080 Single-family dwelling (unit).
Single-family dwelling (and single-family dwelling unit) means a detached building used by ^^^ f- +4y
configured as described herein and occupied or intended to be occupied by one family, limited to one
per lot. A single-family dwelling shall be limited to one mailbox, water meter, and gas meter. It will also
have common access to and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.
12.08.21 Proposed amendments are shown with stFikethFaugh to denote text to be deleted and
underline to denote text to be added.
Packet Pg. 12
7.A.c
F
Q
Packet Pg. 13
7.A.c
v
c
Q
3
TON IGHT'S TOPICS °
1) RECAP OF SIB 5235 AND CITY CODE SECTION
L
0
R
2) REVIEW OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
L
3)N EXT STEPS E
a
r
a
Packet Pg. 14
7.A.c
2021 State Legislation Addressed:
Removing Limits in Housing Unit Inventory
Prohibits local governments from limiting the
number of unrelated persons occupying a home
Exceptions for short-term rentals, Building
Code occupancy loads, some group homes
Also addressed owner requirements for
Accessory Dwelling Units (Governor Veto)
Packet Pg. 15
7.A.c
Recognizes that there are many versions of a fami ly
Not all people who act as a family are related
Cities can't use the number of unrelated people in a house to determine
what constitutes a family
Cities often use this method to identify other residential type uses within
households
12.8.2021
Packet Pg. 16
7.A.c
r
c
m
E
CONFLICTING EDMONDS SECTIONS E
Q
U
Definition of Family - ECDC 21.30.010
Section A
0
Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or aFU
r_
group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage and none of whom are
wards of the court unless such wards are related by genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of
such group living in a dwelling unit
L
Section D. Calculations in Single -Family Zones o
1. No more than five unrelated people N
L
2. Contains special considerations for two renters or exchange students M
E
Many Other Sections Rely on this Definition of a Family (Single -Family)
a
Packet Pg. 17
7.A.c
Removes Residential Occupancy Limits (Per State Legislation)
Strengthens Structural /Bement Requirements for Single Family Dwellings
(One Mailbox, Water Meter, Gas Meter... Common Access to Fdboms)
Maintains Limits on Number of Dwellings in Single Family Zoning
Maintains Restrictions on Group Homes
12.8.2021
Packet Pg. 18
7.A.c
r
c
m
Focused on tangible and objective criteria to maintain
Single Family (SF) Zoning and Usage
0
U
v
c
Structural- Strengthen Definition for SF Dwelling Unit.
Limited to one of each of the following:
0
Mailbox
Water Meter L
0
0
Gas Meter
0
0
L
U sagt,- How the SF Use o per at es
E
Common access to living, sleeping, cooking, eating areas
a
Packet Pg. 19
7.A.c
r
c
m
E
DEFINITION OF FAMILY- 21-30-010 E
Q
0
• Removes occupancy limitations
r
CU
Family means individuals related or unrelated by genetics, adoption, or marriage,64
_.Cr:— 1- ----1 -- -A-•-1 O
1W
C
• Removes subsection to calculate occupancy limits (Sub D)
• Maintains Subsections on Group Living (Sub B) and Exclusions from Family Definition (Sub C)
M
• Maintains provision limiting rental of ADU to either primary house or ADU
E
• Maintains provision allowing normal hosting activities (guests and visitors)
Q
C
a
Packet Pg. 20
7.A.c
r
c
m
E
DWELLING UNIT CHANGES- DEFINITIONS E
Q
21.90.080 Single -Family Dwelling (Unit).
• Strengthens and adds criteria for definition
• Maintains requirement for one family and one dwelling per lot °
• Adds requirement to: N
1) Be limited to one mailbox, water meter, and gas meter y
L
2) Have common access to and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas
C
0
21.20.050 Dwelling Unit.
L
• Strengthens and aligns better with State's Definition
E
• Add portion that states that it includes: permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation. Q
C
d
a
Packet Pg. 21
7.A.c
r
c
m
E
ADU CHANGES - CHAPTER 20.21
0
U
20.21.030 Criteria for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Q
F. Occupancy 0
Removes occupancy limits and exceptions for nurses and caregivers
Maintains owner -occupancy requirement
L
r_
20.21.020 Density Limitation — Limitation on the Total Occupancy.
• Removes reference to the exceptions listed in the prevision above (20.21.030)
M
•
Maintains density limits for ADUs
Q
. 1
Q
Packet Pg. 22
7.A.c
NEXT STEPS
1)PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING BOARD
2)TRANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW & ADOPTION
12.8.2021
Q
Packet Pg. 23
7.A.c
The Residential Occupancy specific page is now available!
Sign up for our notification list for all code updates or just this topic.
www.edmonaswa.gov/codeupdates 0: ,Q
Take a picture of the Q R code to visit
the Res. Occupancy specific page.
..............
Webpage Q R Code
r A
FOR QUESTIONS, CONTACT
ERIC EN GMAN N , AICP
SENIOR PLANNER I CITY OF ED M O N D S
ERIC.EN GMAN N (a-)_ED MO N DSWA.GOV
(425) 9 9 7 - 9 5 4 1
12.8.20
0
R
L
a
M
r-
0
E
Q
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 24
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/8/2021
Multifamily Design Standards: Intro and Scoping Exercise
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for
multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options
recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that
green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes
pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1).
Staff has also begun initial discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on October 6 and
December 1, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation at this time.
Narrative
Today's discussion has two main objectives; introduce the Planning Board to the anticipated multifamily
design code amendment process and conduct a scoping/framework exercise for the zoning component.
1) Information about Goals and Process
Staff will introduce the goal of creating effective and workable guidelines. The intend will be to address
compatibility and create high -quality design principles. This will start out by offering insight about the
proposed process. There will be discussion about the three phases of the code amendment: formation,
articulation, and adoption.
As part of this initial overview, there will be discussion about several of the key factors that need to be
considered. These are:
Reviewing Goals and Policy Directives
Establishing the Project Scope
Reviewing Criteria Considerations
Identifying Stakeholders
Balancing Outcomes
2) Scoping for Zoning Framework
Packet Pg. 25
8.A
The second part of the meeting will focus on scoping the framework for the zoning components. This
will mainly focus on the Residential Multifamily (RM) zoning districts. The general standards for the RM
districts are included as Attachment 2. There will be discussion on:
RM zoning locations in Edmonds
Building regulations (height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.)
Existing design guidelines/requirements
General discussion of goals and challenges
There will also be discussion of some of the other zoning and use types. Namely:
Subdivisions/Unit Lot
Commercial Zoning
Downtown Zonings (BD)
Westgate Mixed Use (WMU)
General Commercial (CG)
The draft presentation is attached as Attachment 3.
Action Needed
No action is needed at this time. This is an informational discussion as part of a larger code amendment
(update) effort.
Attachments:
1) City Council Minutes
2. Residential Multifamily (RM) Standards
3) Presentation (Draft)
Attachments:
Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated)
Attachment 2- Residential Multifamily (RM) Zoning Regulations
Attachment 3 - Presentation Draft
Packet Pg. 26
8.A.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 24, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Susan Paine, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Council President
Paine.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember 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 participating remotely, with
the exception of Councilmembers L. Johnson and Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Nelson.
Council President Paine reported Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and L. Johnson had conflicts and
were excused from attendance today.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested Approval of the Agenda be added to the agenda.
Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, commenting this was a special meeting.
Council President Paine said it was her understanding the Council had to stick to the agenda but the
Council could approve it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 27
seen successful cluster housing in Shoreline. A presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow
illustrated how this concept had been used successfully by ARCH in the past. She still preferred to do the
larger vision, looking at subareas, neighborhood and the environment first. She summarized cluster/
cottage housing could be advantageous to the environment if done properly.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City did not currently have cluster/cottage housing. Councilmember
Olson may be referring to planned residential developments (PRD) which locate houses closer together to
save the environment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was lukewarm on this topic and it was
not something she wanted to move ahead with but she was very intrigued. Churches in Edmonds seem to
be located on some of the largest parcels; she wondered if this would be an appropriate use of their land
and could it be zoned in a way or regulations developed in such a way that they could have their own
cluster housing to support their immigrant, homeless, or senior populations. Ms. Hope said that could be
one of the ways the City could go. There are currently have a few PRDs in Edmonds; cluster /cottage
housing is smaller units and probably some extra units that have a smaller footprint, have their own
parking and open space. It possibly could be designed to take advantage of large parcels, perhaps
owned by a church or someone else. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized this was not her highest
priority but she was very interested in learning more about it.
Councilmember Distelhorst said in addition to PRDs, there are also Unit Lot Subdivision (ULS).
Some ULS are close to cluster/cottage housing, but the lots are approximately 2400 square feet which is
bigger than traditional cluster/cottage housing. He would love to see the Planning Board evaluate this,
observing as Councilmember Buckshnis stated, this is a very popular option with non-profit housing
organizations; Housing Hope and HASCO are both involved with properties that use a cluster/cottage
housing model. He relayed this recommendation had unanimous support from the Housing Commission.
Council President Paine said she has seen examples of this in other cities and would love to
see cluster/cottage housing treated similar to multifamily design standards so there would be visuals. This
could be a way to provide flexibility, preserve large trees and native growth, and be environmentally
sensitive. There needs to be a strong environmental review of all the Housing Commission
recommendations to ensure environmental, sustainability and conservation strategies are front loaded
into the process. She supported having this recommendation go to both the ADB and the Planning
Board. She agreed super large houses were not the best use of the City's limited land.
Ms. Hope summarized there was interest in the topic, some were not ready to move it on right now, but
it could be revisited later.
Multifamilv Design Standards (tonic normally subiect to Planning Board review
• Housing Commission recommendation:
o Enhance current design standards of new multifamily dwellings to maintain and enhance the
unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use
buildings, small multifamily building and large multifamily buildings.
Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement
• Multifamily Design Standards — Improving Design
o City currently has no design standards except in Gateway, Highway 99 or downtown)
o Examples of design standards
■ Neighborhood Focused Elements
■ Massing and Scale
■ Variety of Building Materials
■ Front Entry Features
■ Connections and "Presence" along Sidewalk
■ Better Context for Design Approvals
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 28
M
c
c�
co
c
.y
d
0
E
M
■ Treatment between Sidewalk & Building
■ Weather Protection for Pedestrians
■ Garage/Parking Placement
Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
o (Housing Goal J) Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is
an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible
with its surroundings.
o (11) Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring
compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Sustainability Element
o (A.1) Adopt a system of codes, standards, and incentives to promote development that achieves
growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community character and charm in a
sustainable way.
o (A.2) Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning.
Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Community Culture and Urban Design
Element
o (Design Goal A) Design goals and objectives (should)... guide future development to result in
high quality, well designed and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of
Edmonds (including to):
■ Improve physical appearance and character
■ Improve retail and pedestrian circulation options
■ Protect natural environments using sustainable design practices
■ Protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds
If Planning Board reviews and makes recommendations on this, what process would happen?
1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by PB (incl. in person meetings)
2. Visual preference surveys/exercises
3. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input
4. Public meeting(s) and input from the Architectural Design Board
5. Eventual more detailed recommendation (whether in opposition or support) for proposal to City
Council probably in spring 2022
6. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation
(including minutes & public comments
7. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings
8. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed
recommendation
What kinds of things should Planning Board consider for multifamily design standards?
o Architectural appearance
o Windows and doors
o Location of garages & parking
o Pedestrian accessibility
o Landscaping
o Outdoor lighting
o Open space
o Orientation of building to street
o Building materials
o Placement of outdoor utility equipment
o Site plan
o Entry features
o Neighborhood context
Possible Next Steps
o Council questions & discussion tonight
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 29
8.A.a
Should Planning Board be asked to work on options for Multifamily Design Standards &
seek more public input? If so:
- Planning Board could aim to have a recommendation back to City Council by spring
2022 for more consideration & public input.
- Planning Board would consider possible design standards for townhomes and
multifamily development, including building appearance, site layout, open space, and
other issues.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were multifamily design standards for Highway 99. Ms. Hope
answered there are three areas with design standards: Highway 99 where the most work done as they were
part of an EIS, the Gateway area, and downtown has some design standards in the zoning code. There are
many other areas of the City that do not have design standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she
was very interested in multifamily design standards as they are long overdue. She recognized there would
need to be density in some areas. She referred to the two Compass buildings on SR 104 as examples of the
need for multifamily design standards.
Councilmember Olson said she was very excited about this and enthusiastic about moving it forward. She
was a fan of courtyard apartment complexes and complexes with more attention to detail would be an
enhancement to the overall look and feel of the City. She was excited to have the ADB and Planning Board
involved.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her enthusiastic support for this recommendation and moving it
forward to the ADB and Planning Board. A lot can be learned by a visual preference survey especially
examples of what works and doesn't work in Edmonds.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support, relaying that it was unanimously supported by the Housing
Commission.
Council President Paine agreed this was long overdue and she was excited about it. She asked if it would
go to the ADB first followed by the Planning Board. Ms. Hope envisioned a dual, iterative process as each
board will inform the other. Council President Paine said after working in Seattle particularly with
multifamily townhouses and unit lot subdivisions, Edmonds has dodged a huge bullet not having
multifamily design standards and has avoided some of the design problems in nearby communities. She
supported moving this forward right away.
Ms. Hope summarized there was concurrence to move this forward to the Planning Board and ADB and
with the public, to be thoughtful about the context for the local neighborhoods with better quality design.
Community and Regional Partners (topic not normally subject to Planning Board review)
• Housing Commission Recommendation
o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for:
■ Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI)
■ Special needs residents
■ Seniors
■ Veterans ...
o This policy establishes community partnerships with for profit/non-profits to build affordable
housing...
o (Additional information is contained in the Commission's statement.)
• Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Housing Element
o Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community
regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 30
Council President Paine asked if this would cover CC&Rs and bylaws associated with existing
HOA documents. She recalled when she lived in a condo, their age restrictions did not allow children
over the age of five. She was in favor of the Council pursuing this recommendation. She asked if it
include CC&Rs, noting it may be useful to provide education to condominium. Mr. Taraday answered the
same review could apply to condominiums and subdivision homeowner documents.
Ms. Hope summarized there was consensus to move forward on this recommendation.
Council President Paine thanked everyone for attending.
Recognizing this may be Ms. Hope's last meeting before her retirement, Councilmember
Distelhorst congratulated and thanked her for her service to Edmonds and other cities in the region.
He thanked Councilmembers for attending the study session and having this discussion. He pointed out
there were a lot of resources available; the Housing Commission looked at a lot of them and he was
sure Ms. Hope and other planning staff who supported Housing Commission could share that
information so Councilmembers could see the same data that the Housing Commission considered in
making their recommendations. He encouraged Councilmembers to ask staff, Councilmember Olson or
him for more information.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was Ms. Hope's last hurrah. Having known her before she
was an employee of Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis said Ms. Hope had always been a rock star.
She was happy for Ms. Hope to retire but sad for the City as her departure would leave a big hole. She
wished her the best and expressed her thanks for the help she has given her all these years. Ms. Hope said
she will miss the Council and many people in the community. She always tried to give professional
advice, bring information whether she agreed with it or not, and help the process. She expressed
appreciation for the Council's efforts and assured things will continue on and hopefully she has been a
help.
Councilmember K. Johnson added her thanks to Ms. Hope for all the work she done for the community,
the City, and for the Council. She has appreciated her professionalism and that she never lost her cool in
tight spots. She asked who would be the Acting Development Services Director. Ms. Hope advised Rob
Chave will be the Acting Development Services Director. HR started the recruitment process not long
after she gave her notice. Councilmember K. Johnson said Ms. Hope has worked hard and deserves
the next phase of her life; she wished her happiness and success.
Council President Paine expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope, commenting she has known her
since before she was on Council. She has great leadership qualities and Edmonds has benefitted from
them. Council President Paine assured Ms. Hope she will be missed, but it will be great for her to spend
time with her family.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 24, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
September 7, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst 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, with the exception
of Councilmember L. Johnson, participating remotely.
Council President Paine advised Councilmember L. Johnson was celebrating her 25t1i wedding
anniversary and asked to be excused from tonight's meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION ON SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 32
some leeway with regard to what they presented. If the Council was not satisfied with what was
provided, the Council could to look into what leverage they specifically have under contract.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND
OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 8.3 TO DISCUSS GIVING THE PLANNING BOARD
ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING THE TASKING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE
FROM COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF
ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK.
Councilmember Olson commented the Council discussed this at a previous meeting but did not give formal
direction to the Planning Board. Therefore a discussion and ultimately a vote is needed to direct the Planning
Board regarding how they should proceed. She anticipated the discussion and vote would not take very
long.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. In
accordance with RCW 42.17A.555, public comments shall not include statements which promote or
oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures, except in the course of a public hearing
specifically scheduled for such purposes.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said in the second largest timber export state of Washington,
Edmonds City Council has illegally possessed private property owners' trees, forcing them to purchase
them again from the City before being allowed to use their property for what it is zoned for, building
single family homes on single family zoned property. She has begged at nearly every meeting for the
City Council to rescind the illegal ordinance that authorizes the City to steal their property rights, forces
them to buy the trees back to use their property for what it is zoned for. This Council is breaking the laws
of the constitution to accomplish their own agenda. In February 2017, her 81-year old parents, her
husband and she purchased a challenging, sloped 1.2 acre property with trees and views of Puget
Sound and the mountains. Before purchasing, her husband asked Edmonds Planning Department if the
property could be divided into four lots to build their homes and was told it was no problem. After the
purchase, the Planning Department told them it would be difficult to subdivide because it was in a
critical area. After working with surveyors, engineers, lawyers and architects for two years, they could
divide the property into three lots once the small corner containing the critical area was given to a
neighbor.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, with construction demands slowing engineering, COVID and
complications with her mother's multiple myeloma, the engineers were to submit their application in Q
November 2020 but found a moratorium had been placed on subdivision applications. It was placed to
halt subdivisions so the City could draft a tree ordinance making it impossible for them to build without
repurchasing their trees from the City before they and their roots can be removed and the homes built, a
$250,000 unconstitutional governmental taking. Since then they have paid architects, engineers, and
arborists to re -inventory each tree and reposition the three homes that they have not yet been allowed
to build. The new 50% retention to escape the takings of their trees means their views are gone and large
trees will be 10 feet from their homes. Eighty percent of the property will have to remain as open space
instead of the 30% required for Edmonds properties or 5% in commercial developments. If they go below
the 50% tree retention, they will be forced Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 33
said he had received responses from Cascadia Art Museum and Arts Start; he offered to provide it now or
send it to Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson suggested he email it to
Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson preferred to have this as an Unfinished Business item instead
of on the Consent Agenda so Councilmembers would have an opportunity to amend a grant request
without removing the item from Consent.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Paine about getting funds out the door quickly.
She suggested the Council analyze all the categories next year, commenting it was obvious this was
an underfunded category. She agreed with Mr. Doherty that the use of some of the fund requested by Art
Starts were construction related. She referred to Mr. Doherty's indication that a request of $18,000
was more appropriate, explaining she calculated $30,000. Mr. Doherty explained their request includes 5
areas, the first is $20,000 related to finishing construction and the second is $12,000 for tools related to
the workplace, finishings and furnishings for the building. If those 2 were view as less comporting with
the guidelines and the $32,000 was deleted, it left $18,000 of their $50,000 request. The remaining items
are for educational enhancement, administration expenses and community outreach. Councilmember
Buckshnis concurred with Mr. Doherty regarding Arts Start.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President
Paine about getting the funds out the door now, and taking whatever is left over and looking at places
like the Food Bank and others that did not apply. Most of the organizations are in the arts which is
what brings people and tax dollars to Edmonds. She felt it would be a gigantic mistake to micromanaging
by reducing requests by $1,000. She would agree with having it on the agenda under Unfinished Business
if she could be assured it would be moved forward at that meeting and not put on a future Consent
Agenda. She concluded many of these organizations seriously need the money.
Councilmember Olson agreed with getting the money out quickly, but there said there is still
some information coming in. As it often takes more time to remove something from the Consent
Agenda, she preferred to have it on the agenda under Unfinished Business. She understood the urgency
and will not ask it be placed on a future Consent Agenda.
It was the consensus of Council to schedule this as Unfinished Business on the September 21 st agenda.
Mr. Doherty will send Council the additional information he received.
3. DISCUSS GIVING PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING
TASKING ALREADY HAVE FROM CITY COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN
STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to ask the Planning Board to include consideration of green space
along with the multifamily design standards that the Council has already tasked them with as one of the
Housing Commission recommendations. It came up during the conversation regarding Unit Lot Subdivision
and a lot of Councilmembers were interested in exploring whether more green space could be required in
multifamily complexes in the future.
Council President Paine said she had an opportunity to talk with Acting Development Services Director
Chave earlier today but he was not available at tonight's meeting. The intent would be to have both the
Planning Board and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) consider green space requirements; there are
already landscape requirements for multifamily design. She summarized the majority of Council was
interested in having the Planning Board and ADB consider this.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
INCLUDE GREEN SPACE IN THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 34
BOARD AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD WHEN THIS BODY OF WORK COMES
TO THOSE BOARDS.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the intent was to have both the Planning Board and ADB study the
inclusion of green space. He pointed out green space drives up construction costs and drives down the
number of units, things the City needs to be sensitive to when considering this as increased regulations that
prevent construction of housing only further exacerbate the problem. He was in favor of studying it but not
mandating a requirement before the boards had an opportunity to consider what would and would not work.
Councilmember Olson anticipated that was what their discussions and ultimate recommendations would be
based on, a balancing act between the environment and housing costs.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Paine reminded there is an opening for a Council student representative and
she encouraged students to apply. She expressed a huge thank you to City staff across the board. COVID
has been a burden for all and she recognized during tonight's discussion about suicide prevention for
youth and people of all ages that people are affected in different ways. She thanked staff for keeping the
work coming through whether in office, at home or outside. She recognized Park and Public Works staffs
do not have the option to work from home or in a protected environment. This is a long haul and she
appreciated them all. She was reminded by a staff member that the 1918 pandemic lasted three years.
Perhaps not the best news, but this is a squirrelly virus that keeps changing. She recognized that patience
is a strength and she wanted staff to hang in there and continue doing the best they can.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented suicide is real and it impacts a lot of people. She encouraged
anyone who felt depressed to seek help, talk to a friend, etc. Depression is a chemical imbalance and if a
person reaches a certain point, they can snap.
Councilmember Olson commented tonight had been a productive meeting. She encouraged the public to
volunteer for the last marsh restoration work party of the year on September 1 I' from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.;
it is dirty, hard work and waders are encouraged. She advised town halls will be announced soon to
gather citizen input on the budget and spending priorities so the Council and the Administration is aware
of the priorities before the 2022 budget is finalized. She encouraged residents to attend the town hall that
is most convenient for them.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed Council committee meetings will be held next week and
respectfully requested that the municipal court reorganization be remanded back to the Public Safety,
Planning and Parks Committee for continued discussion as requested in July.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Paine's comments about City staff. Ensuring
City staff are safe and healthy and not sick and quarantining ensures they are available to deliver
essential services to residents. If staff are not well, residents will not be well because they will not receive
the services they need. Tomorrow is the first day of school for the Edmonds School District. As a parent
with a child in the Edmonds School District who lost 18 months of school, he was very excited to have
kids back in school and his child was looking forward to being back in school, but it is a matter of public
health and safety and ensuring areas of potential spread are reduced. He was thankful to educators,
administration, coaches, and support staff for working to keep themselves and children healthy and safe
and learning in the best possible environment. He wished everyone a good year moving forward.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 35
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to today's message from the Health District, Snohomish County
is now at the highest rate of infection in the entire pandemic. He appreciated public comment about
adults being able to make choices for themselves, but many people in the community are not making
good choices for themselves and are still unvaccinated. People need to get vaccinated, wear masks and
reduce their risk factors as much as possible to ensure schools, businesses and essential functions can
continue to operate. He hoped people would make smart and responsible decisions that will start
driving the rate down. He thanked Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers for supporting suicide
prevention efforts as it impacts residents of all ages in the community.
To Carolyn Strom and Susan Hughes, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not drunk two week.
ago. She mistakenly grabbed a glass of wine from dinner and drank some of it. Unfortunately she seems
to think she is irreplaceable on the Council. She rarely takes vacations or goes any place. For example,
she had lung cancer in her first year on the Council and had most of her right lung removed followed by
five months of chemotherapy during which she missed three meetings. She would have
chemotherapy on Wednesdays so it did not interfere with Council meetings. She acknowledged she
probably should not have done that and probably should have taken time off. A lot of people respond to
illness in different ways; she was in extreme pain as she was ten years ago when she had lung cancer, but
she chose to serve the citizens of Edmonds. She suggested anyone who wanted to criticize her and her
illnesses to call her, she was more than happy to explain. Not much keeps her down when it comes to
serving on the Council, anything from cancer to a face infection that infected her sinus and her eye. The
hate speech from Ms. Hughes and Ms. Strom was inappropriate and not relevant to her and her service to
the City.
110. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson relayed he would have liked to have keep City buildings open to the public, however, case.
counts continue to climb, 464/100,000, which is the highest yet. Due to people's personal choices, 95%
of ICU beds are full with COVID patients and only 56% of Snohomish County residents are fully
vaccinated which is not enough to defeat a pandemic. Over 200,000 in Snohomish County are eligible but
choose for whatever reason not to get vaccinated. Because hospitals are filling up, emergency help,
surgery and beds are not available because of COVID patients, the majority of whom are unvaccinated.
To keep everyone as safe as possible, steps such as closing City Hall to the public are necessary. When
numbers decline and people are healthier, safer and more are vaccinated, he will happily reverse all the
closures. He does not like Zoom any more than anyone else and is anxious to get back in person.
The virus keeps mutating because it continues to find unvaccinated hosts. As soon as everyone is
vaccinated, there will be no more mutations and no more virus. He urged everyone to please get
vaccinated so we can go back to our regular, normal lives. There are 125,000 people in Snohomish
County, children under age 12, who are not eligible to be vaccinated but have the potential to be exposed
to COVID. He urged anyone who was eligible to get vaccinated.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 36
8.A.b
Chapter 16.30
RM - MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
16.30.000 Purposes.
The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential
zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000:
A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities
than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential
environment;
B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple
residential uses.
16.30.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Multiple dwellings;
2. Single-family dwellings;
(Other listed used have been removed from this Attachment- not pertinent to this discussion)
16.30.020 Subdistricts.
There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development
standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors.
16.30.030 Site development standards.
A. Table.
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Subdistrict
Per Dwelling
Street
Side
Rear
Height
Coverage
Unit3 (Sq. Ft.)
SetbackZ
SetbackZ
Setback
RM-1.5
1,500
15'
10,
15'
25"
45%
RM-EW
1,500
15'
10,
15'
25'4
45%
RM-2.4
2,400
15'
10,
15'
25"
45%
RM-3
3,000
15'
15'
15'
25'1
45%
1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated
height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height
limit
have a slope of four
inches in 12 inches or greater.
2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones.
3 See definition of townhouse.
Packet Pg. 37
8.A.b
I The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the following
apply to the site and proposed development:
(a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design:
(1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification;
(2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish County
Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units proposed;
(3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not
limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and
depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use.
B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code
(Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to
buildings within the RM-EW zone:
1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with
preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and
glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if
they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building
facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous.
C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback.
16.30.040 Site development exceptions.
A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet.
B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in
ECDC 16.20.050.
C. Setback Encroachments.
1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor
improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches.
2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed
porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third
of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30
inches above the ground level at any point.
3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and
decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way;
provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground
level at any point.
D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall
be side setbacks.
Packet Pg. 38
8.A.c
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.c
TONIGHT'S TOPICS
L
R
R
.N
L
1)INTRODUCTION OF THE CODE AMENDMENT
0
2)SCOPING/FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION ON ZONING
3)N EXT STEPS
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.c
TOPIC 1: INTRODUCTION
a
Packet Pg. 41
8.A.c
Three Phases of Code Amendment Process
Formation Phase 11
Timeline
Packet Pg. 42
8.A.c
Three Phases of Code Amendment Process
Formation
Phase
Create Initial Ideas
Creates Objectives
Establish Outreach Ran
Background Research/ Gather Info
Initial Stakeholder Discussions
Discuss with ADB and Planning
Board (PB)
qr
Articulation Phase
Refine Ideas / Produce Draft
Crafting a Working Draft
Discuss Scenarios
Heavy Stakeholder Discussion
Refining Draft Language
Produce Draft Code Language with
support of ADB, PB, Stakeholders
L
R
R
Adoption as
21
A6 E
Review Draft / Adopt Code
Comments on Official Draft
o
0
Revisions Based on Feedback
r
L
PB Recommendation
a
M
SEPA Revi ew
r
C
E
r
City Council Review / Adoption a
E
Packet Pg. 43
8.A.c
Roles and Interactions of AD B and PB
L
R
L
General Board Responsibilities
To recommend legislation to effectuate the
im tural design
p141 and the goals, objectives and policies
nd make recommendations ...on such matters as
may be specifically referred to by the Mayor and City
n it
Intended Focus for this Process
Discuss Design Code Framework and Topics
Develop Specific Ideas and Recommendations, in line with
Stakeholders, to be Shared with the Planning Board
.N
0
E
Holds public hearings and making recommendations o�
r
proposed changes to the text of the development
regulations
r
L
The Board shall do research and investigation on specific
projects assigned to it by the Mayor and City Council
L
M
C
Reviews and Comments on Specific Ideas and 0
Recommendations
a
Reviews Proposed Outreach and Engagement Plan
E
Makes Formal Recommendation to City Council
a
Packet Pg. 44
8.A.c
ADB PROCESS
GENERAL ORDER FOR ADB DISCUSSIONS
■
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.c
PLANNING BOARD PROCESS L
.N
0
GENERAL ORDER FOR PB DISCUSSIONS 2'
7
Packet Pg. 46
8.A.c
• Flexibility: Flexibility in standards for better design outcomes
• Engagement: Ensure public is informed & part of decision -making
• ADB Anticipated Involvement: Deep dive into the specific standards
• Relations: Protect the character and charm of Edmonds
• Adjustments: Allow ADB to adjust standards for site specific context
• Affordability: Housing affordability costs and impacts should be considered
• Theme by Type: Have design types based on the development type (townhomes, apartments)
• Challenges: Difficult to make design decisions when public concerns are often about zoning standards
• Likes: Like how criteria is shown in staff report and how downtown standards differentiate between portions
of the building (bottom, middle, top)
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Packet Pg. 47
8.A.c
Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals
Housing Goal J - Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important
aspect of housing and determines in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings
Policy J.1- Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
City Council Direction
Consensus for multifamily design updates. Felt it was long overdue. Many discussed character and compatibility.
See ADB Attachment A for more on the conversation from Council.
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Packet Pg. 48
8.A.c
Development Types / Zones
Unit Lot Subdivisions
Multifamily Zones (RM Zones)
Commercial Zones
Downtown Zones (BD Zones)
Westgate Mixed Use (WMU)
Community General Zones (CG)
10.6.21
i
W hat's goes within
the framework?
N
L
M
co
.N
Development Components z
Building Form
L
Set backs/St epbacks
Building Fagade Treatments
Entryway Features
Garage/Driveway Placement
Open Space/ Green Space
Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc.
Packet Pg. 49
8.A.c
The Usual aspect
Others of Great Importance
12.8.21
L
C
C
.N
T
r
M
L
C
4)
d
L
a
Packet Pg. 50
KEY FACTOR: IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS
Government
City Staff
City Council
Development
Community
Builders
Contractors
Residents
Community Members
Local Businesses
Neighborhood Groups
8.A.c
N� ■ q�
Usually want guidelines and standards that contain both. Tip: Scenario testing is key.
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Packet Pg. 52
8.A.c
TOPIC 2:
ZONING
FRAMEWORK
EXERCISE
a
Packet Pg. 53
8.A.c
Development Types / Zones
Multifamily Zones (RM Zones)
Subdivisions/ Unit Lot
Commercial Zones
Downtown Zones (BD Zones)
Westgate Mixed Use (WMU)
Community General Zones (CG)
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Development Components
�r a 'mil
Y
Building Mass and Articulation
W hat's goes within
the framework?
Building Facade Treatments
Entryway Features
Garage/Driveway Placement
Open Space/ Green Space
Set backs/St epbacks
Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc.
1
M
Packet Pg. 54
8.A.c
Involves Residential Development between Sngle-Family and Mid -Rise
Often Called the" Missing Middle" Housing Stock
Acts as a Transition from Commercial to Sngle-Family Zones and
as a Residential Buffer along Major Roads and near Transit
DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
V
"• - t r
TOUJNHDUSE
MULTIPLEX LIVEIWORK
COURTYARD BUNGALOW
TRIPLEX 1 APARTMENT COURT � a
\ DUPLEX FOURPLEX
\ _ _ — t�ISSIN� 1"I
Source: Daniel Parolek & Opticos Design
www.missingmiddlehousing.com
OPTIC05
N
L
M
co
.N
M
Packet Pg. 55
Makes up 6% of City's Area
Area that Allows Future Growth
Focused in 4 Mein Areas
Other Public Facilities, Rlghts-of-Way, 19.0%.
1 194
Parks, 5.8%
cornmercia
Mixed Use', I
Multi -Family, 5
12.8.2 1
single
K�
Downtown
z21
E
Lynnwood
196th St
212th a
Montlak( 44
.0
Terrace ,
1
Packet Pg. 56
-
V
Downtown
Multi Family
RM-3 Multi Family, 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area per aMr
RM-ZA MU111 Family, 2,400 sq. rt. of lot orea per an It
RM-1.5 Multi Family 1,500 sq. fe. of lot arm per dMe
RM-EW M.11) Family RM Ed—& Way
IN
I Packet Pg. 57 1
MULTIFAMILY ZON ES
i _AM r r"qzl
EV-
I
MULTIFAMILY ZON ES
IN
w
MULTIFAMILY ZON ES
,� ■r �,��„iw�F�� 11 ■11
11111 �'t■■■
i
I
8.A.c
Minimum Lot
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Subdistrict
Area Per Dwelling
Street
Side
Rear
Height
Coverage
Unit3 (Sq. Ft.)
Setback
Setback
Setback
RM-1.5
1,500
15'
14'
15'
25.1
45%
RM-EW
1,500
15,
10'
15'
25-4
45%
RM-2.4
2,400
15'
10'
15,
25"
45%
RM-3
3,000
15'
15'
S'
25"
459
Simmary of Footnotes
1. Fbof may extend 5' if it has a slope of 4" in 12" or greater.
2. Peduced setbacks for single-family homes in RM on smaller lots.
3. How it applies to Townhouses
4. Max height on RM-EW (Edmonds Way) up to 35 feet if at least two of the following occurs:
a LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification;
b. 15%of units reserved for people with low/moderate income levels (per 9iohomish County)
c. Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Packet Pg. 61
8.A.c
Minimum Lot
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum
Subdistrict
Area Per Dwelling
Street
Side
Rear
Comparison with denser
3
Unit {5q. Ft.]
Setback �
Setback z
Setback
Height
Coverage
sine -family (S� zones
RM-1.5
1,500
15'
10'
15'
25"
45%
Multifamily has:
RVI-EW
1,500
15'
10'
15'
254
45%
Reduced Street Setbacks
RM-2.4
2,400
15'
10'
15'
25"
45%
RM-3
3,000
15'
15'
15'
25"
45%
Greater Sde Setbacks
Smilar Rear Setbacks
Minimum
Minimum Minimum
Maximum
Sub
Maximum
MinimumMinimum
Maximum
Smilar Height...
District
Lot Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Density
Lot Width
Street
Street
Setback
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Overage
(0/0)
w/ some exceptions
RS-10
10,000
4.4
75'
25'
10'
20'
25'
35%
Greater Lot Coverage
RS-8
8,000
5'5
70'
25`
7-112'
15'
25'
35%
RS-6
6,000
7.3
60'
20'
5'
15'
25'
35%
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
Packet Pg. 62
8.A.c
• Allows individual "Fee Simple" ownership of lots
• Usually for townhomes or individual home development
• Follows subdivision regulations
• Done with a site plan
• Must also meet standards for that zoning district
i.e. Multifamily (RM) Zones
New design standards in Multifamily Zones
would apply here
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
'Vff& i!/.YiF . 71�.TJ1M
maw irmn
______________________i______________L_____________._____�
Q
Packet Pg. 63
8.A.c
Neighborhood Business (BN) & Community Business (BC)
BN is a zone for smaller, neighborhood -oriented businesses
- Lowest density commercial (Perrinville, Five Corners, etc.)
- Does not allow multifamily development
BC is for businesses geared toward the entire community
- A few parcels on Edmonds Way and Bistro 76/ Fat Rig BBQ Ste
- Allows multifamily as part of mixed -use development
- Has design standards for development
12.8.21
PerrhAlle
5 Corners BK/ 7 Beven/ Dairy Queen
n Moore Ste o
m - o
- c
�■�rIIllYrif'��if�ui� R
c
a
M
RM-2.4 E
a
E
r Edmonds Woodway RM-2,4 V
RM-2.4 High School r�.r
r
L P Q
Packet Pg. 64
8.A.c
,z•
•
AIRAWAS
• Multifamily only allowed as a mixed -use development
• BD has extensive design guidelines
• Has many standards that apply to the entire building/site
• Highlights the historical development pattern and mixed -
use character of the area Downtown Business
BDI Downtown Retail Core
BD2 Downtown Mixed Commercial
oilBD3 Downtown Convenience Commercial
Chapter 22.43 eoln BD4 Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5 Downtown Arts Corridor
DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR THE
BD ZONES
22.43.000
Applicability.
22.43.010
Massing and articulation.
22.43.020
Orientation to street.
22.43.030
Ground level details.
22.43.040
Awn ingslcanopies and signage.
22.43.050
Transparency at street level.
22.43.060
Treating blank walls.
22.43.070
Building HVAC equipment.
12.1.21
4q*-w
�� A.01 o A
+� q _ �
i�D `B,D2ir ,
r i BD1 D1
R-1979-4
GG BD�
o
RM-2Jim
Edmonds VII
Mesh ,• R. _
k-1995-1ri .
course taewWfr
now bds,e; and msdeli�
"x1 dercs!ary
PWf?l/ 1/ Dulldlead�dowWrl/
Packet Pg. 65
Commercial General (CG) Zones
W A N a C G ZONES H
.M15
[u ■ .■11 rF1�_ � � br■
1 1��1 r I�111�- ■■1■= -� -IY�
�X# s. a■�inr
:: :=�"�'�►iul ,r�ll��� :Ili#i-
us urnn�i� rn■#X R11. sr■ I w
Ea•� -� �.—E11111•E
� I • • • I wi �11� �: �IE11111111 1`r. j� _ - ■Y
■� �Qj.- ^. ni■■aF1♦IF� IIIF`' _II+IE- .q
�i1111 IR'XI =tipj
T+
�■ -ram �L ■_ !•�IINt = ■�� 1 11��
■ . ■ � ■T=���I �.. 17111E +iiiie� ■f-.: a �1�-.■..rsr
�� � ;FI!■I■ ■� � �� ��� 1 ' ■ ;=ii■�='�i:� � .�L�:•1�;:�ii: r f -:.■r:rrc
• � � �-. �� � �r �� � � . n-ugh—�'��:�i�+rr�a r F f 7 7fR�
ca
� � � CFI• - n Il�llllu�i —� �i": -
Rum 11
w , .� ` � Ik 1■rl ■1 in
IVII
,�� � �11•.FI• .11• u111liauur■uEl.u■
= ` - ■Elms
8.A.c
--------------
■ roc
d usr.aMp,A/k�
>.d
Chapter 22.110
DESIGN STANDARDS FORTH EWMU—WESTGATEMIXED-
U SE D I STRI CT
Sections:
22.110.000
Purpose and intent.
22.110.010
Building types.
22.110.015
Design treatments.
22.110.020
Frontage types.
22.110.030
Green building construction and housing.
22.110.050
Circulation and parking.
22.110.070
Amenity space, open space, and green factor standards.
22.110.080
Public space standards.
22.110.090
Height bonus.
22.110.100
Green factor tools.
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
EDMONDS99
HIGHWAY
Chapter 16.60
CG — GEN El COM M ERCIAL ZON E
16.60.000
CG zone.
16.60.005
Purposes.
16.60.010
Uses.
16.60.015
Location standards for sexually oriented businesses.
16.60.020
Site development standards - General.
16.60.030
Site development standards - Design.
16.60.040
Operating restrictions.
No,e: Numerv�olRm�ger Iw IhePNeftrfen lmeo� fhrK,h+ry lonrar
typ,col Du, do na metro! o'm atl,n rMulrcmmrs o r ehl, dwtprer.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 67
8.A.c
RM Zones
• Focus on RM (Multifamily) Zones
• RM zones without do not ha/e specific design standards
• Areas for potential new growth and redevelopment
• This would also cover Unit Lot SSUbdivision Design in RM
Downtown (BD) and Commercial Zones
• Ha/e existing design standards
• Multifamily is part of mixed -use development
• Would be difficult w/o wholistic look at all design standards
Westgate Mixed Use (W MU) and Commercial General (CG) Zones
• Codes were recently adopted
• Focus on higher density development
• Would be difficult w/o wholistic look at all design standards
1 2 . 8 . 2 1
S° -
- Lynnwood
Downtown
2121h St
Edmonds Esperance Mortlake
ay °`� Terrace
o
M
Packet Pg. 68
8.A.c
Development Types / Zones
Multifamily Zones (RM Zones)
SUbdivisionst Unit Lots
12.8.21
IL
n ~��
stiff �}
a.l
i
W hat's goes within
Development Components
Building Mass and Articulation
Set backs/St epbacks
Building Fagade Treatments
Entryway Features
Garage/Driveway Placement
Open Space/ Green Space
Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc.
Packet Pg. 69
8.A.c
TOPIC 3: NEXT STEPS
1) FINALIZE OUTREACH / ENGAGEMENT PLAN
2) BEGIN SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3) ASSESSI N G CO M M U N ITY PREFEREN CES
m
Packet Pg. 70
8.A.c
The Multifamily Design Standard (Update) specific page is now available!
Sign up for our notification list for all code updates or just this topic.
www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates
Take a picture of the Q R code to visit 0 € 0
the Multifamily specific page.
MFDS Webpage Q R Code
FOR QUESTIONS, CONTACT:
ERIC EN GMAN N , AICP
SENIOR PLANNER I CITY OF ED M O N D S
ERIC.EN GMAN N @ED MO N DSWA.GOV
( 4 2 5 ) 9 9 7 - 9 5 4 1
t
A
J)
M
Packet Pg. 71
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/8/2021
Election of Officers for 2022
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
Elections are held at the end of the year for the upcoming year.
Staff Recommendation
Elect a Chair and a Vice Chair
Narrative
N/A
Packet Pg. 72
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 12/8/2021
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Extended agenda attached for review and discussion.
Attachments:
12-8-2021 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 73
�y ()F EQAf
o Items and Dates are subject to change
KAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
December 8, 2021
Meeting Item
December 2021
December 22 Day Before Winter Holidays/Christmas- Cancelled
January 2022
January 12 1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan): Draft
Document Review and Feedback
2. (Tentative) Public Hearing - Code Amendment addressing
Residential Occupancy Standards and Definitions
3. Code Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards:
Outreach and Engagement Plan Discussion
January 26 1. Public Hearing - Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS
Plan): Recommendation to Council
2. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: Overview and Public
Outreach Effort Discussion
February 2022
February 9 1. (Tentative) Code Amendments addressing Multifamily Design
Standards: Discussions
February 23 1. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: Discussions
Packet Pg. 74
items ana t)ates are sui
9.A.a
ochange
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2
Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2021-2022 3.
Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4.
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan
5.
Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
6.
Subdivision code updates
7.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
8.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
9.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
10.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
11.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates
3. Joint meeting with City Council —April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
Q
Packet Pg. 75