2022-01-12 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
January 12, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
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.
Board Members Present Staff Present
Alicia Crank, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Roger Pence, Vice Chair Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Matt Cheung Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy. Director
Todd Cloutier Eric Engmann, Senior Planner
Judi Gladstone Steve Duh, Conservation Technix, (Consultant)
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Crank pointed out her name was misspelled at the beginning of the last paragraph of the minutes.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2021 AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2021 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED WITH
BOARD MEMBERS GLADSTONE AND CLOUTIER ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Pagel of 9
Vice Chair Pence asked if Administrative Reports would return to the agenda again. Senior Planner Engmann
replied they would likely start up again as soon as the new Planning Director gets settled in.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Seitz commented on the draft PROS Plan. She referred to the CFP and noted that most of the items are
not in the areas of need. Investments in the bowl exceed investments in any other part of the city. She expressed
concern about the lack of equity in investments and cited numerous concerns about the quality of park space in
in southeast Edmonds. She responded to Board Member Cloutier's question from the last meeting about level
of service. She noted that this analysis does not meet the State's Administrative Code. She responded to Board
Member Cheung's question about a heat map or the location of parks in relation to population. According to
the 2020 census, Tract 504.04, associated with areas northeast of 5 Corners, is the most densely populated part
of the city and is only served by open space and no parks. This is followed by Tract 509, associated with the
eastern half of the SR99 corridor. This is followed by two tracts associated with the bowl extending east out to
100ffi Avenue West, then south Edmonds, then the west side of SR99 corridor/Esperance, and then the area
south of 5 Corners. She asserted that park resources are correlated with race with the vast concentration of park
resources sited in the whitest parts of the city. Distribution of existing park resources is not associated with
density - the two most dense tracts have some of the fewest resources - and appears to be more closely associated
with race. This CIP in terms of magnitude and location of investments is unfortunately no different than historic
patterns of who the city invests in. She encouraged the Planning Board to use its authority to encourage staff to
meet with her to discuss her concerns and delay the public hearing until an analysis consistent with Edmonds
City Code and State Administrative Code can be completed so they can have the tools to more equitably and
objectively discuss the future distribution of resources.
Lori Sorenson thanked Angie Feser and all the staff for putting this PROS Plan together. She appreciates the
City Council who recently voted to move the Edmonds Marsh out of the Stormwater budget and into Parks and
Recreation. There is now $250,000 in the budget to develop a Marsh Master Plan. She encouraged the Planning
Board to make a recommendation to the City Council concerning the eventual purchase of the entire property
for open space for the Edmonds community. She would like to see more planning detail regarding the
development of the Marsh Master Plan in the PROS Plan. She recommended creating a scientific vision of what
the area should look like once it is restored as a saltwater marsh. Input from a wide scientific community is
required to formulate a plan of this scope. The tribal community should also be included.
Jim Oganowski commented regarding the PROS Plan. He thinks it is a good overview of the existing parks
system. His major concern is the moving of the goalposts resulting in reducing the metric for park area per
resident by almost 50%. Including the Meadowdale Playfields, 50% of Lynndale Skate Park and the Underwater
Park acreage dramatically alters the perspective of what we have versus what we need. He also suggested that
this Plan could be the cornerstone of a Comprehensive Plan to develop a One Edmonds type of philosophy. This
would require integration of the thoughts of this Plan with other stakeholders; however, they would need a
vision for the City to do this right. The Plan highlights accomplishments over the past six years He asked how
those accomplishments align with the 2016 PROS Plan. He asked how the Parks budget would need to be
altered as a result of the PROS Plan. Are we starting to build a reserve fund out of the current budget for this
purpose? Finally, he noted he did not see anything in the Plan related to safety or anything about no camping
being allowed in the parks.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 2 of 9
Greg Ferguson discussed environmental issues which he believes should be included in the PROS Plan. These
include a Marsh Comprehensive Plan, climate change issues, water quality issues, and the impact of rising sea
levels on marine parks. He asked that the PROS Plan be delayed until they can be addressed.
Bernie Bush commented that there had been a previous discussion about putting the plans for the marsh under
Parks; however, the PROS Plan shows no money allocated until 2023 or 2024. He asked what money would be
used to leverage grants to purchase the property. He asked that this be determined as soon as possible.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Code Amendment to Update Residential Occupancy Standards
Mr. Engmann gave a recap of SB 5235, the related city code section, and the proposed code amendment. He
summarized that SB 5235 would prohibit local governments from limiting the number of unrelated persons
from occupying a home with a few exceptions. This has resulted in the need to revise the definition of family in
Edmonds city code. The new definition says that "Family means individuals related or unrelated by genetics,
adoption, or marriage living in a dwelling unit."
The amendments would:
• remove the residential occupancy limits;
• strengthen structural/element requirements for single family dwellings such as one mailbox, water
meter, gas meter ... common access to living, sleeping, cooking, eating areas;
• maintain limits on number of dwellings in single family zoning districts; and
• maintain restrictions on group homes
Staff is recommending that the Planning Board decide whether to transmit the proposal to City Council for
review and adoption.
Board Member Questions:
Board Member Gladstone asked why they didn't include electrical meters in the list of uses for
structural/element requirements for single-family dwellings. Mr. Engmann explained that the City doesn't do
electrical permits so it would not be easily checked or monitored. Board Member Gladstone expressed concern
because this is one thing that is often metered separately. Water and gas are rarely metered separately.
Vice Chair Pence commented he believes that ADUs should have the option of a separate mailbox.
The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. and public testimony was solicited. Seeing no public comments,
the public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Rosen expressed support for Board Member Gladstone's and Vice Chair Pence's comments.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 3 of 9
Board Member Gladstone asked if, as they forward this to the City Council, they can recommend areas for the
City Council to look at as part of their review. Chair Crank replied that they could. Board Member Gladstone
asked that both of the issues that she and Vice Chair Pence raised be flagged for the City Council.
Mr. Engmann summarized the Board's two recommendations:
• Single family dwellings shall be limited to one electric meter, and
• An additional mailbox may be permitted for an approved accessory dwelling unit.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GLADSTONE, TO FORWARD THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE WITH CONSIDERATION OF THOSE TWO POTENTIAL CHANGES. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan
Parks Director Feser introduced this item. She was very happy to have members of the public reviewing the
Plan and providing comment.
Consultant Steve Duh from Conservation Technix made a PowerPoint presentation regarding the draft PROS
Plan. He gave an overview of the Plan and steps to building it including inventory assessments, community
engagement, system -wide needs assessment, goals and policies review, capital project planning,
implementation and funding strategies, and plan review and approval. He discussed the project timeline and
reviewed community feedback.
Community feedback revealed that priority improvements to the park system included connecting gaps in the
trail system and expanding trail connections, improving or upgrading existing parks and amenities, buying more
conservation and open space lands, renovating or replacing the pool, and improving restroom facilities. In
recreation programming, there was a strong interest in community events such as outdoor movies and Hazel
Miller Plaza summer concerts. There was also continued and strong interest in outdoor programs, youth
programs, and youth sports programs and camps.
Mr. Duh reviewed the Plan structure and content. The contents included Introduction & Community Profile,
Community Engagement, Goals & Objectives, Inventory & Classifications, Parks & Open Space, Recreation
Programs & Facilities, Trails & Connections, Capital Projects & Implementation, and Appendices. System
analysis used in the PROS Plan involved examining system gaps related to park access and distribution; physical
accessibility; diversity of places and spaces; programs, events, and activities; serving today's residents; and
planning for future growth. He reviewed approaches to analyzing service standards used in this Plan including
acreage/population-based, distribution/proximity-based, and quality/condition. One of the recommendations of
this Plan is to adjust the service standards to be more focused toward the community/neighborhood parks and
the open spaces, realign standards for trails around the notion of connectivity, and reframe some of the
calculations on active -use and open space. Some other metrics include discussion of current quality, distribution,
and usage.
Key recommendations include:
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 4 of 9
• Acquisitions to fill gaps in the system, specifically in the south/southeast portions of Edmonds, and for
conservation (such as areas that are adjacent to city properties or conserve a unique natural resource).
• Park development and upgrades such as Civic Center Playfield as well as Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra
Park, Yost Memorial Park, Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park, and Pine Street Park.
• Trail and bikeway connections — acquire easements and rights -of -way for trail connections, coordinate
with the Comprehensive Plan regarding bicycle and pedestrian system improvements
• Yost Pool Replacement — Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool.
• ADA and accessibility enhancements such as removing barriers and improving universal access to and
within parks, natural areas, and trails
• User convenience improvements such as upgrading and replacing restrooms and improving signage and
wayfinding
Staff will be coming back in two weeks for a public hearing and more discussion.
Board Member Comments and Questions:
Board Member Gladstone referred to comments heard from the public earlier in the meeting and asked about
equity in the Plan, the per capita requirement decrease, a reserve fund for land acquisition, and climate change
planning. Regarding climate change and climate resiliency, the Mr. Duh explained that the Plan references the
Urban Forestry Management Plan as a primary tool for the City to use. Concerning the interest in equity and
the additional investment in south and southeast Edmonds, the Plan puts forward a strong stance that the City
should do more in investments to provide for residents in that area. Specifically, the Plan references
enhancements to Mathay Ballinger and identifies three neighborhood parks for potential acquisition in that area.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is not a budget, but it does identify rough estimates of what those
investments might cost. Ms. Feser discussed how parks would be prioritized based on areas that need attention.
Regarding questions about property acquisition around the marsh, she noted this would be discussed in tonight's
capital program presentation. Mr. Duh addressed the per capita/density standard change and explained this is a
local choice to have a standard that is both appropriate and pragmatic. The intent is not to be solely reliant on
an acres -per -thousand -residents standard. Ms. Feser referred to the counting of Meadowdale and Lynndale
Parks which are owned by the City of Lynnwood. She emphasized that Edmonds has made significant
investments to improve those parks and has interlocal agreements with the City of Lynnwood for the use of
them. The CIP earmarks $500,000 to go to the City of Lynnwood to support improvements to those parks. From
a user perspective and an investment perspective it makes sense to count those as part of the City's inventory.
Board Member Kuehn asked how the "no camping" issue related to this. Ms. Feser explained that a camping
ordinance would relate to being in a public park or public property outside of park hours. Deputy Director
Burley explained it is unlawful to remove someone from a public space; however, park hours are enforceable
so this is the one area in which overnight stay can be prohibited and enforced. A camping ban would likely be
instituted to prohibit similar things in other public spaces and would be initiated and approved by the City
Council. It would probably not come from the Parks Department.
Vice Chair Pence referred to the non -Edmonds parks that are close to, adjacent to, or within the City of
Edmonds. When it comes to assessing the quantity of park land available to the residents of Edmonds, he thinks
they should ignore those jurisdictional differences to avoid public policy issues.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 5 of 9
Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the robust efforts that went into the community engagement for this
Plan. He had the following questions regarding the survey analysis:
• Were responses of the survey weighed to reflect the demographics of the community?
• How many non-English responses were there?
• Cross tabs: Did you look through the lens of neighborhood, age, differences in homes with children,
owner occupied versus renter, language spoken, gender, etc.?
• Community feedback highest interest level items (Packet page 51) all seem to be things that parents
would really want. Was this looked at through the lens of those with and without children?
Mr. Duh replied that the responses were not weighted. The responses are the actual numbers gathered from the
survey itself. He emphasized that the mail survey had a 25% response rate and reflects a statistical random
sample of the community. This was compared to the additional 1400 responses received from the online only
survey. They feel they received a strong representation of responses in the community. The responses between
the online and mail survey were generally consistent. In terms of the cross tabs, the survey included three
primary sub -groups — age group, homes with and without children, and geography. They did not capture
demographic data regarding gender, language or owner -occupied versus renter. He discussed some examples
of points where sub -group responses were different; these are called out in the appendix. In terms of non-English
responses, the survey captured only 8 responses (2 Chinese, 5 Korean, 1 Spanish) even though they went to
considerable effort to reach out to non-English communities. Finally, the community feedback highest interest
level items on packet page 51 do reflect the general sentiment in the community across all sub -groups.
Board Member Rosen referred to Goals and Objectives which start on page 89. There are 8 goals and 55
objectives. He asked what the process will be to balance and prioritize money, staff, and timing. Ms. Feser
replied that staff is still processing a lot of this information. The capital plan will be the implementation of the
PROS Plan. The goals and objectives are guidelines and aspirations. Moving forward they will move with a
lens of equity and inclusion and making sure they are providing programs, facilities, and opportunities to the
entire community. This is why they have the acquisition recommendations and improvements in the areas they
do.
Board Member Rosen asked about the justification for the emphasis in the Plan on bikeway connections. Mr.
Duh explained they gathered information from the community in several ways and tried to filter this information
in a way that made sense to community priorities. Ms. Feser added that there isn't a lot of bike riding allowed
in the parks, but they have heard of a lot of people interested in biking in the parks. The PROS Plan is
encouraging Parks to work with Public Works on a non -motorized transportation system using sidewalks, bike
lanes and connections to get from place to place. Ms. Burley commented that the pandemic has heightened the
awareness of lack of access for people to ride bikes.
Ms. Feser made the presentation regarding the 2022 PROS Plan Capital Program. She reviewed the proposed
project list and explained how it was organized. The project list is a wish list containing everything included in
the PROS Plan. Substantial projects include the replacement of Yost Pool and 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
Expenditures not in the CIP include Marsh Acquisition and Development and the Parks/Facilities Maintenance
Building. She also noted that the Marsh Restoration Project was transferred to Parks and Marina Beach Park
was awarded two grants totaling $ 1 M from RCO. Council is questioning whether to accept the grants or not
and has paused the grant for now. She reviewed revenue sources, staff resources, and the proposed project list
and revenue.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 6 of 9
2022 Council Approved CIP Projects:
• In Progress — Civic Park, citywide renovations
• In CIP — Playground upgrade, Yost Pool, acquisitions
• Carryover Projects: Greenhouse replacement needs a variance, City Park pedestrian pathway, Johnson
property demolition/security (not approved, but is a priority)
The project list was reviewed by category, and feedback was solicited on each one.
Acquisitions: Edmonds Marsh Estuary, Neighborhood Park SE1, Neighborhood Park SR99, Neighborhood
Park SE2, Interurban Trail
Feedback:
• Board Member Cloutier expressed strong support for acquisitions.
Planning: Parks & Facilities M&O building, Neighborhood Park SE2, Waterfront Walkway, Edmonds Marsh
Estuary, Johnson Property, Neighborhood Park SR100, Neighborhood Park SE3, 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Feedback:
• Chair Crank recommended prioritizing the Johnson property to protect against cost fluctuations. Lowest
on her priority list was the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. The marsh is also high priority to her.
• Board Member Cloutier echoed Chair Crank's comments.
• Board Member Cheung also agreed with Chair Crank and added that the 4th Avenue project seemed
very pricey.
• Board Member Gladstone commented she would like to see what might be pushed out in other
categories because of the $500,000 assigned to the Waterfront Walkway.
Development: Edmonds Marsh Estuary restoration, Parks & Facilities M&O Building construction, City Park
pedestrian safety walkway, Civic Center Playfields renovation, Mathay Ballinger Park paved loop pathway,
Mathay Ballinger Park restrooms, Mathay Ballinger Park small shelter with picnic tables, cemetery
columbarium expansion, Marina Beach Park Master Plan implementation, Pine Street Park small shelter with
picnic tables, Pine Street Park canopy shade trees, Pine Street Park paved connecting pathway, neighborhood
park SE3, Waterfront Walkway, neighborhood park SR101, Elm Street Park nature playground, Elm Street
Park small shelter with picnic tables, neighborhood park SE4, 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Feedback:
• Chair Crank recommended keeping the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor at the bottom of the list, keeping
the marsh at the top and prioritizing Mathay Ballinger Park projects.
• Board Member Gladstone suggested acquiring properties faster and delaying projects such as Pine
Street Park in order to prioritize equity.
Renovations: Greenhouses replacement, Johnson property demolition and securing site, Meadowdale Playfields
renovations, Yost Park trail bridge and boardwalk, Yost Park pool repair, Yost Park playground replacement,
Olympic Beach Park restroom upgrade, Sierra Park playground replacement, Yost Park tennis courts,
systemwide signage and wayfinding, Yost Park pool upgrades/renovation, Maplewood Hill Park playground
replacement, systemwide playground replacement/inclusive level, Elm Street Park habitat restoration, Yost
Park pool replacement, Seaview Park restroom replacement, systemwide capital repairs
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 7 of 9
Feedback:
Board Member Cheung asked about the possibility of sharing costs with Lynnwood on their pool so
Edmonds residents could get a preferred rate like Lynnwood residents. Ms. Feser noted that would be a
great thing to look at when they start looking at alternatives for Yost Pool. She commented that in the
PROS Plan outreach they got feedback from residents that an outdoor local pool was the preference.
Board Member Cheung commented that he was thinking of this option in addition to Yost Pool. Ms.
Burley commented that Shoreline just lost their pool. It may be worth having a conversation with them
about a shared use agreement.
Board Member Gladstone commented that she likes the creative thinking around the pools. She asked
about mapping where the proposed capital improvements are being done and color -coding by year so
they can have a visual of what this will look like in the end. This will enable the Board to have a better
understanding of the equity component. Ms. Feser indicated staff could work on this.
Ms. Feser thanked the Board for their feedback and noted they would be back in two weeks for a public hearing.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Engmann reviewed upcoming agenda items: introduction of the new Planning Director and her work plan
review, PROS Plan public hearing, outreach plan discussion, trees, and Planning Board Retreat (tentatively
scheduled for March 9).
Chair Crank commented there had been some discussion about doing the retreat in person, but it might be
challenging given the current pandemic situation. Board Member Gladstone recommended leaving the option
of an in -person meeting open because they are generally more productive. Chair Crank suggested getting more
input from staff about the implications of an in -person meeting because it would include not only the Planning
Board and staff but also possibly the public.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank thanked everyone for a relatively smooth first meeting. She noted that Paine Field Master Plan
public input has been extended to the end of January. She also reported that Paine Field is getting an interesting
new tenant called ZeroAvia.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Pence said he is looking forward to the introduction of the new Planning Director and the proposed
work plan. He hopes it will include major progress on the Development Code rewrite. He would like to see
briefings on a comprehensive look at all the projects up on SR99 - the welcome signs, the median development
project, gateway work and Comprehensive Plan updates.
Board Member Gladstone encouraged board members to watch a TED talk she had sent out on the nexus
between housing and climate change resiliency and mitigation. She also gave a heads up that this legislative
session has quite a number of housing related bills. She commented it might be useful to hear about these.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 8 of 9
Planning Manager Chave announced that he will be retiring at the end of the month. Board members
congratulated him and thanked him for his service.
Mr. Engmann noted that staff is tracking the legislative session. BB 1782 would have major impacts and zoning
and usage. Staff will provide an update when they get further along in the process and know more.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 12, 2022 Page 9 of 9