2022-02-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
February 9, 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
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn 1
Mike Rosen
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Eric Engmann, Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 12, 2022 Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
' Board Member Kuehn had an excused absence for this meeting, but ended up joining at 9:06 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 1 of 8
January 26, 2022 Meeting Minutes
There was discussion about technical difficulties with the Zoom recording from the January 26 meeting
resulting in incomplete minutes from that meeting and the need to redo the public hearing. The notes cover up
to the point where the video connection was lost. No action was taken on these minutes.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Greg Ferguson urged the Planning Board not to approve the PROS Plan Update as it avoids any commitment
to environmental enhancement. There is no greenhouse gas reduction plan or mention of greenhouse gas at all
in the document. He noted that the Council passed a Resolution in 2006 stating that the City supports the Kyotal
Protocols and will create an action plan for reducing global warming; the Parks Department has not done this.
Climate is mentioned very briefly only on two pages in the document noting that climate is increasing
stormwater flows, that plant selection should change as the weather changes, and that the City should use less
irrigation water. Climate is mentioned in six different pages in the Public Involvement Summaries, much more
frequently than in the Plan itself. Other climate impacts are not mentioned at all include rising sea levels which
will impact marine parks, rising air temperatures which will encourage invasive species, and intensifying storms
which will erode banks and cause slope failures in park streams. How is Parks going to manage these impacts?
He also noted that Parks has no tree planting plan in accordance with the Goal 5 to implement the Urban Forestry
Management Plan. Because of these and other omissions, the Plan should not be recommended. He also noted
the Edmonds Stewards program is not mentioned in the document even though they have been in existence for
two years, have cleared invasive species from five acres, and have planted over 2,000 shrubs and trees. They
have generous financial support from the Parks Department and the support of staff. The group would like to
know if they will have the continued support of Parks.
Natalie Seitz spoke in support of a multicultural community center in the SR99 corridor and support for PROS
Plan approaches that are consistent with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). She discussed
displacement risks to the SR99 corridor as summarized in a memo provided to the Board. She believes the
displacement risk has increased due to the Buildable Lands Report, redevelopment plans for SR99, proximity
to light rail station, and existing and pending land use applications. Property values have already skyrocketed in
recent years creating increased tax burdens for communities with significant vulnerabilities to displacement.
Priorities in a multicultural community center would help the City implement anti -displacement strategies that
would rely on centering community voices in the redevelopment process. It would be responsive to stakeholder
voices in the Korean community center and is needed to fill a Parks programming and facility gap in the east
side of the City. The WAC states that parks and recreation elements should have consistency in integration with
other plan elements. Therefore, it could be permissible to provide relevant values from the Community
Sustainability Element or other elements that are already adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan
when germane to Parks and Recreation. However, the City should and must be critical of additions that go
beyond the Comprehensive Plan. She thanked the Board, staff and the Council for the tremendous time and
effort they have put into this Plan.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 2 of 8
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Recommendation
Chair Crank summarized this topic noting that at the last meeting they held the public hearing and received an
enormous amount of feedback, especially around the underwater park. The Board decided to not make any
recommendations at that meeting even though they were scheduled to. Instead, they made a recommendation
to form a subcommittee to take in the information received and have the subcommittee go through it. She
thanked the subcommittee members (Board Members Pence, Gladstone, and Rosen) for their work and Director
Feser for putting together the informative and helpful matrix. Even though the recording didn't work out, the
content still came through to the Board. She expects the Board and staff will be able to review and discuss the
information and bring it back to the February 23 public hearing with some more focused conversations and
maybe filling in some of the blanks that were missed the first time around. Vice Chair Pence thanked Parks,
Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser for assistance with the subcommittee. Board Member
Gladstone summarized the subcommittee's approach to discussion.
Director Feser noted schedule updates impacting a grant application requirement and another Planning Board
Public Hearing being necessary. The target now for the Planning Board to make a recommendation to Council
is now February 23. Director Feser made a presentation highlighting some of the recommendations that the
consultant and staff had resulting from the first hearing. She reviewed how the PROS Plan fits in with all the
other plans in the City.
General revisions proposed by staff which will be incorporated for the February 23 Public Hearing:
• Public Process (Director's Message) — Traditionally lesser heard constituents and the wide range of
voices heard; Community priorities have changed over time.
• Executive Summary — Purpose and core focus of the PROS Plan; Relationship with other city
plans/efforts; key points on how the Plan is different from 2016; 8 key project recommendations.
• Revise goals/objectives and add Goal #9 related to sustainability (environmental) efforts.
• Community Profile (Chapter 2) — Highlight economic benefits of Parks & Recreation and recognize the
Underwater Dive Park specifically.
Director Feser then presented the subcommittee item matrix with five broad categories including discussion
items and relevant information, current context and/or proposed PROS Plan revisions for discussion purposes.
Subcommittee members and other board members also commented on the items.
Equity
a. Identify metrics for accomplishing equity, e.g., geographic accessibility, amenities in the parks.
• Possible new objective 2.6 — Develop diversity, equity and inclusion metrics for park
and facility capital planning and development, recreation and cultural programs and
department operations.
• Board members discussed what examples of diversity, equity and inclusion metrics
might look like.
Board Member Gladstone asked if should state that the metrics would be used to guide
program and budget priorities. Director Feser was unsure about how this would be
stated. Board Member Gladstone suggested adding at the end that metrics were being
developed that guide program and budget priorities or decisions.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 3 of 8
Vice Chair Pence commented on the spectrum involved in moving toward goals and the
value of recognizing that they are moving in the right direction and improving the
system for the values they want to advance.
b. The map of improvements highlights geographic disparities that are not remedied in the CIP.
For example, can the department delay Pine Park and waterway walkway, to achieve greater
equity to allow for earlier development of parks in S. Edmonds area?
• Director Feser encouraged revision of the Capital list to reflect the Board's
recommendation.
C. In objective 6.1, if you allow decisions to be based on high demand, that may conflict with
serving a wide range of diverse populations. By making it a consideration rather than a driver
it allows the Parks department broader discretion in prioritizing parks
improvements/acquisitions.
• Board Member Gladstone explained that demand is one part of the discussion in terms
of identifying where or how they will be serving. It should be reflected as part of the
discussion rather than being a driver to balance the conversation.
• A revision to Objective 6.3 would reflect this: Enhance the diversity of recreation
programs offered, consideringfibeuiging on programs that are in high demand...
2. Diversity
a. Create new objective that promotes programs being offered in various geographic locations
throughout the city.
• New Objective 2.6 — Increase city-wide geographic distribution of recreation and cultural
programs by the addition of new or relocation of existing programs into available locations
of the City with few or no city programs.
b. Goals 2 and 7.2 need to be "inclusive of diversity" rather than "reflective of diversity" given
that Edmonds is about 83% white, 3% African American, .7% Native American, 7% Asian,
5.3% Hispanic,.3% Pacific Islander, 2% other races, and 4.1% from two or more races. I'd like
to be sure this won't be interpreted as being based on the size of the different populations or we
won't see much variety of cultural, heritage or arts events.
• Revised Goal 2: Decrease barriers and provide increased opportunities for participation
and representative cultural, heritage and art programs, events representing the diversity of
Edmonds demographics.
• Revised Goal 7.2: Work with the community and local organizations to foster a greater
variety of cultural, heritage and arts events that represent the diversity of cultures in
Edmonds.
• Chair Crank spoke in support of the language focusing on diversity in general and not just
race.
Environmental Stewardship
a. Goal and objectives need to be added related to how parks facilities are providing adaptation
and mitigation for impacts of sea level rise, carbon footprint and other climate change impacts,
to make climate change more prominent. Objectives should be directly related to operations of
the Parks Department.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 4 of 8
• Director Feser urged people to be aware that there are many terms used to discuss these
items so simply searching for one word is not going to result in complete information.
• Board Member Gladstone referred to many statements heard and letters received regarding
elevating the importance of environmental concerns. There are certain things that are
specifically relevant to Parks in terms of operation and maintenance that should be identified
in the Plan.
• Revised Objective 3.7: would add "and environmental"
• New Objective 3.xx: When feasible, exceed development requirements to provide
adaptation and mitigation for climate change impacts in parks and recreation facilities in
planning, development, maintenance, and operations.
• Goal 5 — added language around implementation of other city plans
• Goal 8 — added language regarding mitigation of climate change
b. Include an objective to identify metrics that accomplish environmental/sustainability/climate
change adaptation and mitigation, e.g., add sequestration value, water conserved, canopy
coverage, and be compatible with the Climate Change Plan goals.
• New Goal 9: Incorporate applicable city plan goals and objectives in parks planning,
development and maintenance and recreation and cultural programming to include the
Urban Forest Management Plan, Climate Action Plan, Integrated Pest Management Plan
and Salmon Safe Certification.
• Director Feser noted that the Climate Action Plan is coming, but it is not completed yet.
Once it is done this kind of objective may come into play as it applies to Parks. This may be
addressed in the Executive Summary. Board Member Rosen noted that all the separate plans
referred to earlier overlap into Parks. Because of the way these plans are developed
individually Parks is unable to take advantage of synergies and leveraging. He suggested
the Board emphasize to the City Council that this is an unrealized opportunity and a
challenge. Board Crank agreed. She noted there are things that can be mentioned in the Plan,
but they won't necessarily live in this document because most of the ownership belongs
somewhere else. Director Feser concurred.
C. Goal 8.12 should include consideration of how they can help mitigate for and adapt to impacts
of climate change.
• Revise Goal 8.2 with verbiage "adapt to and mitigate for".
4. Clarify and formalize relationship with the Underwater Dive Park stewards.
• Add to Goal 8.7 — Periodically review and update volunteer organization agreements.
In goal 8.7, if you are promoting volunteerism, it needs to be supported with appropriate staffing and
other resources like tools, etc.
• Director Feser recommended that the Planning Board make a strong recommendation in the
next budget process to look at considering a volunteer coordinator position to fully take
advantage of this opportunity.
• Board Member Gladstone suggested changing the wording of the objective to support the
request for a volunteer coordinator position.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 5 of 8
NEW BUSINESS
A. Multifamily Design Standards: Proposed Work and Outreach Plans
Senior Planner Eric Engmann made the presentation regarding the draft Work Plan, the draft Outreach
Plan, and the intended timeline.
The draft Work Plan includes:
• Purpose Statement — Establish the general reasoning for this action.
• Objectives — Create community enhancing design; consider housing cost implications; public
involvement is paramount.
• Scope of Work — Use type - stand-alone multifamily development; Locations/Zones — RM
zones and BD downtown; Development components — focus on elements with the most impact
on public perception as viewed from the public realm (street)
• Outreach and Engagement — covered separately
• Design Components — Building Articulation — modulations or additions to building structure,
Building Fagade Treatment — materials, textures, colors; Entryway Features — front entrance
clearly visible and welcoming; Garage/Driveway Placements — address visual impact of garages
and driveways from street; Open/Green Space — address importance of green space in
development context; Other Factors — Walkways, utility screening, fencing, lighting
• Other Considerations — Graphics — Seek assistance of consultants; Decide on mechanism for
primary contact and review - Rely on existing boards or create stakeholder advisory committee?
Outreach Plan Components:
• Purpose Statement — Create meaningful public engagement: "Meaningful public engagement
can be achieved if it is proactive and designed to be easy for the community and provides them
with critical resources that are easily accessible. Meaningful engagement will secure facts,
values, and perspectives that might not otherwise be revealed and are vital to a sound decision
process."
• Objectives— inform, involve, accountability
• Identifying Stakeholder Groupings — Government (city staff, boards, City Council),
Development Community (builders, contractors), Residents (community members, local
businesses, neighborhood groups)
• Methods to Identify Stakeholders
• Methods to Engage — Inform (webpage, direct communication, online media, public notice);
engage (interviews, online surveys, neighborhood walks, group presentations, open house(s),
online we discussions/digital town hall, focus group, public meeting)
• Resources Needed — Make it easier to see comparisons between options; avoid biases or
complications within only using photographs; help translate code language into visual medium
• Final Outcomes/Lessons Learned — At the end of the process, stakeholders should feel like they
have had the opportunity to: ask questions, provide recommendations, understand the code
amendment process, and contribute to the recommended code changes. Also provide
opportunity to look back at the Outreach Plan and make changes for the future.
Mr. Engmann reviewed the proposed draft timeline which is expected to take about a year. He solicited feedback
from the Board.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 6 of 8
Board Member Rosen commented that there are some challenges and perceptions within the community. He
believes there is a lack of trust and a presumption of bad intent. As a result, he encouraged the City to
overcompensate to build integrity and encourage trust. Accordingly, he recommended utilizing an external
group for review. Regarding public outreach, he recommended using direct mail to every land and business
owner within the relevant area. He also recommended neighborhood and cultural events to get to where people
already are. He noted that online surveys are helpful but are not statistically valid. He stated it is critically
important to ask questions in the right way to get good information as opposed to guided information. He
applauded the direction this is going.
Vice Chair Pence asked if most of the outreach and engagement activity would occur when they are in person
again. Mr. Engmann agreed that would be ideal, but they must be flexible. Vice Chair Pence spoke to the value
of face-to-face communication, especially with difficult issues.
Commissioner Gladstone noted that different types of engagement would require different levels of staffing.
She asked if they could or would consider something like a charette. This would allow the opportunity for
participants to really be involved rather than just informed and consulted. She suggested having a table at high
traffic areas like Ranch 99 Market that might reach different people than would ordinarily come to events. She
asked what they are expecting the guidance to be, noting the challenge of fmding a balance between being
overly controlling and giving just enough detail so they don't end up with buildings they don't want. She hopes
whatever guidance is given may be applicable in other parts of the city someday (particularly with duplexes). If
these are scaled and designed appropriately, they may be perfectly suitable for single-family neighborhoods.
Mr. Engmann agreed that the staffing levels needs to be considered. Regarding graphics, he noted that getting
a firm with a lot of experience will be important to know the best way to show the information. He sees the
open houses being a mixture of providing information and engaging exercises to promote involvement. He also
thinks charettes are a great idea. He agreed with the importance of doing direct mailing to catch people on their
time.
Chair Crank agreed that open-ended questions are very important in surveys. She also recommended being as
broad as possible. She also cautioned to not necessarily value one outset over the other. She noted how the
pandemic has allowed people who might not otherwise participate to get involved with various means. She
commented that the Planning Department is already short-staffed which makes this more challenging. She
encouraged everyone to be gracious and have patience. She likes the toolbox concept and the stakeholder aspect.
Vice Chair Pence spoke in support of embracing all the outreach tools. The open houses with one-on-one
communication are in addition to the other tools, not instead of them. Next, he recommended trying to find
consultants who are willing to work creatively with the City and not ones who have all the answers already.
Finally, he wondered about plans to rewrite and update the zoning code. He encouraged staff not to do anything
that would preclude a comprehensive rewrite of the code in the not -too -distant future. He spoke in favor of
form -based code.
Board Member Cheung commented on the importance of getting stakeholders who are committed to the process
to get good representation from all groups. He reminded everyone that the loudest voices are not necessarily be
the consensus.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 7 of 8
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Senior Planner Engmann reviewed the extended agenda. He solicited feedback for times for the March 9 retreat.
It was ultimately determined that evening would be the best time for the group to meet. Mr. Engmann expressed
appreciation to the Board and staff as this was his last meeting with the City.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board members thanked Mr. Engmann for his work with the City and wished him well.
Board Member Pence commented on his recollection that Mr. Engmann would be working on code revision
and said that he hopes this will still get done.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank pointed out that Mr. Engmann had to pivot immediately when he came into his role. She thanked
him for navigating the challenging times. She also thanked the subcommittee for their extra work. She reminded
everyone that there is a Planning Board alternate position open. She thanked everyone for the great meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2022 Page 8 of 8