2022-10-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
October 26, 2022
Chair Pence called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Rosen read the Land Acknowledgement:
Board Members Present Staff Present
Roger Pence, Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Judi Gladstone, Vice Chair' Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Mike Rosen Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director
Beth Tragus-Campbell Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Deputy Director
Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Rob English, City Engineer
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Board Members Absent
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Richard Kuehn (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 12, 2022
Due to lack of a quorum at this point in the meeting, the approval of minutes was continued to the next meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Pence reviewed the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ken Reidy expressed concern about the lack of progress on the comprehensive city code rewrite. He reviewed
some background on his communications with staff and the Council regarding this over the last ten years. He
was not in favor of relabeling the long -needed code -rewrite as "Development Code Modernization". He stated
that Edmonds citizens and property owners deserve a major code rewrite and have provided plenty of taxpayer
resources over the years for Edmonds city government to finalize this long ago. He also noted that the datum
point referenced in the packet tonight is an ECC issue, not a Development Code Update, and therefore outside
the Planning Board's authority.
'Board Member Gladstone joined the meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 1 of 11
Natalie Seitz asked the Planning Board to consider providing a way for the public to submit written comments
for public hearings like the Council does.
Glen Douglas expressed concern that he doesn't see any projects between 84' Avenue West and Highway 104
on 236th Street. This is a very dangerous street with just ditches and no curbs or sidewalks. School children walk
to Madrona school down this dark, narrow street. He hopes the City will look at taking care of this problem. He
also raised a concern about the intersection of 84th and 236th which has had 23 accidents in the last three years.
It is a two-way stop with no crosswalks or signals; many people mistake it for a four-way stop. Chair Pence said
he appreciated Mr. Douglas's comments. He frequently travels that section of 236th and agrees that the narrow
county road needs some upgrading.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. 2023-2028 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Public Hearing
Senior Planner Clugston introduced this item. City Engineer Mike English made a presentation on the Public
Works 2023-2028 CIP/CFP. He compared and contrasted the CFP and CIP. He reviewed the format of the
combined CFP and CIP document which addresses projects related to Transportation; Utilities (Water,
Stormwater, Sewer); Facilities; Wastewater Treatment Plant; and a comparison to the previous year.
2023 Pavement Preservation Projects:
• 2023 Pavement Preservation Program ($1.5M) — 6 lane miles; maintains the City's existing pavement
• Main Street Overlay from 6th Ave — 9th Ave ($157K) — 2023 design/2024 construction; $750K federal
grant; 11 new ADA ramps
• 76th Ave Overlay Close-out ($15K)
2023 Safe� & Cqpacity Projects:
• Highway 99 Revitalization/Gateway ($2.6M)
• Highway 99 Stage 3 — 244th Street — 23 8th Street ($1.1 M)
• Highway 99 Stage 4 — 224tb Street — 220b Street ($740K)
• 76th Ave/22e Street Intersection ($761K)
• SR-104 Adaptive System ($243K)
• Guardrail improvements ($20K)
• Traffic Signal Upgrades ($30K)
2023 Active Transportation Projects & Planning:
• Citywide Bicycle Improvements ($1.7M)
• Elm Way Walkway ($901K)
• Transportation Plan Updates ($170K)
• Traffic Calming Program ($33K)
• Pedestrian Safety Program ($20K)
• Citywide Street Lighting Study ($60K)
• Green Streets ($297K)
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 2 of 11
2023 Water Utility:
• 2023 Replacement Program ($1.75M) - construction
• 2024 Replacement Program ($506K) - design
• Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment ($805K)
• Waterline Overlays ($50K)
2023 Stormwater Utility:
• Storm & Surface Water Comp Plan ($600K)
• Perrinville Creek Basin Projects:
o Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration ($750K)
o Perrinville Creek Flow Management ($120K)
o Perrinville Creek Basin Update ($150K)
• Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements ($190K)
• Lake Ballinger Floodplain ($750K)
• Stormwater Overlays ($200K)
• 2024 Replacement Program ($290K) — design
2023 Sewer Utility:
• 2023 Replacement Program ($1.6M) - construction
• 2024 Replacement Program ($349K) - design
• Cured In -place Pipe Rehabilitation ($423K)
• Sewerline Overlays ($200K)
2023 Wastewater Treatment Plant:
• WWTP Clarifier 1 Rehabilitation ($350K)
• Vacuum Filter Replacement ($187K)
• Nuvoda Pre -Design ($300K) —potential solution to nitrogen requirements
• Joint Sealant ($60K) — maintenance
Facilities maintained by Public Works & Utilities include the Boys & Girls Club, the Cemetery Building, City
Hall, the fishing pier, Frances Anderson Center, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, Fire Station 20, the Historic
Log Cabin, the Historic Museum, the library, Meadowdale Club House, Old Public Works, the Parks
Maintenance Building, the Public Safety Building, the Public Works O&M, Wade James Theater, and Yost
Pool House. Mr. English reviewed the CIP/CFP schedule. There will be a presentation at City Council on
November 1, a City Council public hearing on November 15, and potential City Council adoption on November
22.
Director Angie Feser presented the Parks, Recreation, and Human Services 2023-2028 CIP/CFP. The PROS
Plan Capital Recommendations related to capital acquisitions include acquisitions to fill park system gaps; open
space and conservation acquisitions; park development and enhancements; Yost Pool replacement; trail
connections; and ADA, accessibility; and other user convenience enhancements. PROS Plan goals focus on
engagement; diversity, equity, and inclusion; parks, trails, and open space; waterfront use and access; natural
resource and habitat conservation; climate change, adaptation, and resiliency; recreation programs and facilities;
cultural services; and park operations and administration. Director Feser reviewed a map showing the
geographic distribution for the 2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP. Current/ongoing capital projects include the Civic
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 3 of 11
Park Redevelopment; 96t' Ave Infiltration Project (Civic Park SW mitigation); Greenhouse installation; and
deferred maintenance/small capital projects.
2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Proiects:
• Johnson Property — demolition and securing 1-acre property (2023); master plan/public input process
(2025), estimated cost $282,000
• Meadowdale Playfields — in negotiations with the City of Lynnwood; inclusive playground, dugout
roofs, light fixtures, estimated cost TBD
• Mathay Ballinger Park — paved loop pathway, shelter with picnic tables, permanent restroom, estimated
cost $499,300
• Yost Park & Pool — playground replacement (2023); trail/bridge repair (2024), tennis court resurface
(2025), pool upgrades (2025), estimated cost $958,200
• Columbarium Expansion Phase II — design complete, fund 130 & 137 (Cemetery Trust Fund), estimated
cost $159,000
• Olympic Beach Park — renovation of existing restroom, estimated cost $53,000
• Pine Street Park — shelter with picnic tables (2024), paved pathway (2024), canopy shade trees (2024),
estimated cost $164,400
• Sierra Park — playground replacement (2024), estimated cost $187,500
• Neighborhood Park SE 1 — park planning (2024), park construction (2025), estimated cost $899,100 +
parkland acquisition (2023)
• Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb Tide Section — addressing accessibility, connect Brackett's
Landing North to Marina Beach Park, estimated cost $819,500
• Maplewood Hill Park — playground replacement (2025), oldest playground in park system (38 years
old), estimated cost $144,900
• Marsh Estuary Restoration — estimated cost $14,642,500 + Restoration + Marina Beach Park
Renovation
• Elm Street Park — habitat restoration (2026), nature playground (2026), shelter with picnic tables (2026),
estimated cost $225,100
• Neighborhood Park SR 99 — planning (2025), construction (2026), estimated cost $926,100 + parkland
acquisition (2024)
• Neighborhood Park SE 2 — planning (2026), construction (2027), estimated cost $953,900 + parkland
acquisition (2025)
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor — Parks project? No funding identified, estimated cost $9,206,600
• Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building — 40+ year old building, estimated cost $5,762,600
• Seaview Park Restroom — ADA improvements, replacement, or renovation of restroom, estimated cost
$417,900
• Yost Pool Replacement — Pool is 50 years old, funding source TBD, estimated cost $23,881,000
2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Programs:
• Citywide Park Improvements/Capital Replacement —backlog of 50+projects, small capital projects and
deferred maintenance, job order contracting, estimated cost $2,700,000
• Signage & Wayfinding — trail identification, orientation markers, safety & regulatory messaging, park
hours, park rules & etiquette, interpretive information & warning signs, estimated cost $51,500
• Playground Upgrade Program — playground replacement/inclusive upgrades, locations TBD, estimated
cost $608,900
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 4 of 11
2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Parkland Acquisitions:
• Parkland Acquisitions —neighborhood parks SE1, SR99 & SE2, acquisition as feasible, estimated cost
$5,230,500
• Interurban Trail Expansion — acquisition of lands, easements, and/or rights -of -way, estimated cost
$985,585
Operating Budget Notes:
• Yost Park/Shell Creek Study: $220,000 — ARPA funded, existing conditions analysis (Critical Areas
Report, Cultural Resources Analysis), recommendations and action plan, may become capital project,
potential projects added by Council
Staff is recommending that the prioritization of 2023 projects be Civic Park completion (including 96th Ave
infiltration), greenhouse completion, Mathay Ballinger Park improvements, Yost Park playground, Johnson
property demolition, and Yost Park/Shell Creek Study.
Board Questions:
Board Member Campbell asked what the rationale is for keeping the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor in these
proposals if there is not an interest in keeping it on as a Parks project. Director Feser reviewed the background
on this project and explained it used to be in Parks and Recreation under Cultural Arts. In September, Cultural
Arts was transferred to Community Services/Economic Development Department. She explained that to help
with the transition, Parks had agreed to keep it in their budget through the end of the year.
Board Member Campbell asked about the selection of the traffic calming location. Mr. English reviewed the
evaluation process.
Public Testimony:
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m.
Teresa Hollis stated she lives near the Gateway neighborhood and has been closely following the Highway 99
Subarea Plan and the buildout by developers. There is an extreme amount of construction activity now in the
south end of the city. She referred to the intersection of 84th and 236th near Madrona school and commented that
the neighbors perceive this as a highly dangerous intersection. She urged staff to get hold of the traffic study
that was done as part of the Terrace Place design review application by Kimley-Horn. That study reported that
the intersection has over twice the rate of accidents than there is at 238th which is a 4-way stop. She urged the
City to consider making the intersection into a 4-way stop. She noted that 39% of the accidents at the intersection
are in the afternoon between 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. 44% of those accidents involved injuries. That is with today's
population. As the 900 new housing units come on board this can be expected to get worse. She contrasted this
with the plan to have a pilot Green Street project on 236th. She thinks the ARPA money would be much better
spent on two more stop signs now. She urged staff to put this in their decision package for 2023. Ms. Hollis also
brought up a particular lot for sale near 84th and 236th which could be a potential location for a pocket park.
Seeing no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 5 of 11
Board Comments/Questions:
Board Member Rosen thanked everyone who participated in the public comments and in the public hearing. He
asked staff about the intersection that was referenced at 84th and 23e. Mr. English indicated he would get hold
of the study referenced and follow up on this. Board Member Rosen asked about the Planning Board's earlier
recommendation to move the Facilities Building up in the prioritization process. Director Feser stated she would
move that forward to Council as a recommendation from the Planning Board.
Board Member Rosen asked about noting that the allocation for regular maintenance of the Boys and Girls Club
is likely to change. Director Feser gave an update on this project. She explained that the Boys and Girls Club
has informed the City that their intent is to demolish the existing facility and build a new youth -focused building
on their 12,000-foot allocation at Civic Park. They are also talking with Edmonds Center for the Arts about
doing a teen center there and using their gym facilities as well. It is still very early in the design process; it is
unknown when the actual demolition and construction of the building will occur. However, until the building
is demolished, the City owns the building and is responsible for maintaining it. Mr. English added that this was
part of the bond funding and may need to be reallocated to a different deferred -maintenance project. Board
Member Rosen recommended putting a note that things are expected to change, but it is not known exactly
how.
Vice Chair Gladstone commented that staff's presentation of what they have planned was really good, but it
was still not clear what the drivers were for the decisions. She suggested in the future that staff explain in their
presentations why decisions were made. She is not seeing where the priorities they have agreed on, such as
equity around the city, are being reflected, particularly on the facilities side. Mr. English explained that the
Comprehensive Plans are the major drivers in how projects are picked. A lot of Public Works' funding is related
to capital maintenance and preservation. Investments are made and prioritized based on the condition of the
asset. In addition, there can be other inputs from the City's Operations group who is familiar with problems and
issues out in the field. Additionally, safety, available funding, and grant competitiveness are also considered.
Board Member Campbell said she would like it to be clarified which items are not determined by the
Comprehensive Plan and where there is opportunity for things like public comment. She would like to see a
more thorough discussion of those things with the Planning Board especially about how they can push this out
into the community more. She is willing to support the proposals as put forward today; however, moving
forward she would like to see it made clear where public can be involved and see a much broader effort at public
involvement. This would make it much more likely that they can reach the equitable engagement goals in 2023
and 2024.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CAMPBELL, TO FORWARD THE 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) & CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AS PRESENTED WITH THE NOTES THAT WERE
RECOMMENDED THROUGH THE DISCUSSION REGARDING MOVING THE FACILITIES
PROJECT UP IN THE PROCESS AND ADDING AN ASTERISK COMMENT REGARDING THE
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. MOTION PASSED 3-1 WITH BOARD MEMBERS PENCE, ROSEN,
AND CAMPBELL VOTING IN FAVOR AND VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE VOTING AGAINST
THE MOTION.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 6 of 11
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Visioning Summary
Director McLaughlin reviewed the approach used to reach populations they don't often hear from in the public
process. The strategy included inclusive branding, a survey and marketing in multiple languages, meeting
people where they are, having a good neighborhood presence, testing new outreach strategies, and willingness
to make mistakes and learn. The goal was to solicit 3500 comments from the community. One comment equals
each response to a survey question and each comment recorded at an outreach event. Over 8500 comments were
collected. Director McLaughlin reviewed survey results. The majority of survey respondents were from
downtown. She noted that neighborhoods are not clearly defined, so this is fairly subjective. Staff was pleased
with the amount of engagement overall.
Things people love about Edmonds:
• Small-town feel
• Access to waterfront and nature
• Walkability
• Locally owned businesses
• Thriving arts and culture
How people would like to see their values reflected in Edmonds:
• Environmental stewardship — protect natural areas
• Commitment to being inclusive and celebrating our diversity
• Improve infrastructure for walking and biking
• Disparate comments regarding growth: oppose high -density; recognition of need for more housing
options
What people don't like about Edmonds:
• Being too car -centric — lack of sidewalks, need for better public transportation, speeding drivers, and
imbalance of parking
• Government — inequitable distribution of funds, lack of transparency and accountability, concern that
only the loudest voices are heard
• Mixed response to land capacity — increased density is not desired by some; others say there is not
enough housing
What kinds of businesses do people travel outside the city for?
• Larger retailers in Lynnwood or U-District — mentions of Alderwood Mall, Central Market, Costco,
Fred Meyer
• Sentiment that big -box and large retailers are not needed in Edmonds. It's okay to travel to some things.
Do people work in Edmonds?
• No — 72% and Yes — 28%. 35% of those that do not work in Edmonds are retired. Of those that work
outside of Edmonds, the most prominent work sectors related to education, training, library, healthcare,
and technology.
What people are most concerned about when it comes to the environmental future of Edmonds:
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 7 of 11
Water protection — sea -level rise, protection of streams, general pollution
Green Space — retaining or replacing tree canopy, notable mention of "right time, right place" for
preservation of views
Land Capacity — density is harmful, citing associate tree canopy loss and increased traffic; others say
density is a solution, citing walkable communities and sustainable buildings as an outcome
Do people feel like their ethnicity and culture are represented in Edmonds and what ethnicities and cultures
would they like to see better represented in Edmonds?
• Most commonly skipped question
• Large majority of those who self -identified as white said yes
• For "needs more" responses, most common answers were "all non -white cultures" and
indigenous/Native American
• Many found the question divisive
Things the City can do to better celebrate diverse cultures:
• Partner with ethnic and cultural minority communities — honor holidays that aren't white dominant
culture, honor cultural presence through events and public art
Increase representation in hiring and elected and appointed positions
Installing streetscape design that acknowledges culture, heritage, and language
Things that can be done to improve neighborhoods:
• Walkability — maintain/repair existing sidewalks, lighting, crosswalks for people with mobility issues
• Road maintenance and safety — traffic calming, improve cyclists' safety
• More public space — green space, space for families with young children
• Keep small-town atmosphere
Staff is working on how to synthesize this information into a cohesive vision statement which is forward -looking
20 years into the future. They will continue to analyze results and to work on drafting the vision statement. The
vision statement is expected to be revealed on November 5 at Porchfest. It will be validated through a survey
and a Community Champions Advisory Committee. There will be numerous briefings at Planning Board and
City Council.
Comments/Questions:
Chair Pence asked about the logistics for revealing this at Porchfest which is a music festival. Director
McLaughlin explained how this idea came about and noted it was likely to draw more attention than they ever
could by just revealing the Comprehensive Plan vision statement on its own. They will have airtime and
materials and carve out their space. Chair Pence asked about the boards and commissions advisory group.
Director McLaughlin replied that is expected to be formed in the first quarter of 2023.
Board Member Rosen had the following questions/comments:
• He suggested testing the vision statement for both language and cultural sensitivity. Director
McLaughlin agreed and noted that PRR is doing that.
• He referred to packet page 204 where it references "accountability to businesses" and asked what that
means. Staff replied they would have to follow up on that.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 8 of 11
He thought that some of the statistics would be significantly modified based on a cross tab. He
recommended doing some cross tabs based on age, retirement, etc. Director McLaughlin replied that
they wanted to keep this survey very approachable and did not ask for race, age, or other demographic
information. That will come later as they get into more topical areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Shipley noted they could do some cross tabs on the full survey on things such as how long they have
lived here or neighborhoods.
He referred to packet page 216 regarding parking and said he was surprised that some people wanted
more parking and some wanted less. Director McLaughlin noted that there are some neighborhoods
where there is a lot of parking in some areas (like 5 Corners) and not enough in others.
The Board recessed from 9:05 to 9:10 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Development Code Update Work Plan
Senior Planner Mike Clugston and Director McLaughlin made the presentation regarding the Development
Code Modernization Work Plan. Director McLaughlin reviewed the purpose of development codes and the
history of Edmonds' zoning and ordinance codes. She referred to the datum point mentioned by Mr. Reidy
earlier and noted this was in the presentation just for levity since it is an obsolete reference. She reviewed staff
resources available for the code update. There will be a dedicated FTE to manage the code who will manage
the code, lead legislation, and work with consultants as needed. Staff will collaborate with in-house subject
matter experts and have a budget available for on -call services.
Staff views code rewriting as an interactive process of improvements to the Edmonds development codes. It
includes changes to both structure and content; ensures the code is representative of best practices; offers both
flexibility and predictability to developers, design professionals, and contractors; and is outcome focused and
mindful of implications. Staff recognizes that there are structural changes that can happen right away such as
reorganizing Titles 15-24 to be more accessible and usable and improving the search and interactive functions.
It is expected this first round of improvements will be completed by the end of 2022. Content changes are
proposed to be looked at in terms of "minor" and "major" categories. This allows for a more responsive process
that can quickly respond to policy decisions and can be implemented through changes to ECDC 20.80.Overall
changes are intended to use plain language, replace words with graphics and illustrations, and eliminate
unnecessary code.
Minor amendments would promote clarity, eliminate redundancy, streamline processes, better align with best
practices, and correct scrivener's errors. These would be presented directly to Council on a semi-annual basis
(December/June) or more frequently as needed. She reviewed the proposed changes to ECDC 20.80 in the
packet. Major amendments would take more time. They would be vetted thoroughly with detailed data/analysis
and include inclusive public engagement. There is a required process for these through GMA and the City's
code.
Board Member Campbell asked for more detail about the streamlining of processes. She recalled that for the
wireless code review, not having the stakeholders involved on earlier segments didn't come to light until there
was a public hearing. If they are talking about removing steps in the process, she wanted to make sure that public
involvement wasn't compromised. Mr. Clugston acknowledged that the process for the wireless code review
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 9 of 11
didn't go properly, but staff is working through that. He explained that the minor code amendments would have
no policy impact and are things that could be done very quickly. He reviewed more details of the proposed
amendments to Chapter 20.80. The new process for the minor amendments would streamline the process for
changes that need little or no policy study. Minor code amendments would not go through the Planning Board,
but just go straight to the Council on a semi-annual basis. Major amendments would still go through the Planning
Board process.
Chair Pence referred to section 10.40 of the Planning Board Charter which says that text amendments to the
Development Code come through Planning Board. He thinks they ought to see everything, and it may help to
deal with public skepticism. He noted that things that the staff thinks are minor might not seem minor to the
public.
Vice Chair Gladstone spoke in support of this as long as "minor" is defined well enough and is just basically
used for cleaning up the code. She thought making it go through the Planning Board would be overkill.
Director McLaughlin noted that the amount of time staff generally spends on very minor amendments is
enormous. The process is wildly inefficient, and things are not moving. Taking care of the minor amendments
in this way will allow more time to deal with real policy issues. Chair Pence suggested asking City Council to
amend section 10.40 to reduce the Planning Board's workload. Staff concurred.
Board Member Campbell said she has no problems with the process proposed for minor amendments only. She
wants to make sure that the Planning Board still reviews the more substantive items. She referred to the intent
of staff to replace words with graphics and recommended having processes in place to ensure appropriate
translations and appropriate ADA compliance. Mr. Clugston explained that Code Publishing offers those
features. Board Member Campbell thanked staff for their explanations.
Student Representative Distelhorst spoke in support of moving the minor amendments directly to Council
because it will be more efficient for the City and help things move along. She has noticed that some projects get
stuck at the Planning Board, and she has felt like the Board was slowing the process down too much.
Chair Pence noted that board members can still read the City Council packets and make comments if they feel
something needs to be addressed.
Mr. Clugston noted there would be a public hearing on November 30 on the changes to 20.80. He will talk to
the City Attorney to see if any changes need to be made to Chapter 10.40, the Planning Board Charter.
B. Motion to make a budget request to City Council to fund a communications system that supports remote
participation at in -person Planning Board meetings.
Chair Pence explained that Councilmember Teitzel had requested that the Board consider this motion asking
Council to provide funds to allow hybrid meetings to occur.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CAMPBELL, TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
WISHES TO RETURN TO IN -PERSON MEETINGS IN A HYBRID FORMAT, ONE THAT
PERMITS REMOTE PARTICIPATION BY MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. THE BOARD
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 10 of l l
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL TO BUDGET FOR A
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS SUCH MEETINGS.
VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE OFFERED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE EDMONDS
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET FOR THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT SUCH MEETINGS. THE
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0) TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
The extended agenda was reviewed. There will be a Special Meeting with City Council on November 1. There
was discussion about the expectations for the format of that meeting as well as other topics on the extended
agenda.
Mr. Clugston asked about the origin and the prioritization of the list of future projects. Board Member Rosen
stated it was a list primarily generated by Rob of projects that were on the radar. The list also reflects items that
could be brought up whenever there is time on the agenda. Mr. Clugston indicated he would review and possibly
edit the list if some things have been covered or can be deleted. Chair Pence suggested categorizing these items
in various ways such as whether things need an action by the Planning Board or are just updates, and whether
things are active or not active.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Student Representative Distelhorst requested help with accessing her email. Mr. Clugston indicated he would
follow up with her.
Board Member Rosen noted that the consultant PRR has been referenced quite a bit lately. He wanted to make
it clear that he was an owner and managing principal of PRR in the past; however, he does not have any conflict
of interest. He has been retired from there since 2017 and is not involved in any way with them now.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2022 Page 11 of 11