2023-02-15 Planning Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
Agenda
s
Edmonds Planning Board
IHy� SPECIAL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
FEBRUARY 15, 2023, 7:00 PM
MEETING INFORMATION
This special meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board is being held due to technical difficulties
experienced during the Planning Board's February 8 regular meeting, including the lack of a
recording of the meeting. The agenda includes all items from the February 8 regular meeting. Item 4
(Audience Comments) has been supplemented to include written public comments related to Item
8B that were submitted after the February 8 meeting packet was published but before this meeting.
This is a hybrid meeting. The in -person portion of the meeting is at 7PM in Council Chambers.
The Zoom link is available at https:Hedmondswa-gov.zoom.us/j/81526776291, Webinar ID: 815
2677 6291
The meeting can also be accessed by telephone at +1253 215 8782, using the Webinar ID
above.
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.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. Written Public Comments Related to February 8 Meeting
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update
NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation
B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
February 15, 2023
Page 1
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
13. GENERIC AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
February 15, 2023
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/15/2023
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve attached minutes from December 14, 2022 joint meeting and Planning Board January 25th
meeting.
Narrative
Draft minutes from both meetings attached.
Attachments:
PB221214 draft -Joint PB_ Tree Board
PB230125 draft
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD & TREE BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
December 14, 2022
Chair Pence called the joint meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board and Tree Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Campbell read the Land Acknowledgement.
Planning Board Members Present
Roger Pence, Chair
Judi Gladstone, Vice Chair
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Planning Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Richard Kuehn (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Deb Forest, Urban Forest Planner
Tree Board Members Present
Janelle Cass, Chair
Bill Phipps, Vice Chair
Wendy Kliment
Crane Stavig
Chris Eck (virtual)
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GLADSTONE,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9 AS CORRECTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Board Member Rosen requested switching the order of the Planning Board Handbook and the Tree Code
Amendments for the convenience of the Tree Board members present.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
David Ehrlich stated he had concerns about the Tree Code as it applies to private property. He is interested in
knowing what can be done about alder forests and fallen trees on large parcels of private property.
Linda Murray stated she was just present to listen.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
Will Ma lg,� uson said he was interested knowing if the apartment buildings being proposed on Dayton are
adhering to the BD2 ordinance that was recently passed.
Linda Ferkin sg tad expressed concerns about how the Tree Code has impacted her family and their property
because of tree retention requirements and excessive fee requirements. She stated this is an illegal seizure, and
forced coercion is required before permits are issued permanently. It interferes with property rights, devalues
property, and violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. She asserted the excessive fees violate the 5th
Amendments' takings clause of the Constitution. She reviewed the extensive costs and delays associated with
the requirements of the Tree Code. She urged the Planning Board and Tree Board to carefully consider their
actions and the impact of the code on the constitutional rights of families and property owners.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Tree Code Amendments, ADM 2022-004
Tree Board Chair Janelle Cass introduced the Tree Board members and gave highlights of the Tree Board's
work on the code.
Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers gave the presentation regarding the Tree Code Amendments. The objectives
of these amendments are to limit property owner tree removals (Phase 2) and consider minor changes to the
current code. She also gave an update on the public engagement plan for this project. Planet Geo will be the
consultant for guiding public engagement efforts using an equitable engagement framework. She highlighted
the consolidated code list and discussed complexities associated with it. Currently there are 21 minor code
amendments being proposed.
Property Owners Tree Removals (major code amendments) considerations:
• Allow a limited number of removals?
• Certain wait period between removals?
• Consider limits to landmark tree removals?
• What triggers a permit or fees?
• Should there be a minimum number of existing trees?
• Replacements?
Next steps: new minor code process; minor code amendment final roster; property owner tree removals
Discussion:
Chair Pence asked if the code gets into reasons for the removal. Ms. Powers replied that it does not. Chair Pence
expressed concern about complicated restrictions that force a homeowner to hire a lawyer or an arborist or both
to figure out what they can do. Ms. Powers explained that can be avoided by having a very prescriptive code.
Chair Pence asked about the current standards. Ms. Powers generally reviewed these. She explained they will
go into more depth when they are talking about property owner tree removals. Tonight, staff is only looking for
a recommendation regarding the minor code amendments and approval of the process.
Board Member Campbell spoke in support of the equitable engagement framework as they go through this
process.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 2 of 7
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Chair Cass noted that there has actually been an increase in tree canopy cover in Edmonds. Ms. Powers noted
that overall, there has been an increase, but certain areas have not seen an increase.
Ms. Powers reviewed the proposed list of minor amendments:
1-4. Clarify Definitions
5. Which developments require tree plans?
6. Clarify development review process
7 Add "viable"
8. TPZ
9. Identify incentives
10.
Consistent City/applicant code language
11.
Clarify arborist reports
c'
12.
Double negatives
13.
Conservation Subdivision Incentive
c
14.
Prioritize incentives/variations, "phased review"
15.
Clarify replacement trees
16.
Reformat replacement trees (chart)
i
17.
Consolidate replacement trees
18.
Reformat fees in lieu
19.
Reference Tree Fund
o
20.
Strike "substitute" reference
m
21.
Incorrect code reference
Items to consider pulling from minor code amendment list:
• Amendment 9 — Identify Incentives: Vice Chair Phipps spoke to his concerns about item 9 and
emphasized the importance of tree replacement to account for the carbon loss of trees. Chair Pence
asked if he wanted to apply this to homeowners in addition to developers. Vice Chair Phipps affirmed
that he did. Chair Pence asked if it would require replacement on site or if they could pay into a fund to
replant in other locations. Vice Chair Phipps acknowledged that replanting on site was not always
possible although it would be ideal. Fees -in -lieu would address this by replanting the trees somewhere
else. He was in support of a tree preserve or a tree farm for this purpose. Ms. Powers explained that the
ways to clarify the incentives would be a minor code amendment, but to address the issues in other ways
would bump it up to moderate or major. Board Member Campbell commented that the very fact that
they are having a debate about this indicates it is not a minor amendment.
• Amendment 12 — Double Negatives: Ms. Powers discussed the confusion contained in the code.
Because it is not easy to wordsmith, this it would require some code restructuring and would not be a
minor amendment. There was consensus to remove this from the list.
• Amendment 13 — Conservation Subdivision Incentive/Minimum retention threshold: "Greater tree
retention" needs to be clarified as a numerical threshold.
• Amendment 15 - Clarify replacement trees: Streamline, use one system, equity
• Amendment 16 - Reformat replacement trees (chart): Replanting options >24" DBH, replant first vs.
fees in lieu
• Amendment 17 - Consolidate replacement trees: Streamline, use one system, equity
• Amendment 18 - Reformat fees in lieu: Streamline, use one system, replant first
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 3 of 7
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Vice Chair Gladstone commented that it seems there are a fair number of items that need to go through an equity
analysis. Conducting that analysis will inform whether or not these are important. She wondered if the code
results in unequal outcomes because of differences in people's resources. This is especially true with minor
amendments 1, 3, and 18. Board Member Campbell noted that the minor code already requires a qualified tree
professional. She wondered if changing the definition of what a qualified tree professional is would change the
equity aspect. Vice Chair Gladstone did not know but expressed concern that they would end up with unequal
results because of available resources. Ms. Powers pointed to the dark grey section in the list which contains
items related to this that are outside the scope of this discussion. There have been discussions about using an
equity lens internally to look at all codes and policies in an equitable, fair, and inclusive manner. Board Member
Rosen agreed that this was important and agreed with Board Chair Gladstone that they need to solve the problem
of who comes up with the process and the filter in the future. Ms. Powers pointed out that it is already listed as
the last item in the dark grey section (no process to analyze and revise city codes for diversity, equity, and
inclusion).
Vice Chair Gladstone spoke in support of the proposed list but referred to the definition of "viable tree" and
noted that "significant" is used in the definition which is confusing. Ms. Powers explained that "significant" is
defined in the code.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR
GLADSTONE, THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING WHICH MINOR AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE MINOR
AMENDMENT LIST AND THAT THE BOARD SUPPORTS STAFF PROCEEDING WITH THE
CHANGES FOR THE REMAINING MINOR AMENDMENTS.
Vice Chair Phipps commented that this is a very confusing process. They have spent a lot of time talking about
the process and not enough time talking about the substance. He stressed the need for moderate and major things
getting dealt with at some point. He spoke in support of moving forward with the process so they can get to the
substantive issues. Ms. Powers stated she would be coming back to the boards at some point in January to
discuss major code amendments that have to do with property owner tree removal.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
Tree Board members left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The group recessed until 8:40 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Planning Board Handbook
Senior Planner Clugston explained that the handbook would help with onboarding new members. He requested
feedback on the draft handbook.
Board Member Campbell recommended that specific staff names be omitted within the document (or only be
limited to one "contact" section) and just generic titles used throughout the document.
Board Member Rosen:
• He thanked staff for working on this handbook.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 4 of 7
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
• He recommended deleting the reference to COVID on packet page 15.
• On packet page 17, he clarified that the practice has been that the alternate voted any time a person was
missing, not just when they needed a quorum. Mr. Clugston noted this is what is in the code, but they
are free to change it if they want.
• The terms on packet page 19 need to be updated.
• He wondered if they should address the use of task forces or subgroups to advance work.
• Is it worth pointing out that we do not have a council liaison and why?
• As an advisory group, can the tools they use to convey information to the Council be more spelled out
(motions, head nods, memos, etc.)
• He recommended clarification about their scope of work and what to do if they have opinions outside
of that scope. Mr. Clugston referred to language in Powers and Duties. Board Member Rosen thought
he heard the City Attorney encouraging them to express opinions they have even if they fall outside of
the scope.
Vice Chair Gladstone recommended getting focus questions when they have discussion items so the discussion
doesn't go all over the place.
Board Member Campbell:
• She recommended being specific about the duties and responsibilities of the Chair and the Vice Chair.
• She also recommended clarification about the procedures for election of officers.
• She recommended having a standing subcommittee that the Chair should be a part of to increase public
engagement.
• She expressed appreciation for this handbook.
Vice Chair Gladstone requested clarity about staff s role in terms of agenda setting. Mr. Clugston explained that
it is ultimately up to staff but they invite the Board's input.
Chair Pence requested more frequent, brief, informal updates about ongoing planning projects so the Planning
Board stays in the loop. Mr. Clugston thought this would improve in 2023 because they are hiring a new
planning manager.
Mr. Clugston asked the Board if there was an interest in starting the meetings at 6 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. There
was interest in this, but the Board decided to wait until new members were on board to discuss changing it. It
was noted that the meeting location also needs to be changed.
Board Member Campbell indicated she had notes she could provide staff regarding suggested edits. She had
suggestions regarding the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair. Chair Pence commented it did not need to be too
detailed since it is all pretty straightforward. Vice Chair Gladstone said she was interested in seeing the detailed
suggestions. Board Member Campbell stated she would forward those to Vice Chair Gladstone for review.
The Board was very appreciative that the handbook was getting prepared.
NEW BUSINESS
None
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 5 of 7
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Extended Agenda
The extended agenda was reviewed.
There was significant discussion and strong opinions about not using regular meeting time for the OPMA
training. It was suggested that the training could be done for all boards and commissions at the same time. Mr.
Clugston indicated they could look into options.
Vice Chair Gladstone had the following comments:
• She noted that the Planning Board Powers and Duties, #3, says that the Board shall serve as an ongoing
a
Park Board and advise the Mayor and City Council on all matters relating to the acquisition and
c'
development of all city parks and recreation facilities. She thought this sounded pretty limited; it didn't
sound like it included operations. Chair Pence commented that there has been discussion about breaking
the Parks responsibility out of the Planning Board and having it be either a freestanding board or
merging it in with the Tree Board. This would reduce some of the Planning Board's work since they are
so busy.
L
• She asked for clarification about where the points of input are for the Highway 99 Community Renewal
Program. Chair Pence explained this is the point of the initial briefing.
• She recommended that they include on the agenda what it is they hope to get out of the meeting for each
item.
• She expressed concern that the multifamily design standard has fallen off their list. She would like to
figure out where it can fit into the agenda.
• Before they do the Tree Code update, she wants to be clear about what the goal is. She requested that
the Tree Board review the moderate and major items and come to the Planning Board with a
recommendation and why. She is uncomfortable diving into those topics without the knowledge and
depth that the Tree Board has.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Pence gave an overview of his 3'/2 months as Planning Board Chair. He discussed the struggle of
having unfilled seats on the Board and the problems that created with getting quorums for meetings. He
reviewed the status of board member replacements and his unsuccessful attempts to meet with the Mayor. He
hopes for the sake of the city and the Board that the Mayor decides to fill the vacancies. He then announced that
he has very recently been informed that his term is up, and that he will not be reappointed. He still has an interest
in the work and will be involved as much as possible.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rosen reported this is his 109t' meeting. He announced this would also be his last meeting as
he received the same notification this week as Chair Pence that his term will not be extended. He has considered
it an honor to serve on this board and to serve as chair for a year. He hopes the collaboration between the Board,
staff, the community, and the Council can be even greater in the future because the potential is amazing. He
reviewed highlights and stories about his time on the Board. He encouraged everyone to remember that they
are only temporary stewards of the land, to take that seriously, and not to screw things up.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 6 of 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Vice Chair Gladstone commented on how impressed she had been with Planning Board when she joined in
May of 2020. She noted that Board Members Pence and Rosen would be greatly missed. She expressed concern
about their loss in terms of continuity, experience, and wisdom of the work that has been done. Their absence
will be felt.
Board Member Campbell noted she was the newest member of the Planning Board. She thanked Board
Members Pence and Rosen for their work, their guidance, and for helping her get up to speed. She agreed that
they are going to be missed dearly. She thanked them for their service to the City and to the Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2022 Page 7 of 7
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
January 25, 2023
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gladstone called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. There was
consensus to move introductions up in the agenda. Introductions were made of staff and board members.
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
Judi Gladstone, Acting Chair'
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Beth Tragus-Campbe112
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier
Richard Kuehn
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
David Levitan, Planning Manager
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
1 Judy Gladstone was elected Chair towards the end of the meeting. Up to that point she is referred to as Acting Chair.
2 Beth Tragus-Campbell was elected Vice Chair towards the end of the meeting. Up to that point she is referred to as Board Member
Campbell.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 1 of 6
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.b
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Pence, past chair of the Planning Board, welcomed and encouraged new board members. He stated he
still cares passionately about the Board and that he is open to meeting with any board members who are
interested.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Q4 Accomplishments
The report by Director Feser was included in the packet. Comments and questions were invited.
Board Member Campbell commented that she was glad to see that they started an asset inventory. This is
important for efficiency in maintaining equipment.
Acting Chair Gladstone was also glad to see the asset inventory. She asked if there will be an asset planning
process once the inventory is done. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they would ask Director Feser. Acting
Chair Gladstone also wondered if moving the cultural programs out of the Parks department has balanced their
load. c
a�
as
Board Member Campbell noted that the reinstallation of the viewing scopes at Brackett's Landing North at the
marsh had been mentioned. Are there any systems being used to monitor or prevent additional vandalization? 2
0
The Board expressed appreciation to Director Feser for the good report.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment for Minor Code Changes in ECDC 20.80 (AMD2022- 0005)
The public hearing was opened at 7:19 p.m. Senior Planner Clugston gave an overview of this topic regarding
creating a new streamlined process for making minor development code amendments. The proposed process
would involve staff creating a list of minor code amendments on a semi-annual basis to be presented to Council
on their consent agenda. He highlighted the draft code in the packet.
Board Member Maxwell asked about the Planning Board's involvement in the minor code amendment process.
Mr. Clugston explained the minor code amendments would go right to Council. Major code amendments would
come to the Planning Board as part of the process. Board Member Maxwell asked what they would do if
something got amended that was later determined to be major. Mr. Clugston stated that was not the intent, but
if they realized after the fact that something had been changed inadvertently, they could go back and change it
if needed. Board Member Maxwell asked if staff could send this to the Board at the same time it is sent to
Council so they could make comments if needed. Mr. Clugston thought that might be a possibility. Planning
Manager Levitan explained that the intent of this is to avoid the need for a Planning Board official meeting or
public hearing on minor code amendments. He emphasized that anything tied to actual development code and
zoning code would still go through the Planning Board. Acting Chair Gladstone urged caution in how comments
are made at Council meetings. She noted that if the Planning Board does not deliberate on something then
comments made to Council could only be on behalf of the individual making the comments, not the Board.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.b
Planning Manager Levitan noted that the Board could be included on the distribution list of those items. Board
Member Campbell asked that the Board be included in the distribution list for anything related to planning.
Public Comment:
Roger Pence suggested not taking the Planning Board out of the loop entirely. He agreed that the Planning
Board should have a chance to look at the list of proposed changes to make sure there are not red flags hidden
in there.
The public hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m.
Discussion:
Board Member Campbell referred to section 20.80.015, the phrasing for the minor development code map
amendments, section A, and suggested changing the language from "little to no policy study" to "no policy
study" because little is a subjective term. Acting Chair Gladstone concurred because it eliminates any ambiguity
about what the intent is.
2
Board Member Mitchell asked if there any projects that are being held up because of this. Mr. Clugston replied c
that there is nothing pending that would be impacted by this.
Board Member Campbell generally spoke in support of the proposed amendments from a workload standpoint cc
L-
as long as the lists of proposed minor code amendments are provided to the Board when they are provided to
the City Council.
Board Member Golembiewski referred to 20.180.015(c) regarding the review process and asked if they want to
define "periodically" in the code. She thought it made more sense to have the list come to the Planning Board
as a review item (not a public hearing) before going to the City Council. There was discussion about options.
Acting Chair Gladstone stated she is very comfortable with this not coming to the Planning Board and having
some trust in the planning staff to do their job right and the Council to notice when something is not minor.
Board Member spoke in support of this for the sake of streamlining the process and freeing staff and the Board
up to do bigger and better things.
Board Member Golembiewski said she was having a hard time with the idea that the Planning Board would be
given notice but not have a chance to discuss the list before it goes to the Council. She wasn't comfortable with
the only action available to them being to speak at the Council meeting rather than as a unified group.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
GOLEMBIEWSKI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN AMENDED PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.80 ECDC
TO CREATE A MINOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS. THE TEXT
AMENDMENT WOULD BE IN SECTION 20.80.015, MINOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AND MAP
AMENDMENT, TO SAY, "IT IS A STREAMLINED PROCESS USED FOR PROPOSED CHANGES
WHICH NEED NO POLICY STUDY." THIS PROCESS WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITY
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.b
TO MAKE SMALL CODE CHANGES TO PROMOTE CLARITY, ELIMINATE REDUNDANCY,
STREAMLINE PROCESSES, AND CORRECT INCONSISTENCIES. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Draft Handbook Discussion and Possible Finalization
Mr. Clugston referred to the draft handbook in the Board's packet and solicited comments.
Board Member Campbell recommended that they add a section under Officer Positions saying that if Chair
position becomes vacant, the Vice Chair automatically becomes Chair. If the Vice Chair position becomes
vacant, the new Vice Chair will be elected at the next regular board meeting. Also, under Officer Positions, she
recommended adding that the Board may establish committees of three members or fewer as needed to conduct
business as defined by the Board at the time of the committee establishment. Acting Chair Gladstone stated this
reflects what they have done in the past which has worked well. She was in support of including this in the
handbook. There was discussion about adding a general reference to state regulations regarding planning
boards/commissions for clarity.
Board Member Maxwell had the following comments/questions:
• He asked about the rules of order they are functioning under. Mr. Clugston replied it is Robert's Rules,
and that can be added in here. Board Member Maxwell also requested they identify which version of
Robert's Rules they are using.
He referred to packet page 23, section 7.A.a., regarding Outside Communication and asked if the
contacts are Planning Manager Levitan and Senior Planner Clugston. Planning Manager Levitan stated
that historically the Planning Manager has been the main contact and liaison for the Planning Board.
This will be updated. There was a recommendation to have titles instead of names so it doesn't have to
be updated each time there is a staffing change.
He referred to upcoming training with the city attorney and requested some basic information about
essential things they need to know in the meantime. Planning Manager Levitan referred to the bottom
of page 20 in the packet and noted that OPMA is the main thing they need to be aware of. He discussed
general guidelines to keep in mind.
Acting Chair Gladstone had the following comments/questions:
• She clarified that OPMA does not preclude board members from having conversations outside of
meetings. She thought the language needs to be respectful of the non -rolling meetings but allowing for
productive conversations. Board Member Mitchell concurred.
• She suggested addressing absences in the code in order to deal with high numbers of absences that
previously hampered the business of the Planning Board when they did not have a quorum. Planning
Manager Levitan referred to the 70% threshold. There was some confusion about whether this included
excused absences. Mr. Levitan commented that it would be difficult to create handbook language that
conflicted with the city code, but they could clarify what the city code says about attendance and
absences. Acting Chair Gladstone suggested asking the City Attorney about including a statement along
the lines of, "If a Planning Board member finds they are having a hard time meeting the minimum
meeting requirement, they might want to consider if they are able to make the time commitment that is
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.b
needed for the Planning Board." Mr. Levitan thought that was reasonable. He pointed out that the way
it is codified, the Chair has the final say as far as excusing absences.
• She referred to the Meeting Notes section on packet page 22 and expressed concern about the word
"transcribe" because verbatim transcription is not what they have now and not what she wants them to
have going forward. She recommended language such as "meeting notes" instead of "transcription".
• She also requested some clarity around the document storage section and asked what this applies to. Is
it okay if she takes her personal notes on her laptop? Mr. Levitan indicated they could check with the
city attorney.
• She suggested having protocols for dealing with outside issues so they can feel comfortable being both
a citizen of Edmonds and a Planning Board member. Other board members concurred.
• She suggested adding language to the attendance section that says board members should notify staff as
soon as they know they will not be able to attend a meeting.
Board Member Martini asked about getting the agendas in a Word format for accessibility. Mr. Levitan said
they could look into that. w
as
Acting Chair Gladstone requested that any other comments be sent to Mr. Clugston who can then distribute it 5
to the rest of the Board. She expressed appreciation to staff for the work on the handbook.
c
B. New Member Introduction and Orientation — This was done at the beginning of the meeting and
throughout the meeting as questions came up.
L
NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Board Member Campbell nominated Judy Gladstone to transition from Acting Chair to Chair. The motion was
seconded by Board Member Golembiewski. There were no other nominations.
JUDY GLADSTONE WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED CHAIR.
Chair Gladstone nominated Beth Tragus-Campbell as Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Board Member
Maxwell. There were no other nominations.
BOARD MEMBER CAMPBELL WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED VICE CHAIR.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Clugston gave an overview of the extended agenda. The Comprehensive Plan update will be a main work
item over the next year along with various code items and other reports.
Chair Gladstone recommended putting a retreat planning discussion on the next meeting agenda. She
commented that the rest of the agenda may need to be modified so they aren't overbooked.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.b
Vice Chair Campbell referred to the Comp Plan update and suggested having more actionable items for the
Planning Board. They have received a lot of presentations but haven't had many items they can provide valuable
feedback on. Planning Manager Levitan stated they can solicit some early feedback from the Planning Board.
Chair Gladstone requested a Comp Plan update roadmap from staff at the next meeting so the Board can have
an idea about how/when to provide input.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Gladstone said she was very happy with the full group and is looking forward to working with everybody.
She appreciates the new members' participation today.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
• Student Representative Distelhorst echoed Chair Gladstone's comments and added that she is excited
to see what will happen in the legislative session especially related to housing. a
• Board Member Martini thanked everyone for the welcome. c
• Board Member Maxwell concurred.
• Vice Chair Campbell welcomed new Planning Board members and new Planning Manager Levitan.
Thanks to Senior Planner Clugston for all the extra support in the interim.
• Board Member Mitchell said he is excited to be on the Board and to work collaboratively with the other
members, staff, and public. o
• Board Member Golembiewski said she also is excited to be here and to see all that is on the agenda. She
appreciates the help and patience from the existing members and staff. 2-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2023 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 16
4.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/15/2023
Written Public Comments Related to February 8 Meeting
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
The city received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and following the February 8 meeting,
which are attached.
Attachments:
Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment
Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment
Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1
Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map
Packet Pg. 17
4.A.a
From: Stanley Piha
To: Plannina
Subject: Planning Board
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:15:15 AM
Attachments: Stanley Piha Planning Board 2 8 23 JPG.PDF
Dear Michelle Martin,
Please find comments for the planning board in advance of the February 8, 2023 planning board
meeting.
Would you please confirm receipt?
Sincerely,
Stanley V. Piha
Stanley Real Estate, Inc.
21014th Avenue, Suite 310
Seattle, WA 98121
206-441-1080 x1
stanlev(@stanlevre.com
www.stanleyre.com
Packet Pg. 18
4.A.a
Memorandum
To: City of Edmonds Planning Board
From: Stanley Piha
Date: January 7, 2023
Re: Emergency Ordinance 4283 Adopting Interim Development Regulations to Create a Public Design
Review Process for the CG Zone
Dear City of Edmonds Planning Board,
Please accept this memorandum in opposition of implementing Ordinance No. 4283 which is being
discussed at the January 8, 2023 Edmonds Planning Board meeting.
1. 1 am one of the owners of vacant land commonly known as 23625 84th Avenue West, Edmonds.
2. This parcel of land was contracted to be sold under a purchase and sale agreement to a builder
who submitted an application for the project identified as the Edmonds Terrace to construct a
multi -family building in accordance with the CG Zone of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. No
deviations or variances to the code were requested.
3. In July 2022 the Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Board pending projects at the City
of Edmonds.
4. The Planning Board meeting minutes of July 27, 2022 indicate one planning board member
expressing "concern" about the height and scope of Edmonds Terrace project.
5. FALSE NARRATVIE - From the date of the July 27, 2022 planning board meeting to the October
4, 2022 City Council meeting, wherein Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted, misinformation
was communicated by the public to the Edmonds Planning Department regarding the lapse to
discuss step backs for properties in the Highway 99 Subarea that are across the street from RS
zoned properties. This resulted in Planning Manager Kernan Lien presenting a false narrative to
the City Council regarding this lapse.
6. VACATED ORDINANCE AND FAILED PROCEDURE - At the November 22, 2022 City Council
Meeting, Planning Director Susan McLaughlin corrected the record to reflect that indeed the
subject of step backs across the street from single family zoned property was presented to the
City Council at public meetings in 2017 by Planning Director Hope Shane on more than one
occasion and that questions and comments by Councilmembers at the time were asked and
answered. Of note is that Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and Nelson at the time
voted with all other councilmembers to unanimously adopt the Highway 99 Subarea Plan as
presented. The City Council vacated Emergency Ordinance 4278 on November 22, 2022.
However, City Attorney "Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim
ordinance. The council packet does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance.
Staff was following council direction to draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the
ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council wanted to vote on this motion, staff will
interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to repeal the
interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken on something
that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on the
consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance".
Packet Pg. 19
4.A.a
7. BACK PEDDELING - During the two week period from November 22, 2022 to December 6, 2022,
it appears Councilmembers were contacted by parties opposed to vacating Emergency
Ordinance 4278. At the December 6, 2022 City Council Meeting, what was to be a rubber stamp
approval to vacate, Council pulled the Ordinance from the agenda to once again discuss the
repeal of the Emergency Ordinance to a future date. Council moved the follow up meeting to
Saturday December 10, 2022.
8. SUBSTITUTE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE -On December 10, 2022, Council with input from
residents (see page 31 of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022) where
Council President Olson reads language "provided by a resident", Council adopts Ordinance No.
4283 an Emergency Ordinance of the City of Edmonds Washington, Adopting Interim
Development Regulations to Create a Public Design Review Process for the CG Zone"
9. ADDITIONAL LAYERS OF UNCERTAINTY - The Interim Development regulations now require a
two-step process to seek approval of a proposed project when the Highway 99 subarea plan
adopted in 2017 required only administrative approval. This adds uncertainty to any party
thinking of building on property in the Highway 99 subarea that is either adjacent to or across
the street from single family zoned property. The Planning Board should recognize that what
once was a streamlined approach to incentivize adding housing units to the Highway 99 subarea
is now a penalty. It is highly unlikely that any builder will spend time and financial resources
without a shred of reliability to plan a project in the Highway 99 subarea.
10. WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING CRISIS - The State of Washington and Snohomish County are
experiencing a housing and homelessness crisis. Governor Jay Inslee has gone so far as to say "a
lack of affordable housing drives our State's homelessness crisis". State Senator Marko Liis has
gone further when expressing at the Snohomish County Alliance meeting held recently that
"One obstacle, is the permitting process for new projects. He thinks it must be streamlined to
encourage new development. "Once you've zoned it, you have to make sure that it also gets
built. And that's what I think that we're not seeing yet in Edmonds; there is a vision, but we
need the units now, on the ground."
11. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - Challenge Seattle and Boston Consulting Group issued its report in
January 2023: Addressing Housing Affordability in Washington. Four takeaways from the report
are:
a. Housing affordability is at a crises level in Washington State. It disproportionately
impacts people of color, burdens low and middle -income households, and directly
contributes to homelessness, which is also at a crises level.
b. The fundamental problem is we lack housing supply. This have been the case for
decades, and with a growing population the problem only will worsen.
c. Housing supply- at the right size, in the right place, and at the right price is the
solution to address today's affordability crises and meet tomorrow's housing needs.
Action should begin with zoning reform as the foundation to build upon. From
there, a comprehensive portfolio of short -and long-term policy solutions is required
to fully address the crises.
d. We need to act now. By taking a comprehensive approach and working together,
we can and must address the pain of unaffordability today and plan for the growth
of tomorrow. We have no other choice — the prosperity and well-being of our state
depends on it.
12. CURIOUS EVENTS - What could have possibly prompted the City of Edmonds City Council in
2022 to capitulate its governance to uphold the regulations established in 2017 by a unanimous
vote when creating the Highway 99 subarea?
Packet Pg. 20
4.A.a
13. BROOKINGS INSTITUTE - According to Jenny Schuetz, Ph.D, Senior Fellow with the Brookings
Institute, the housing crises is a direct relation to State and local levels of government imposing
a lot of rules on the construction process making it difficult to construct housing. Supply is
inelastic and giving people voices in the community make it difficult if not impossible to create
housing. In a podcast interview conducted by Ezra Klein of The New York Times, she was asked:
EZRA KLEIN: I want to talk about — I've been trying to think about what part of the conversation to
bring this in on. And I'm going to do it here and weave in and out of it. I think the argument you're
making here is a pretty profound argument about small-D democratic politics posing as an argument
about housing.
And what I mean by that is this — it is almost cliche to say the government that is closest to the people
governs best. It is cliche to say government should be responsive to the people who live there, to the
constituents. It is cliche to say that the way a strong Democratic culture should work is that the people
most affected by a decision should have the most power over it.
And what you're saying is that that is failing at a very deep level, and it is failing worse in the parts
where it is most deployed. So you have — in this respect, you have more small-d democratic cultures
where the constituents have more power and access to their representatives in these richer
neighborhoods. They have time. They have the knowledge base to navigate the system. They have
connections. They can actually be heard. And what you're saying there is you're getting the worst
outcomes.
So how do you think about that? How do you think about the tension between some of what you're
saying has happened here and what you might think of as classical theory of — and what you might
think of as classical democratic theory?
JENNY SCHUETZ: So it's either two ways to think about this. One is that what looks on the face of it like
small-d democratic process,that people get to engage in their local government and make their voice
heard, is not actually that democratic. It's not representative. And we know this, in part, from the work
of political scientists who have looked at the characteristics of people who show up to a neighborhood
meeting.
So think of a neighborhood where there's a specific proposal on the table to build some new
apartments. You have a neighborhood meeting and people show up and they say, yes, I like this, or, no, I
don't. The people who show up to that neighborhood meeting for five or six hours on a Tuesday night
tend to be older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people who live in the
neighborhood overall.
So we know from observing this that this is not, in fact, representative and small-d democratic. There
are some people who live in the community who have more free time, especially older retirees, who
have more comfort with the political process and are highly invested because they own homes in the
neighborhood. They will push back against this.
Whereas a lot of people who are directly affected by that in the neighborhood, they have jobs, they
have kids. They can't come to the meeting or they feel uncomfortable doing it. So it looks like small-d
democracy isn't, and we have kidded ourselves into thinking it is.
The other way to think about this is making decisions at a hyperlocal level, at the neighborhood level, or
even at the city and town level doesn't take into account the spillover effects of where we build and
Packet Pg. 21
4.A.a
don't build housing. The people who live in the neighborhood are going to be affected by construction
and potentially by displacement or changes to their property values.
But the whole city is also going to be affected by whether housing gets built and where it gets built. The
whole region is affected by whether or not there's housing for people at different income levels. So if a
region doesn't build enough housing to accommodate people who are baristas, and firefighters, and
child care workers, the region's economy doesn't work well. And then we have climate spillovers as well.
So if the only people who were affected were the people who lived in that neighborhood, it would make
more sense that they could have veto power. But there are a ton of people who are impacted by our
development patterns who don't get a voice at all because they don't live there and don't get to show
up and voice their opinions.
14. NON Democratic RESULTS - Unfortunately, this is what is now happening in Edmonds. A well
thought out Highway 99 subarea plan established in only 2017 providing incentive to build housing
has now been hijacked by an "older, wealthier, whiter, more likely to be homeowners than people
who live in the neighborhood overall"
15. STEPBACKS ARE NOT THE ISSUE - In reality, it is not about the step backs. Both Planning
Director Hope and Planning Director McLaughlin have presented evidence that the separation
between the single family zoned properties across the street from the CG zoned property is more
than sufficient to limit impacts on the single family properties. Director McLaughlin provided a
section showing the separation when she recommended that the emergency ordinance be vacated.
Here you have two professional planners heading your City Planning Department coming to the
same conclusion.
16. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - The location of the proposed Edmonds Terrace must be
considered a transit oriented development. The land upon which the project would have been built
extends from 236th Street SW to 2381h Street SW. This would place any future resident within a five
minute walk to the SWIFT Blue Line which has both north and south bound stations at Highway 99
and S. 238th street. Additionally, as part of the Community Transit 2024 plan, a shuttle from The
Kingston Edmonds ferry terminal will be established to connect passengers to the new Mountlake
Terrace light rail station. And, one of the shuttle stops will be at the BRT station at S 238th and
Highway 99. This will allow any future resident of an Edmonds Terrace project to have immediate
access to both bus rapid transit and light rail.
17. ADB PROFESSIONALS - The most recent meeting of the Edmonds Architectural Design Board
proved that the current emergency ordinance is problematic. Both a professional architect and
builder confirmed the issues resulting from the emergency ordinance with constructability are
insurmountable. This is a result of code being inserted by laypeople having no planning, design or
building background.
18. CREATING A TRANSITION - The issue of creating a transition between CG zoned property and
single family properties across the street has been expressed as a reason to limit what could be built
at the Edmonds Terrace site. Once again the professional architect on the Edmonds Architectural
Design Board had the foresight to solve this issue. It should be noted that multi -family properties
already exist on 84th Avenue W between 236th Street SW and 238th Street SW. Given the proximity to
the two BRT stations at S 238th and Highway 99 and now the future access to light rail, the presently
zoned single family zoned properties are also defined as being transit oriented development sites.
Changing the RS zoned properties on the west side of 841h Avenue West from single family to an RM
2.4 or RM 1.5 creates the desired transition and creates an opportunity for more housing in this
immediate area.
19. The BD ZONE AND CG ZONES ARE NOT THE SAME — When the Highway 99 subarea plan was
adopted, it was intended to promote development in the corridor. Allowing the processing of
Packet Pg. 22
4.A.a
applications by an Administrative Review process was the carrot to encourage builders to come and
build in the Edmonds Highway 99 corridor. Downtown Edmonds and the BD2 zone does not have
the available land to develop. It does not have a major State highway nor a major public
transportation system to move people without the use of their personal vehicle. It does not have a
major hospital or medical facilities. And it will not have immediate access to light rail as does the
corridor. Establishing the restrictions and uncertainties described in the emergency ordinance
creates a disincentive to build in the corridor.
20. ENCOURAGE HOUSING - The Planning Board must make a recommendation to the City Council
on how the City of Edmonds will address the housing crises. Will Edmonds be a light among the
cities and create opportunities for housing and make an effort to end homelessness, or will the City
of Edmonds succumb to the privileged older, wealthier, whiter, small number of homeowners who
live in the neighborhood who resist?
21. RECOMMEND VACATING THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE - Given the seriousness of the housing
and homelessness crises, the answer should be clear, vacate the emergency ordinance, allow the
Highway 99 sub area plan to stand as is with Administrative Review and encourage the building of
housing in the one area of the City that has the available land to do so.
Respectfully Submitted.
Packet Pg. 23
4.A.b
Levitan, David
From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM
To: Planning
Subject: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis
Attachments: Hwy 99 Subarea Plan - 2017 - excerpts.pdf
Hello,
Attached is a 3 page handout that is part of my public comments at tonight's meeting. I am providing them via email for
the convenience of board members who are participating in the meeting via zoom.
I also have paper copies to hand to those attending in the Bracket room.
regards,
Theresa Hollis
m
00
E
(D
0
as
c�
m
c
a)
E
E
0
U
v
IL
c
m
r
Packet Pg. 24
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
4.A.b
TABLE 6: EXISTING AND PLANNED ACTIVITY UNITS
Existing 352.55 9669 27.4
Conditions
Alternative 1 352.55 13,226 27.5
(No Action)
5,872 16.65 3,797 10.77 1,579 4.47
7,112 20.17 6,114 17.34 2,803 7.95
Alternative
2 (Preferred 352.55 15,999 45.4 9,189 26.1 6,810 19.3 4,904 13.9
Alternative)
FIGURE 16: ALTERNATIVE 1(NO ACTION)
- x2olr. 5! sw
212m st sW I T
E �i.:. 220tn s sw
�E L
I j-
I�, I �
-• - -. . Is - - sw j __�
I
228kr. St SW Lry rJl •.
230[1'5! sw , I Aliernalive 1:
232nd ] Development Types
r .� �J
+ ` , 4�1 Mixed Use ORCa
• l 411 Mixed the Residential
23 a,h Stt 5� �[.1 � .� 111
a 3 WryAp®nrr.ent
Aw
2S8th 5t SW I J C•�• ....
240tn St sw r
1 I
fA
2—lh5[sW
FIGURE 17: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (MIXED USE)
- i -ME72otn st sv2 r lW% -A M
.
22otn s! sw I �L
I
99
22dth St SW
rj .- -• or-i i:'
ww k
�, :;
"�l•
. u+sisw •`�' s
xsotn st sw
Preferred Alternative.
- 1 I Development TypeB --
" 232nd StSW �7
. !••' r J 911 Mixee Vsa7orar i:°z.S
34
234tn 6! 5w 99 3 I . 511 Mudilea Residential
$ :�'i ■ 3Stoty Apuwwnt
�q 't
231R,n St SW r•... �.
947M St Sw rl-)%
m
00
E:
CD0
as
c�
m
c
a�
E:
E:
0
U
2
a
c
m
r
47 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Packet Pg. 25
IMPLEMENTATION
4.A.b
CONSOLIDATE CG AND CG-2 INTO A
SINGLE CG ZONE
THE ISSUE TODAY:
The zoning in the planning area
is unnecessarily complex and
confusing. Most of the area is
either zoned CG or CG2. The
difference between them is a minor
height difference of 15 feet. CG
has a height allowance of 60 feet
while CG2 has a height allowance
of 75 feet.
RECOMMENDATION 4.1
Consolidate the existing CG and CG2 into a single
CG zone with height limit at 75 feet. This allows
for a cost-effective 6 story mixed -use building to be
constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights.
The construction type of 5 wood framed floors over
a ground floor, concrete podium (also known as a "5-
over-1 building") is efficient and cost effective, and is
also within the height capacity of fire truck ladders.
SIMPLIFY ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND
ALIGN ZONING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
THE ISSUE TODAY:
Many of the current zones in the
HWY 99 study area are remnants
from the zones that were in place
when this area of Edmonds was
annexed from the County. The
patchwork of zones is outdated
and, in some cases, not consistent
with parcel boundaries, meaning
that some lots have more than one
zone.
RECOMMENDATION 5.1
Instead of having 6 or more zones, it is
recommended that the new, consolidated CG zone
be applied to most of the study area. Additional
recommendations below, as well as a change to
other multifamily properties in the subarea when
zoning map amendments are being considered,
will ensure new buildings transition in scale into
the surrounding single family neighborhoods.
These changes will better align the zoning with the
Comprehensive Plan map.
55 EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN
Packet Pg. 26
IMPLEME
a
LW
2201h St
JI.
224[h sl '.
r
F 99 '
230th St Sw�
!
232 nd 515Y4f
Sw
xaxna St svu� ! - ---
'� - ( gal
CURRENT ZONING
CG2 - General Commercial 2
CG - General Commercial
BN - Neighborhood Business
■ BC - Community Business
RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft.
RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft.
RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft.
■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft.
■ MU - Medical Use
P - Public Use
Sim
220th St
.�TL'1 _�I'=� 224th sl'
z24tn St
2a41hsc5W i�IRWIN, ' 'r
i __
RECOMMENDED ZONING
CG - General Commercial
■ BN - Neighborhood Business
■ BC - Community Business
RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft.
RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft.
RM-2.4- Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft.
■ RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft.
■ MU - Medical Use
I P - Public Use
N
m i
EDMONDS HIGHWAY 99 SU Packet Pg. 27
4.A.c
From: Theresa Hollis
To: Levitan, David
Subject: Re: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis
Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:07:23 PM
Attachments: Theresa Hollis public comments for 2-8-23 planning board meeting.rtf
Mr. Levitan,
I ran over the time limit for public comments at the planning board meeting on Feb 8th. I have
attached a document with my full comments.
(I don't have Word, which is the board members preferred format, but this rtf file canned be
opened by Word)
Please forward it to the Planning Board.
regards,
Theresa Hollis
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 6:38 PM Levitan, David <David. Levitan(cr�.edmondswa.gov> wrote:
Hi Theresa:
I have forwarded the comments on to Planning Board members and printed out hard copies
for those attending in person.
David
David Levitan I Planning Manager
City of Edmonds Planning Division
425-771-0220, ext. 1223
david.levitan cgedmondswa.gov
From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218&gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:28 PM
To: Planning <nlanningQedmondswa.gov>
Subject: planning board public comments on 2-8-23 from T. Hollis
Hello,
c
as
E
M
Q
Packet Pg. 28
4.A.c
Attached is a 3 page handout that is part of my public comments at tonight's meeting. I am
providing them via email for the convenience of board members who are participating in the
meeting via zoom.
I also have paper copies to hand to those attending in the Bracket room.
regards,
Theresa Hollis
Q
Packet Pg. 29
4.A.c
The interim ordinance you are reviewing is a reversal of a decision the Council made in 2017. My
comments today are about the historical building development and the planning assumptions that led
to that decision.
(handout the 3 pages from Hwy 99 Subarea plan document)
- The authors of the subarea plan talked to developers about the types of projects they would build.
That is documented on the map on page 47 of the plan: 3 story apartment buildings on the parcels that
are on the boundary of the area and 6 story mixed use buildings on the parcels in the core of the area.
- The council approved upzoning to a 75 foot building height, and made many changes to the building
design and site design code. Those design changes were intended to mitigate the impact on the
surrounding single family zones. Note recommendation 5.1 that " new buildings transition in scale into
the surrounding single family neighborhoods."
- The zoning changes in the international district and the gateway district were a double whammy. See
the maps on page 56 of the plan. The building height increased 15 feet AND the multifamily zones that
were a transition between CG and IRS were eliminated.
- Neighbors commented in public hearings in 2017 at the Planning Board and at the City Council that
building step backs were important mitigations when a CG project was across the street from a
residential parcel. But their recommendations did not carry as much weight as the developers
recommendations and they were not adopted. The Director of Development advised the council in the
July 18, 2017 meeting packet that "the challenge to adding more setback/stepback requirements is to
not add so many requirements that building is discouraged. That would negate the goal of having a
revitalized Hwy 99 area."
This is the context in which the Director gave that advice. Edmonds had a very low volume of
development for a long time. There were an average of 58 housing units permitted per year across the w
whole city for the prior 20 years (ref. buildable lands report). Today's development environment is
very different. The June 21, 2022 development activity report prepared by the Planning department
shows 888 housingunits in just the Hwy 99 area. If you conservative) assume it takes 4 ears from the '
1 Y Y Y Y �
date of the first application to building occupancy, the current level of development is 222 housing units U
per year in just this one part of the city. I argue that the strong increase in the amount of development is N
0
due to multiple regional factors such as a period of low interest rates, large population growth, the =
nearby light rail project nearing completion, and work from home policies that make Shoreline, U)
L
Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood attractive housing markets. This high level of permitting z
activity tells us that a new design criteria on step backs will not prevent development in the Hwy 99
c
area. E
z
- I used the zoning map and counted 55 IRS parcels in Edmnods that are across the street from CG r
parcels. My counting is probably not perfect, but it does give you an order of magnitude number of the a
residences that are impacted by the 'across the street' criteria in this interim ordinance.
Packet Pg. 30
4.A.c
- The owners of multifamily parcels on the boundary of the subarea received a huge windfall when the
city upzoned those parcels to allow 75 foot buildings heights. One parcel in my neighborhood could hold
52 units under the old zoning type. Now it can hold 260 units. The pendulum needs to swing back
towards what the neighbors are asking for, and that is a full set of mitigations to the bulk and scale of a
building that is across the street from a single family residence. The current design guidelines were
approved when the city expected 3 story apartment buildings to be built across the street from a single
family zone. But now we know that assumption was not correct.
- We need to codify all design criteria that are typical in our region that mitigate a 75 foot building that is
across the street from a single family residence . In addition to the design guidelines in the code, the
city's design review process includes using the urban design guidelines of the Comp Plan. But the
language in that section is silent on the issue of the impact to surrounding neighborhoods and therefore
prevents the city from using an important context in their decision making on projects in the CG zone.
I request amending the interim ordinance language to capture verbiage from Hwy 99's goal C/Policy C2
in the Land Use section of the Comp Plan. This strategy of not developing new language - and using
existing Comp Plan language - will hopefully result in an amendment that is well accepted by the Council
and citizen boards who are vetting the interim ordinance. The relevant wording is the second of 2
sentences in policy C2 for the Hwy 99 Corridor from the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan: "
Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design and building design should be used to
minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties."
(end of public comments)
One board member's comment at the Feb 8, 2023 planning board meeting was that'the firestorm was
due to a proess failure'. That's not correct from my perspective, and that is why I gave you page 47
from the subarea plan document. The assumption was that three story apartment buildings would be
built around the boundaries of the subarea. That assumption was holding up through as late as Sept.
2021 when the owner of the parcel at 84/236th submitted a project for a 4 story senior living
community. When that proposal was withdrawn and the 261 unit Terrace Place project was submitted
in 2022, the neighbors contacted their Council members. The process was designed to have Council
interaction with the public, since the planned area uses staff reviews of submitted projects and the
public is not even notified that a project has been submitted. Further, the subarea plan is the largest
development project Edmonds has done and a 5 year review milestone was stipulated when the plan
was developed. With the interim ordinance, the Council is intending to make process improvements.
From my perspective, the originally defined process worked; but the assumption on where tall buildings
are built was not correct.
c
a�
E
z
U
submitted by Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident f°
Q
Packet Pg. 31
4.A.d
From:
Theresa Hollis
To:
Planning; Citizens Arch Design Board
Cc:
Clugston, Michael; Levitan. David
Subject:
comments on a 2 phase design review process
Date:
Friday, February 10, 2023 3:12:56 PM
Attachments:
plat man includina 234th.pdf
To the Planning Board and the Architecture Design Board,
Re: interim ordinance 4283
I am providing input for your consideration of why a two phase design review process is
appropriate for tall projects in the CG zone.
The design priorities are established in the first meeting, and that is when neighbors will
provide their perspective. Here's some examples of possible neighbor concerns/priorities for
different locations in the Hwy 99 CG zone:
- a 6 story apartment building that is across the street from an RS zone on 236/84th needs to
mitigate the bulk and mass. One neighbor will want the building roofline and siding
materials/color to vary and to have a change in plane so that one long building appears to be
multiple side -by -side buildings. Another neighbor will want part of the required amenity space
to be at the corner and have public access and have power hookups for food trucks so that the
Uptown Market can continue to be held on 236th street in the summer time. A third neighbor
may want the building face to have residential characteristics at each ground floor apartment
entry such as two steps up from the sidewalk to the entry, with a planter or small porch, such
as was built at the north end of a senior affordable housing building at 12740 30th Ave NE,
Seattle
- a development on the large vacant parcels behind Burlington Coat Factory will abut a single
family zone on the east side of the project. Neighbors will have opinions on driveway location
and whether the project's outbound trips will dump onto 240th or 242nd.
- a multi -family development bordering 77th PI West sits at a higher grade than the single
family homes across the street on 77th Pl. From looking at a map it appears that the SF
homeowners will have privacy issues when redevelopment occurs. But the apartment building
was built 10 years before the SF homes were built, and the residents' HOA have built and
maintained an attractive fence, shrubs, and tall trees on the property line. There might not be
any neighbor concerns when redevelopment occurs on the CG parcels.
A related topic to the design review process that allows public input is simply public
notification. The current administrative review does not require any public notification. And
when multiple projects are happening in just the Gateway district in a short period of time,
infrastructure issues get compounded.
There are few streets laid out in a grid on the east side of the Hwy 99 subarea and neighbors
will have new requests for city infrastructure to manage lighting, traffic and pedestrian safety
when they are notified of a new project. In these cases, the neighbors may be more concerned
with site design than building design. And the 'ask' may be of the City Council in the CIP/CFP
process and not the building developer.
As you probably know, some streets in this area are less than 60 feet wide, and some homes
have less than a 20 feet setback because it wasn't required when they were built. I have
attached a plat map of the southern part of the Hwy 99 subarea so you can observe how non-
uniform the buildings and right of ways are. An example is 234th street, east of Hwy 99.
Packet Pg. 32
4.A.d
More plat maps can be found here: https://www.snoco.org/vl/sas/asrmaps/AsrMap02-
CheckTRS.asn?EnteredTRS=270431 &Otr—SE
Each project will have unique constraints, and the neighbor stakeholders need to be heard. The
Edmonds comprehensive plan states that development in the Hwy 99 corridor "is sensitive to
surrounding neighborhoods" (Land Use section, Hwy 99 Corridor Goal Q. The best way to
execute on that goal is to listen to the neighbors early in the design review process, and then
let the developer respond.
Regards,
Theresa Hollis
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 33
4.A.d
QUARTER
NE_
Centerline - - -
Gov Lot
Major Water
Minor Water
SECTION
31
Lot Block
Subdiv ROW
Other Lot ------- Vac ROW
Other Subdiv Vac Lot
T" 3-027Trt
a2lpl�
3-031
3-026
I
TOWNSHIP N.W.B.L. RANGE E.W.M.
27 4
Section - - City Limits r
■
Quarter Tax Acct
16th - Easement
ALL MAPS, DATA, AND INFORMATION SET FORTH HEREIN (`DATA'), ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL CITATION TO, OR
REPRESENTATION OF, THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY CODE. AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES TO THE DATA, TOGETHER WITH OTHER APPLICABLE COUNTY CODE PROVISIONS, MAY
APPLY WHICH ARE NOT DEPICTED HEREIN. SNOHOMISH COUNTY MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY CONCERNING THE CONTENT, ACCURACY, CURRENCY,
COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY OF THE DATA CONTAINED HEREIN AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
ALL PERSONS ACCESSING OR OTHERWISE USING THIS DATA ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE THEREOF AND AGREE TO HOLD SNOHOMISH COUNTY HARMLESS FROM AND
AGAINST ANY DAMAGES, LOSS, CLAIM OR LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF ANY ERROR, DEFECT OR OMISSION CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DATA. WASHINGTON STATE LAW,
RCW 42.56.070(8) PROHIBITS STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM PROVIDING ACCESS TO LISTS OF INDIVIDUALS INTENDED FOR USE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. A =
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE INCLUDES ANY BUSINESS ACTP T INTENDED TO GENERATE PROFITS. BY PROCEEDING AND ACCESSING THIS DATA, YOU AGREE AND REPRESENT THAT
YOU WILL NOT USE ANY LISTS OF INDIVIDUALS, OR DATA FROM WHICH SUCH LISTS MAY BE COMPILED, FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.
Z
0 200 400
Z
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet z
A product of the Assessor's Office
Mrrp produced on February 10, 2023 Snohomish County, Washington
SE-30-27-04
03,,r, ,TV= 03 ^ 03 ^ j, ' 18 = 23 28
„r,, , , T 06 14 = 4-047
402
02E'TnT,T _
00::„ ,T,
-: T
"rt
CORNER=VISTA 04 =G = =F 04 "
CONDO (1�1801) 04
1 2 = _` _`
.... 01 = N 1 24 27
O M o'='
15 16 17=� moo+
o_ 411 "25' L26
_ _ U) 2±
228-T-H S-T—SW------�----
N L-ULt5 U
is 9 10 _ 11 12 02 A p 5 ry�� z �n
J 2 3 �TT�T� RIDGEMO.OR (6609) 04 �' 6_ 04 o
0 = T2-003 T 13 a Q 2 ���- i Y U 04 0 0 0
:;.00 ,
= r
- 229TH ST-SW - - 6 BM g } z
1 SP 261 (7-85) 14. 01 a 3 4 �r� CM Q o 06
`� 00 N _
co
2-029 3 I 26 25 a 20 19 N=N 4 ~ B
2-001 _ - _
11 15 o 15 0 8 SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER FIVE ACRES TRACTS
27 21 p 1 R99 T U65
98______ _ =r3
24 1 54 r =
> 2-005 1 23 22 18 17 16 Q 2 7,, 18 0=r`000errrr _F
28 i � WTR 999 =[
" 01 07 s IN o s _ 01 "F 05 _ 08
j Q 3 6 17[1-2_50t6
2-004 r W 29 30 _t 01 2-006 31 32 =F 7 W „4 ,03 = 02 r 01 J ao 5 Of
a,R 1 1s _F2-007 t "'r +r,r, = 96 997 Qu =r
L 98 _F
- - - - - - - - - - -i - - - 230-T-H- ST-S-W - - - - - - -
1 .�. 10 19 1 15 i
w 2 11 20 1 1 2 3 4 �; 1 = 14 13 03 -,'04 01
04
A .. , 2 14 i T�r, riT
3 p 12 21 7 k''� 6 5 2 12 )i _F, nT,T ,T n"` CY
H 0 1 3 13 00 3
4Q 13 2233 — �Q 11 OS �.
— — — 7-TA A A 06
> 12 W cb'� 10 n� G�,.
c 12 04 .....+1 03 1 Q 01= 18/
8 07
N 01 PFN 00 01'010 SP 9 J 18 1 27 8 9 12 ;,: 13 14 15 - 16 17 19 20 GG
02 U LAKE RIDGE (491.8x)
01 1 02 2 X 3 4 HOLLY RIDGE (7994)
z 4 3 1. ," " r„', 1 10 16,XX17T 12- 11 10 = 18 171a LLA PLN20130029
2 „1µ_ 9 8 =15 1
ZA 930714=9 SP 13
18
14 7
A -- B C D E 17 `, 14oMM' BREVE 03
01 1 _
HOLLY RIDGE"COTTAGE 'p � � , ,13
5 =4 3 = HOMESeoNDa(9331")-' 15 16 18 6 �? M C 10
CONDO
-t
TR 100 G / " "
= 12 -F - — 5 „ W
=02 F - 2 11 ` 24 r 09 i' 10 �� 21 :T ; 20
_G _ z„ ,T�TT� 310 �n 4 g (10412 )
2-043 1 ' 84THAVENUE 13 6 gQ +,+� 2 3 j BQ, 02 05
WEST CONDO op3` 2 07 `� 7'
(10858) �P2 O > = 04 �;� 6 m / Y
1 .„,T�r„, 5,' 01
. -- -L - - __ - — 06 r -F 05 0 2F3 06 ~1- 4
Nzr -c cfl -F N`04 - 05 Z _ , , ,T„r„ 3, Q
07 _I N t �r„
�t �r x _ - =F 08 r' 2
0 0 0 0 =r 06 ao 01 _r F TR 999 04
cV t N N N-r— 07 1 TR 997 /
1
- - - -------23-4-T-H--ST- S
4 = 3 = 2 = 1
04 = 03 r
10
11 05;08
=
_
_F
_r
_ =
06
CD:-:08
08
1
SP PLN20�080041
11 12 _
1
04 ao
o "T
12 0 0 06 09 0
0 2
=
03 / 01
01
-F
..
:a --
2 N N 2: 2 N
=
/ o�
'� 02
F 04
_cT ,
3
4 3 2 1
05
13
..
_:-c
011
07
can 07 10 can
29
_ O8
-F
i1
r
6 3 3
27 04
/;
07
_F
5
:-2-052:r2-071:c2-053
,235TH PL,SW,
_
/"
_Ih
c
6
"'
•ir"�rr'� r�rl•Y tir
+SP S-2004-134
+
- 017 02
Q
2-086 2-085 2-084
OB
14
=
=
/'
06
+
05
=r
Q 3,�
A
_
=
03
018 02
RUTi
�_= MARE 2.049 I
Ln ( CONDO
LLA
PLN2018-0027
$
TRAILER LANE=r
MOBILE PARK
=c
-,,
=
01902
0°= - 7784 —
9600-122
011 o 02
DELS 2ND
i 4 3_ 2 1
DD (4.191)
02
T3T T 2-' _ 1,,,,,,
01 1 01 - 01
FRUITLAND
ACRES
TO
LAKE
BALLINGER
00 g
8
7
6
5
10
1A 1
U\
01 / A O 8 = 1 �
01 04 O 0')- 7 ILL
B`* ' 4 7 = T- 2 LA Q
!� MIRADA
3 03 H CN�CONDO) 2
SP S-23- 6 3 O (6030)01 6
K9 K]G Kbh K/G Kdh KUG KlUG K11h K'ILG
�T„r,Y.-Y'% J438
3-084
4-048 4-044
00
LUSCHEN'S ADD011 2 3 4
30 29 NO 4 (5014)
--31 32 — --�-_
(5767) --- 1
17
tL�
x
F 04 / �n 02 .. �nT
T 2 = 16
3 - 15
13
06 4 14 01-
1 Q
2 1
5 13
m
01 F- O0
2 6 12 amr` m
05 11
02 7 01 1
10 d
SP S-39-77 8 . . ' ' i oc
9 w
r —, #�
- ,
--� E
CC
27 c
+ 2 TT
s \ 11 v
02 .-. rt 00
00 05 01 \ a
SP #S-29-7505 Q 03 04 �� L
+ A 07 g
H
15 16 Icta
Z 02
4 Z �r„ ,TN 2Te 03 �, a
01,Trt T,THr14 O 01 ` .,T04,T it
4200412105223 03 T_r 3
04
SP S-92-262 ' ; 3 ..05 TT c �*
232ND ST CONDO 0
7s1�-:761'09 ��so� 108 m 02 _ 03 c E
10339,) -n j 0 C W
23�ND-ST-- W --� (n SP S-3-83 c o
08 _ Q 02..01---
-L
L
_' Y (n �IA,�,�,?, '
1 00 12 = 07 _r 08 09 :EO 03 00 L
=F
2 ' SP ;S-9F8 U 4 ` 3 U
3 z 16 } 15 10 14 C104 r 03 N
Q 4 ,r 3 2 1 Q; 4- 5T - _
4 20 . 02
18 „ -J 02' 01'.�T,
18 18
3 =E 19 a= 1
= 2 2 „
/ SP S-04-22 W i
_F
5 6LU 01
C9 y'�'t'1 C� 04 01 i
P233RD PL—SW 'Z 2 { 1 05 J_L,T�nT, i T,T,
J 17 SP S-22.85 02 t "03' 1 0 0
8 = 7 Q r Q-- F r
m
m =k 02
x I Q
------------
-` ` 02
_r
13,T,T,
03
04
04
06
02 T
04
ri
-15:Z;
-11
_[
03 05 _ 01 03
SE-31-27-04
Packet Pg. 34
K9 K]G Kbh K/G Kdh KUG KlUG K11h K'ILG
�T„r,Y.-Y'% J438
3-084
4-048 4-044
00
LUSCHEN'S ADD011 2 3 4
30 29 NO 4 (5014)
--31 32 — --�-_
(5767) --- 1
17
tL�
x
F 04 / �n 02 .. �nT
T 2 = 16
3 - 15
13
06 4 14 01-
1 Q
2 1
5 13
m
01 F- O0
2 6 12 amr` m
05 11
02 7 01 1
10 d
SP S-39-77 8 . . ' ' i oc
9 w
r —, #�
- ,
--� E
CC
27 c
+ 2 TT
s \ 11 v
02 .-. rt 00
00 05 01 \ a
SP #S-29-7505 Q 03 04 �� L
+ A 07 g
H
15 16 Icta
Z 02
4 Z �r„ ,TN 2Te 03 �, a
01,Trt T,THr14 O 01 ` .,T04,T it
4200412105223 03 T_r 3
04
SP S-92-262 ' ; 3 ..05 TT c �*
232ND ST CONDO 0
7s1�-:761'09 ��so� 108 m 02 _ 03 c E
10339,) -n j 0 C W
23�ND-ST-- W --� (n SP S-3-83 c o
08 _ Q 02..01---
-L
L
_' Y (n �IA,�,�,?, '
1 00 12 = 07 _r 08 09 :EO 03 00 L
=F
2 ' SP ;S-9F8 U 4 ` 3 U
3 z 16 } 15 10 14 C104 r 03 N
Q 4 ,r 3 2 1 Q; 4- 5T - _
4 20 . 02
18 „ -J 02' 01'.�T,
18 18
3 =E 19 a= 1
= 2 2 „
/ SP S-04-22 W i
_F
5 6LU 01
C9 y'�'t'1 C� 04 01 i
P233RD PL—SW 'Z 2 { 1 05 J_L,T�nT, i T,T,
J 17 SP S-22.85 02 t "03' 1 0 0
8 = 7 Q r Q-- F r
m
m =k 02
x I Q
------------
-` ` 02
_r
13,T,T,
03
04
04
06
02 T
04
ri
-15:Z;
-11
_[
03 05 _ 01 03
SE-31-27-04
Packet Pg. 34
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/15/2023
Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update
Staff Lead: David Levitan
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
The City of Edmonds is required to complete a stand -mandated "periodic update" to its Comprehensive
Plan - the city's primary document for guiding growth and development over the next twenty years - by
December 31, 2024. As the first step in the update known as "Everyone's Edmonds", the city launched a
community -guided visioning process in Summer 2022 that focused on six key topic areas and generated
nearly 7,900 public comments. The Planning Board was last briefed on the process at their September
28, 2022 meeting, the minutes for which are attached. The City Council was subsequently briefed on the
process at their October 25 meeting, the presentation for which includes a more detailed analysis of
public input and which is also attached.
In Fall 2022, city staff worked with a consultant team to review, categorize, and distill the thousands of
public comments into a draft vision statement, which was unveiled at Edmonds Porchfest on November
5, 2022 and is included below:
"Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value environmental
stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving arts scene. We
are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. "
As noted in the October 25 Council presentation, the next step is to solicit community feedback on the
vision statement. The vision statement was discussed during the Council's recent retreat on January 27,
and a citywide mailing will be distributed in the coming weeks that includes a QR code and hyperlink to
a community survey asking for feedback on the draft vision statement.
As part of the Planning Board's February 22 retreat, staff is proposing a more detailed discussion on the
transition to the Comprehensive Plan Update and a "Comp Plan 101" for new members, including
growth targets/assumptions, scenario development, and community engagement, including the
formation of advisory committees made up of "Community Champions" and members of city
boards/commissions.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Board members are asked to review the draft vision statement, provide initial feedback, and
ask any questions about next steps in the process, in advance of the broader Comprehensive Plan
Update discussion proposed for February 22.
Packet Pg. 35
7.A
Narrative
<Type or insert text here>
Attachments:
September 28 PB Visioning Meeting Minutes
October 25 City Council Presentation
Everyone's Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.a
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Manager Lien gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Comprehensive Plan Branding: PRR was the consultant selected to help with the branding and came up
with the "Everyone's Edmonds" branding. They also developed some templates and mini surveys. They
provided some translation services and looked through past outreach materials.
Six -week Themed Visioning Outreach: The work with PRR led into a community -guided visioning
process which was a six -week themed outreach on key topics. These key topics included Identity, Quality
of Life, Economic Growth, Environment, Culture, and Livability and Land Use. The approach involved
tabling at local events, coffee chats in various neighborhood centers, some walk and talks, a panel discussion,
and a community survey. One of the most successful parts of the outreach was the yard signs. These greatly
increased the number of comments on the survey. The overall outreach goal was to solicit 3,500 comments
from the community and over 8,500 comments were received. Over 600 comments were received from
events and nearly 7,900 were received from the community survey.
Visioning Next Steps: The next step will be to organize the comments by theme and evaluate the results. A
draft vision statement and community values will be developed based on the outreach results. There will
be a presentation to the Planning Board and Council followed by a public reveal of the draft on
November 5. Feedback will be collected on the draft visioning and it will again be presented to the Planning
Board and to the Council for final adoption.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2022 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.a
Comprehensive Plan Update Workplan Overview: Over the next couple months there will be a lot of work
behind the scenes getting ready for Comprehensive Plan Update. The Core Project Team will be a multi-
disciplinary team of key staff involved with review and development of various elements. There will also be a
Community Champions Advisory Committee which is one of the suggestions that came out of the Equitable
Engagement Framework as a way to get some of the underrepresented communities involved in the process.
They are also looking at establishing a Boards & Commissions Advisory Committee which would include
representatives from all the city boards and commissions who would participate in development of the
Comprehensive Plan and report back to the various boards and commissions. There will still be detailed briefs
back to the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, and other boards, but the Boards &
Commissions Advisory Committee would be one way to keep boards and commissions involved throughout
the process. There will be more consultants involved as needed for various tasks related to development of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lien reviewed the project timeline. Adoption is due at the end of 2024. Visioning will be wrapping up this
year, and scoping will begin this winter. Neighborhood scenario development and concurrency reviews will be
happening this winter. 2023 will be spent developing the draft documents to have them ready for early 2024.
Comments and Questions:
Chair Pence referred to the comments received and asked how many unique individuals that represented. Senior
Planner Brad Shipley replied they did not always measure individual persons. He clarified that they received
8,500 comments; this did not represent 8,500 individuals. There were close to 600 responses to the full survey
which only allowed one individual per survey. The mini surveys had around 100 responses each week, but some
people may have answered multiple surveys so it is hard to know how many people this represents.
Board Member Rosen commented there is value in knowing the number of responses even though they don't
know the exact number of people who responded. He cautioned against leading people to believe there were
8,500 participants. He then questioned the order of the project timeline which seems to show neighborhood
scenario development before the Comprehensive Plan development. Mr. Shipley explained that the citywide
visioning is what they are doing first. This will be overarching and broad and should guide the rest of the work
on the Comprehensive Plan. Getting into the neighborhood level planning is just talking to neighborhoods about
what they would like to see in the future. Director McLaughlin agreed with comments to be clear about
characterizing the number of comments. She spoke to the value of neighborhood planning but stressed the
importance of linking back to a citywide conversation about where we are accommodating growth.
Board Member Cheung referred to the number of comments and suggested adding an estimated number of
individuals to clarify that the number of responses is different than the number of individuals.
Chair Pence referred to the City's website for Comprehensive Plan Updates and noted that under Initial Steps
there are two sections — one on waterfront issues and one on gap analysis regarding equity and climate. He noted
there is no information under the second item and asked for an update. Mr. Lien explained that ECONorthwest
had been hired to review the current Comprehensive Plan for equity issues in policies and implementation. They
identified a number of policies to be looked at in more detail. As part of that work, they also looked at public
engagement. There was some overlap with this and the work that was done on the Equitable Engagement
Framework. He indicated he would get those up on the website or at least distribute them to the Planning Board.
Chair Pence asked how there will be a community conversation after November 5 when they unveil the draft
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2022 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.a
visioning statement. Director McLaughlin explained they are looking at ways that can help to validate whether
they got the community vision right. They will substantiate the vision with documentation and data that will be
robust from PRR. It will be a defensible and transparent process. Chair Pence said he hopes that once the draft
visioning statement is revealed there is a chance for some good, robust civic conversation. Director McLaughlin
pointed out that the community vision won't require a public hearing process but she hopes the Planning Board
will provide feedback, especially through the survey. Chair Pence said he thinks the process ought to allow for
residents to hear responses from each other.
Board Member Rosen said he liked the idea of creating a group of representatives from all the boards and
commissions. This is a great way to get feedback.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.b
mom '70,077 1
.,Ago
unS
WN
Voices .
Vision .Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Visioning Summary
Susan McLaughlin AICP, LEED AP Development Services Director
Brad Shipley, Senior Planner
City Council Meeting
October 18, 2022
�Do S
EDM�N,,,
Overview
` 1 Visioning Process
Viz; What We Heard
Next Steps
7.A.b
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 41
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 42
0" �V
EDMS
_."„
Intent
Reach populations we don't often
hear from in the public process
Strategy:
inclusive branding
survey and marketing in multiple
languages
o meet people where they are
fr have a neighborhood presence
fr test new outreach strategies
willingness to make mistakes and
learn —not let imperfection be the enemy
of good intent
Goal
Solicit 3,500
community
comments from the
One comment equals:
each response to a survey question
each comment recorded at outreach event
Over 8,500 comments were collected
7.A.b
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 43
7.A.b
00 jrld Do Sp
eD
iTOTOT,"W0,570
Coffee Chats
THEMED NEIGHBORHOOD CONVERSATIONS
Weekly articles
HELP PUT WEEKLY THEMES INTO CONTEXT
Table at local events
MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE
-- --------------------- -
D qND
M0
ED
EDMO or i
ED.
...... ....
h�hh
M
Yard signs
RAISE AWARENESS
w
Multi-lingual branding
PROCESS OF BUILDING TRUST
Panel discussion
IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS ON KEY TOPICS
FROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Walk & Talks
EXPLORE KEY TOPICS IN REAL WORLD SCENARIOS
Online surveys
ALLOW INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION
011E�;77-7:
---------------------
all
IL!v
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update 11 Packet Pg. 447
�Do S
EDM�N,.,,
iTOTOTI"W0,570
S Urvev
i
Provided in Korean, simple Chinese, and 2o24To,
v Lt�l,�4
Spanish'
Fr Two to four questions each l.rZ�Eamana
Fr Qualitative (open-ended) and quantitative
(multiple-choice) questions
Q��l)�.�7�tif��L�tQ17�tEdrnonds �
■ Qualitative comments limited to 140 characters to
encourage succinct responses
■ Intention was to allow individual expression while
reducing chance for misinterpretation and to process
in a timely manner our
��
Fr Option to take full survey provided
mn (gti;
ERYONE'S ✓�
Visipn del Plan IntegraL 2024
Cultura
iAyudenos a saber coma es In diversidad de Edmonds,
1. cSiente que su etniayculturatie nen representacion en
Edmonds? LQud etnia(s) y cultura(s) le gustarfa ver mejor
representada en Edmonds? (140 caracteres)
2. LQue puede hacer la cludad para reconocer y celebrar
mejor la diversidad cultural? (140 caracteres)
MM
7.A.b
PSPAfQL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 45
L
cQ
G
O
U
C
E
U)
_
.y
d
Cn
d
d
v
C
7
O
U
U
L0
N
d
O
0
E
Q
0. " �v
p1l Do Spell)
iTOTOTI"W0,570
Events
Comments cataloged the same as survey
Ir Comment logs created for each event
Ir Tracked the number of people engaged
and what we heard
ED0
Participant Tally
EVENT; Fjk�r4 K 04 (y-a
DATE. V/Z7
STA F �N-T!® G`1lCfl'ELE i ✓2°�"
PAGE: of
COMMENT SUMMARY LOG
THEME
---�QF —4--f 7 g�
�Lzo <� s
_
-
--4� -�
�ar2 doFj YC-CkS —
7.A.b
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 46
7.A.b
m
c
aD
t
a�
L
cQ
G
O
U
Qi
E
M
v!
O
.y
C
O
R
r
C
d
N
d
L
CL
O
U
U
LO
N
L
W
O
u
O
E
u
m
r
a
Packet Pg. 47
� I ����
LL
LL , S
EDM'
What We Heard
voic
L
Percent of Total Survey Responses, by Neighborhood
Meadow
Q
o
U
Downtown
Westgate
m
E
Other
Talbot Park
(D
Seaview
r
N
c
Perrinville
o
Five Corners
A
Common "other" responses.
Pine Ridge
r-
Perrinville
Maplewood
Seaview'
0
Highway 99
Emerald Hills
c
,n
��..
Maplewood
Esperance
'�
Uptown
Downtown Pine Ridge
a.
—
v
Lake Ballinger
3
=° Yost Park
o
Firdale
�
Five Corners
U
Meadowdale
specific intersections
L)
Sherwood Forest
LO
`14
`m
Talbot Park
� 1/o
Town of
Woodway Esperance
0
I do not live in Edmonds
1%
Westgate
r
Town of Woodway
0.3%
c
E
Sherwood Forest
t
Maplewood
0.0%
Highway99
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%
20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
40.0% Firdale Lake Ballir�er
w
Q
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 48
0" �V
EDMS
_."„
Am
n
: 1 r•
502
41088
9%
6%
-3%
503
5,975
13%
11%
-2%
504.02
5,569
12%
6%
-5%
504.03
3,000
6%
3%
-3%
504.04
4,124
9%
6%
-3%
505.01
3,083
7%
20%
14%
505.02
3,963
8%
23%
15%
507
61375
14%
11%
-2%
508
6,939
15%
7%
-7%
509
3,871
8%
5%
-3%
7.A.b
L
Q
Meadow 0
U
502
Talbot Park
N
Pe inville
o
.N
503
r-
0
Seaview
-
504,
Maplewood
L
Downto 504.03 Pi Ridge
a
3
505.01 Five Corners
L)
504.02
L)
LO
N
Town of
0
Woodw Esperance
0
O
5t 508
505.02
a)
Sherwood Forest
E
t
507 ighway 509Firdalp
w
Lake Balli er Q
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 49
MDo �S
0
ED�N„
Less than 1
Mi[:r:1Its
Residency in Years, Number of Responses
1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-25 26-35 36-50 More than Idonot live
50 in Edmonds
7.A.b
--—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 50
MDo �S
0
ED�N„
:1 R►I►L:A i [:r:1 r•
Residency in Years, Number of Responses
1-10 years 10-25 years 25-35 years 35-50 years More than 50 years I do not live in Edmonds
7.A.b
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 51
7.A.b
Do S
:1 R►A►LM i [Z' 1 Its
Week 1: Identity
Q1
What do you love about Edmonds?
Small-town feel
Access to waterfront and nature
Walkability
Locally -owned businesses
Thriving arts and culture scene
Sentiment was universal not
particular to a specific neighborhood.
'v Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 52
:11IR►ATIMi[z'1Its
Week 1: Identity
Q2
How would you like to see your
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
'v Response
Y ..
7.A.b
Credit: Janine Harles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 53
L
Q
0
U
c
R
E
U)
0
.y
0
Cn
0
r_
0
U
U
L0
N
0
0
E
M
a
�jrld Do S
ell)
Week 2: Quality of Life
Q1
:1RTATIMi[Z'lIts
What do you like about living in Edmonds?
Waterfront access
Small town feel
Restaurants and shopping
Attractions & Entertainment
Public transportation and walkability
Other
Access to multicultural resources
School district
Convenient commute
Medical care and services for Seniors
Cost of living I=
Cost of housing
7.A.b
ey Responses
L
cQ
G
0
U
c
R
E
U)
0
.y
Common "other" responses:
:y Arts and culture
Proximity to natural resource
a Parks and trails
r;. Walkability
U
Cleanliness
LO
CN
Community events
Infrastructure and communil U
services
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - 170- - - - 707 - - - - MC7 - - - 4M----T,Off----6T0--------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 54
0
E
r
a
�jrld Do S
ell)
Week 2: Quality of Life
Q2
:1RTATIN IIIIi[z'1r•
Is there anything you don't like
about Edmonds?
Being too car -centric
Lack of sidewalks
Need for better public transportation
Speeding drivers
Imbalance of parking
Government
Inequitable distribution of funds
Lack of transparency and accountability
Concern 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
'v Response
7.A.b
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 55
0. " �V
p1l Do Spell)
Week I Economic Growth
Q1
:1 R►A►L:IIIII i [Z' l Its
What kind of businesses (goods and
service) do you travel outside the city
for?
Larger retailers in Lynnwood or U-
District
Mentions ofAlderwood Mall, Central
Market, Costco, Fred Meyer
Sentiment that big -box and large
retailers are not needed in
Edmonds it's ok to travel to some
things
Am
Rim
0I0l 091W
7.A.b
L
Q
E
0
U
c
R
E
U)
_
.y
0
Cn
0
r_
0
U
U
' Ln
N
L
d
0
U
O
L
V
Q
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 56
7.A.b
voices visionp
EDMONWhat plan We - Heard Responses
Week I Economic Growth
-- a
02 0
Do you work in Edmonds?
U)
0
.y
0
Yes
28%
No °
U
72% LO
N
L
ci
Qi
E
ci
Q
--------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 57
�Do S
EDM�N,,,
Week I Economic Growth
Q3
:1RTATIMi[Z'1Its
'v Response
If you don't work in Edmonds, what kind of work do you
leave the city for?
Top mentions:
Retired 350o
Education, training,
library 8%
:! Healthcare 8%
Tech 8%
No
72%
Yes
28%
7.A.b
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 58
L
cQ
E
0
U
c
R
E
U)
0
.y
0
Cn
0
r-
0
U
U
LO
N
L
0
0
E
a
" �V
EDMS
_."„
Week 4: Environment
Q1
:1 R►A►LM i [z' 1 Its
'v Response
Which of these four proposed priorities of the Edmonds Climate Action
Plan should the City put the most resources toward? (ranked choice, listed
in order of preference)
AVE. SCORE
7.A.b
2.2 Environment (i.e., increasing tree coverage and adapting to sea -level change)
2.4 Buildings and energy (i.e., technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from building energy use
2.5 Transportation (i.e., investing in bus routes, promoting walking, and adding bike lanes)
2.9 Lifestyles and consumption (i.e., reducing waste and increasing recycling)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 59
L
cQ
E
0
U
c
R
E
U)
_
.y
0
r
c
a�
Cn
0
r_
0
U
U
LO
N
0
0
r
E
M
a
0" �V
Do
SpEDM�N„
Week 4: Environment
Q2
:1RTATIMi[z'1Its
'v Response
What are you most concerned about when it comes to the
environmental future of Edmonds?
0
Water protection
sea -level rise
protection of streams
pollution
Green Space
retaining or replacing tree canopy
notable mention of "right tree, right place" for preservation of
7.A.b
views Y
Land capacity `
p Y , ,► o
density is harmful, citing associated tree canopy loss and
increased traffic E
Credit: Janine Harles t
others say density is a solution, citing walkable communities
and sustainable buildings asanoutcome
_____________________________________________ a
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 60
0" �V
EDMS
_."„
Week 5: Culture
Q1
7.A.b
:1RTATIN IIIIIi[Z'1r•
'v Response
Do you feel like your ethnicity and culture are represented in
Edmonds? What ethnicity(s) and culture(s) would you like to see better
represented in Edmonds?
Commonly skipped question
Large majority who answered self -identified as "white" and said "yes"
For "needs more" responses, most common answers are "all non -white
cultures" and indigenous/Native American
Many found the question divisive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 61
�jrld Do S
ell)
Week 5: Culture
02
7.A.b
:1RTATIMi[Z'1Its
'v Response
What can the City do to better celebrate diverse cultures?
Partner with ethnic and cultural minority communities
honor holidays that aren't white dominate 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 62
" �V
EDMS
_
Week 6: Livability and Land Use
Q1
:1RTATIMi[Z'llIts
What types of housing could you
see fitting into your neighborhood?
Select all that apply.
Single family homes the most selected category.
o Interest in ADUs and DADUs, multi -generational
homes, townhomes, and duplexes.
Comments in "other" include thoughts on
building appropriateness for specific
neighborhoods, concerns of environmental
impact, regulation of AirBNB, and street
capacity.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
a Ah
251
221 204
171
151 135
123
° P°Ge o ore,
�o��a react
e�
0
M
7.A.b
L
cQ
E
0
437 v
c
c
a�
E
U)
c
226 221 y
194 >
122
c
0
0
< U
U
LO
N
m
0
O
a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 63
�
EDM�NS
„
Week 6: Livability and Land Use
Q2
r RrALrAI:a : Mrw 1 r•
What type of businesses, services,
community features and public
spaces would you like to see in your
neighborhood? Select all that apply.
Popular selections include:
Walking and biking trails
Small restaurants, coffee shops, bars, and outdoor
dining options
Parks
Greener streets
"Other" included:
statements that downtown already has these
features, public safety, infrastructure to improve
walkability/cycling, traffic calming/enforcement (lots
of complaints about speeding)
�1T� !lam
0I6l BMAh
W
450
404
400 378
343 349
350
313
300 289
276
264
251
250
213
200
165 165
150 128 138
100 72 84
50 23
0
te e�5 �y e�5 y\ et5 any �°e .�'°�O �•�y kee e`'y Ica\ any rec
\`off ret
mat`°c Qte �y� o°a oec \\per �a� a�o°� a��r aoo� pac �aoo `���0
'N\ ewe
o
te,�a�
etCZ
7.A.b
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 64
�jrld Do S
ell)
7.A.b
Week 6: Livability and Land Use
Q3
:1RTATIMi[Z'1Its
'v Response
What else could improve your neighborhood?
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 65
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 66
C 7.A.b
-VISI Next Steps
L
cQ
G
0
U
c
R
1 Continue to analyze results
U)
0
2
2 Draft vision statement
! 3 Reveal vision statement (Porchfest Nov. 5th)
0
U
Validate through surve and communit advisor committee LO
y y y N
0
L
0
0
ci
5 Briefings at Plannin Board and Cit Councilg YE
w
_______________________________________________________________________________
Q
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 67
�Do S
EDM�N,.,,
2022
Initial Core
Team Meetings
Ah
2023
Am's■■aYAM
k
nario Development + Concurrency Draft Plan Documents
Establish Boards Establish Community
& Commissions Champions Advisory
Advisory Group Group
Continuous public engagement!
7.A.b
2024
Final Plan Documents Adoption
iii
to
Final Plan
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update I Packet Pg. 68
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 69
7.A.b
Thank you!
EdmondsWA.gov/EveryonesEdmonds
everyonesedmonds@edmondswa.gov
425-775-0220
Vi ,on . plon
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/15/2023
Planning Board Retreat Preparation
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
Each year, the Planning Board uses one of their first quarter meetings to hold their annual retreat. At
last year's retreat (March 9, 2022), members received Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) training from
the city attorney and discussed the work plans for the Parks and Planning and Development
Departments.
OPMA training is required within 90 days of appointment for all new board and commission members,
and must be renewed every four years for existing members (and may be taken more often by those
already in compliance, if desired).
Former Planning Board Chair Roger Pence submitted a recommendation that the board consider a
presentation from Joe Tovar. Mr. Tovar is a former planning director at the cities of Shoreline and
Kirkland, Growth Management Hearings Board member, and an Edmonds resident who was
instrumental in the development of the Growth Management Act and is currently working for the
Department of Commerce on housing policy.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss the Planning Board retreat, which is tentatively schedule February 22. Board members are
asked to weigh on whether they would like OPMA training as part of the retreat (or if new members
should take it on their own), and the potential for a presentation from Mr. Tovar.
Narrative
N/A
Packet Pg. 71
8.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/15/2023
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
Council adopted emergency interim ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. That ordinance added an
Architectural Design Board (ADB) design review process (to replace the previous administrative design
review process) for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone, in addition to a design
standard that requires building step backs (pushing back the face of the building above an established
height) in certain situations.
The code change would require a two-phase design review process by the ADB, similar to that in the
Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet
(buildings less than 35 feet tall would continue to be reviewed by staff as the process has been since
2007).
At the same time, when a proposed building in the CG zone is across the street from a single family
zone, the CG building would have to apply a step back on that side on the project unless the ADB finds
that the step back is not needed.
Prior to Ord. 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance that contained required step back
language (Ord. 4278). That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the step back concept for
buildings across the street from single family zones was included in Ord. 4283.
This topic was introduced to the ADB on January 26. They will review the issue again on February 23
and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Interim Ordinance 4283 is in effect until June 10,
2023, and Council must adopt any permanent language prior to that date.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss the new step back language. Consider the need for the requirement, whether it addresses the
need, and how it can be implemented. Consider alternative solutions and whether the two-phase
design review process would be the appropriate process. This topic will come back to the Board for a
public hearing likely in March or April.
Narrative
Because Ordinance 4283 is interim, final regulations need to be adopted by Council by June 10, 2023,
after review by other boards. Because design -related language is involved, the ADB should review the
interim language and make a recommendation to the Planning Board on final language.
Packet Pg. 72
8.6
The interim language alters the building step back requirements in the general site development
standards in ECDC 16.60.020.D. Existing step back language in that subsection applies when a single
family (IRS) parcel is adjacent to a General Commercial (CG) parcel. In that case, a new building on the
CG parcel must step back from the required zoning setback as the height of the building increases. The
interim language would provide a similar building step back across the street from a single family (IRS)
zone. The intent is the new step back would reduce the bulk of the new building and provide additional
transition from the CG zone to the IRS zone.
However, the proposed language indicates that both step backs are requirements unless the ADB finds
them not to be necessary. That provides the ADB with some discretion but as it is worded the ADB
could waive both the 'across the street' step back as well as the 'adjacent' step back.
Attachments:
Ordinance 4283 emergency interim
Council Minutes 12.10.2022
Packet Pg. 73
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ORDINANCE NO.4283
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
FOR THE CG ZONE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway
99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan
(Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and
establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and
WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly
excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned
Action EIS; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an
emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the
street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step
backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and
WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which
indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs
that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from
Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and
WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in
effect; and
WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278
in effect; and
WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect
on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance
4278; and
WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger
procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design
review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely
administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns
through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and
Packet Pg. 74
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design
review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278),
step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street
from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is
hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in str4kethfough).
Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as
shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim
regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of
this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings
and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein),
this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is
repealed sooner.
Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless
the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No
later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council
shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its
continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Packet Pg. 75
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending
application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13
and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010
(as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make
the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020
instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to
referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the
city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this
ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations
described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of
property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim
regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This
ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights.
Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Packet Pg. 76
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it
is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW
35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after
passage and publication.
APPROVED:
DocuSigned by:
Nl,L,1�4
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
DocuSigned by:
7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARAD Y
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022
PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. 4283
al
Packet Pg. 77
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance
No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as
follows:
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
FOR THE CG ZONE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 101h day of December, 2022.
DocuSigned by:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 78
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ATTACHMENT A
16.60.020 Site development standards - General.
A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum
Minimum Lot
Minimum Lot
Minimum
Side/Rear
Maximum
Maximum Floor
Area
Width
Street Setback
Setback
Height
Area
CG
None
None
Y/10'2
U/15''
75"
None
1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this
subsection.
2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet.
3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map.
B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical
equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no
case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface
area above the maximum height.
C. Pedestrian Area.
1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the
street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from
the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A)
of this section.
2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and
the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be
consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of
development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that
consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent
of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise
less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise
exempted under this chapter.
a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building
front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian
area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the
building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but
are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The
area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner.
Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity
zone.
Packet Pg. 79
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the
streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and
unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural
projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone
only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is
maintained within the pedestrian zone.
c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge
to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The
streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and
facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and
pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include,
but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street
trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan.
IF4
i
Q C
ro m
Y N .-
v a a a a�
inN 0.N <N
-,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r,
Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are
typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter.
(Illustration: Pedestrian area)
D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones.
1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from
the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That
portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the
required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not
to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in
ECDC 16.60.030.
Packet Pg. 80
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may
extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural
features.
IO W,&a nay
(Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones)
[Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
16.60.030 Site development standards - Design.
A. Screening and Buffering.
1. General.
a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven
feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped
wall segments.
b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet
allow visibility to signage and building entry.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate
landscaping into the design.
d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with
Chapter 20.13 ECDC.
Packet Pg. 81
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent
to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width
and continuous in length.
f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family
zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length.
g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single-
family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height
and continuous in length.
h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or
multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a
minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall
not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single-
family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical
elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks.
i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to
single-family zones.
j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones.
2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets.
a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages
where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way.
b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be
landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas.
c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public
street by one of the following methods:
i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements
listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section;
ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or
iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque.
Packet Pg. 82
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 20.12
DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Sections:
20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent.
20.12.010 Applicability.
20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board.
20.12.030 Design review by city staff.
20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist.
20.12.080 Appeals.
20.12.090 Lapse of approval.
1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent.
The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and
design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed
design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB
input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his
general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project
design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows:
A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city.
Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the
application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that
the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the
conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which
describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall
make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the
design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline
elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following
establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date
certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city
review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public
hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their
application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city
council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type.
The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its
application.
B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit
the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public
and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant
has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be
set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design
within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has
Packet Pg. 83
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ATTACHMENT A
failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria
approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120-
day review period and establish a new vesting date.
C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in
conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building
permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the
ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final
and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's
ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed.
D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart:
Design Review for Major Projects
Proposed New Review Process
&Eaa
nal}ryyvy
7
RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffw
qwo o} AnRrI I
COd Cid1u A� DKWW
DOW
! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys.
I �
E �
k— — — — — — — ----------_
hood
D"ee 4JA41PPV-W
[Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown
Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown
Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in
ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application
shall be processed as a Type III -A decision.
In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required
for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020
regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required
by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC
20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the
Packet Pg. 84
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ATTACHMENT A
process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in
the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60.
[Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board.
A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural
design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the
requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application
required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate.
1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative
importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent
design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist
contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design
guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant
district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant
portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design
criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the
specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis.
2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information
necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site
plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site,
and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following
information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing:
a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical
areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding
building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial
photographs may be used to develop this information.
b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general
location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space
and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to
assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site.
c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of
the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements.
3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to
present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which
design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project.
Packet Pg. 85
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or
discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record.
4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design
guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project
during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review
approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the
proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public
hearing.
5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be
continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public
hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare
the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign
needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by
complying with the prioritized checklist.
6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing,
there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been
completed and a final decision rendered.
B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2.
1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how
the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing
described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the
following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing:
a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout
of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space.
b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape
types, including general plant species and characteristics.
c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm,
electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants.
d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and
openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be
substituted for the building elevation(s).
e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the
submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being
considered.
Packet Pg. 86
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
8.B.a
ATTACHMENT A
f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific
criteria identified by the ADB.
g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided.
2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or
recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under
subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant
and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing.
3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase
1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of
Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application
and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or
approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings
prior to issuing its decision on the proposal:
a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code
for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use
requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be
overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives
contained in the comprehensive plan.
c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB
during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When
conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new,
additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of
land or on an ad hoc basis.
4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and
the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this
section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these
chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's
determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the
requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff
process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable.
Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public
hearing) who formally requests notice as to:
Packet Pg. 87
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as
defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and
2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development
approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071.
20.12.030 Design review by city staff.
A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may
be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on
a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development
approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting
shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
B. Application and Staff Decision.
1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the
project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission
requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is
intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a
building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of
the associated permit process.
2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and
evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall
enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal:
a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the
zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant
zoning classification(s).
b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design
objectives contained in the comprehensive plan.
When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new,
additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or
on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist.
A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as
contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines.
B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or
district.
Packet Pg. 88
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones)
located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds
comprehensive plan map include the following:
a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the
Edmonds comprehensive plan.
b. (Reserved).
2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located
within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city
of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following:
a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones.
b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the
medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071.
20.12.080 Appeals.
A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior
court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this
chapter that are appealable.
B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70C RCW.
C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to
the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision
under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord.
4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.12.090 Lapse of approval.
A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to
bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially
commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner
approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an
extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval
shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying
the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In
the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the
city council or court of competent jurisdiction.
B. Time Extension.
Packet Pg. 89
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
8.B.a
1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by
submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with
any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which
demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by
the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing
timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the
date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension.
2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by
ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee.
3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the
planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46,
2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071.
Packet Pg. 90
8.B.b
Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone
above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the
budget process.
Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in
this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information
back to 2017.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was
difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their
efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there
was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and
fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very
instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in
heaven with Bob.
Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she
encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses.
Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed
the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments
and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about
councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic
about what the council has achieved.
Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought
of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of
her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards.
Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that
Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed.
4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after
action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda.
She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the
Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG
Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no
simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the
consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency
ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda
and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday
continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order
of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2)
adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order.
Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to
the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the
Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a
VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 91
8.B.b
Ms. McLaughlin reviewed:
• Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs
o October 4, 2022 - Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278)
o November 15, 2022 - Council held a public hearing
o November 22, 2022 - Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278
Proposed Code Revisions - 16.60.030
o 16.60.030 Site development standards
■ Design
buildings exeeeding75 feet in height as identified CDC
eixeeeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type 1 deeision. Rega oess of-I.Ah-At
-dir-ed, all pr-qjeets proposed in the GG zone must meet the design
;., .h-is se tio_,
Proposed Code Revision - 20.12.010
o 20.12.010 Applicability
■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the
Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other
developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type
I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required
by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A
decision.
■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is
required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in
ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When
design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision
using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be
reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless
of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the
design standards contained in ECDC 16.60.
Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the
project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the
applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the
parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale,
materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the
ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second
ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant
successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will
afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision
appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer
and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other
jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While
that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen
in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the
public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design
decisions can also be beneficial.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 92
8.B.b
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her
understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to
Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but
was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two
different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained,
which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance
remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no
need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a
SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action
ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the
ADB if it is over 35 feet in height.
Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and
maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr.
Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and
use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET.
Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up
the language as recommended by the city attorney.
Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a
very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK
WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES.
Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires
step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has
the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still
provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the
discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process.
Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in
height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the
street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from
the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be
necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC
16.60.030.
Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they
strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not.
Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find
step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in
terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment
that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 29
Packet Pg. 93
8.B.b
Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not
required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like
planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to
minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where
there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but
there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate.
Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him.
Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time,
it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold
much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100
feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest
design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly
arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with
the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to
multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language
on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not
include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple
meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at
their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop
an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and
not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense
and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She
was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate
Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be
implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves
16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr.
Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building
design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff
or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint
shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and
modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a
menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further
amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have
this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back,
setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it
is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the
creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step
backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process
exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in
the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the
decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision.
Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the
language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB.
However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be
considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 30
Packet Pg. 94
8.B.b
step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of
who carries the burden to make the case.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because
the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding
factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power
should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled
Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when
the tree code was proposed.
Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has
been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019
largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development
review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public
comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a
quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many
jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively
before it gets to the ADB.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB
during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which
provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are
the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when
it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB
to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this
ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board.
Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and
he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision
would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court.
Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously
the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected
by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated,
the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the
distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process
so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate
wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices,
whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff
and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed
with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present
at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation.
Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed
the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read
proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between
intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods...
Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote
on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember
introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 31
Packet Pg. 95
8.B.b
Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if
Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and
single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be
intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind."
Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the
City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City.
Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite
involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also
involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the
plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but
that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference
rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot
of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017.
Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done
as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this
grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the
landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be
great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just
one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also
for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He
was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the
pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled
a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never
happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role
because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in
the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council
has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the
ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role.
Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would
be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to
a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for
a typically Type 111-A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail
and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a
PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the
neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City
and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the
ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be
thoughtful about that.
Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the
ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD
zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions
about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists
in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 32
Packet Pg. 96
8.B.b
Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make
important decisions.
Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice.
He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment.
During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was
excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be
impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have
the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and
knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this
amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer
rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different
than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones
with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council
next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the
ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different.
Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment:
RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY
ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE
DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared
earlier still applied.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN
INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE
STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE
INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND."
Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved
by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design
approaches which would have included step backs.
Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It
provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass.
Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement,
just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment
necessary.
Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also
something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave
it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 33
Packet Pg. 97
8.B.b
Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot
of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give
a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would
know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in
short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact
wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not
vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak
to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed
amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an
interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final
ordinance.
Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but
not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide
to staff.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9)
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back
Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6,
Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022
4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda
item 2
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 10, 2022
Page 34
Packet Pg. 98
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/1S/2023
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: David Levitan
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review attached Extended Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
2.8.2023 Extended Agenda - final
Packet Pg. 99
�y oV EQAf
a
l $90
February 2023
PLAHM CoOOARD
Extended Agenda - Final
February 8, 2023
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Feb 22 1. Retreat [tentative - Tree Code 101, 2023 P&D and Parks work plans,
OPMA training]
March 2023
Mar 8 1. Development Activity Report
2. Public Hearing - CG permanent ADB/step back code
3. Tree Code Update — Public Engagement Strategy (review)
4. Handbook (finalize)
5. Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update (tentative)
Mar 22 1. Tree Code Update — Potential New Residential Regulations (code
analysis and discussion)
2. Comprehensive Plan Update (tentative)
Mar 28 1. Planning Board update to City Council
April 2023
April 12 1. Tree Code Update — Potential New Residential Regulations (code
analysis and discussion)
April 26 1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
2. Wireless Code Update (presentation and discussion -tentative)
a
Packet Pg. 100
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
May zuz3
May 10 1. Tree Code Update — Moderate/Major changes to improve existing
ECDC 23.10 (code analysis and discussion)
2. Recap of 2023 Washington State Legislative Session: Planning
Related Context
3. Comprehensive Plan Update (tentative)
May 24 1. Tree Code Update — Moderate/Major changes to improve existing
ECDC 23.10 (code analysis and discussion)
2. Wireless Code Public Hearing (tentative)
June 2023
June 14 1. Public Hearing - Tree Code (Residential and Moderate/Major)
June 27 1. Planning Board update to City Council
June 28 1. TDB
luly ZOZ3
July 12
July 26
1. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
1. TBD
August 2023
Aug 9 1. TBD
August 23 NO MEETING —SUMMER BREAK
a
2
Packet Pg. 101
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
For 1. Tree code update
Consideration 2 Comprehensive Plan work
in 2023
3. Critical Aquifer Recharge code update
4. Wireless code update
5. CIP/CFP
6. MF Design Standards
Future
Consideration 1. Housing Policy Implementation
2. Neighborhood Center Plans (5 Corners)
3. ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
4. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
b. Parking standards
5. UFMP — goal/gap analysis/update
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Updates — Typically first
meeting after previous quarter (1/11/23, 4/12, 7/12, 10/11)
3. Joint meeting with City Council
4. Planning and Development Department Activity Report
S. Annual Retreat (Q1)
6. OPMA Training
7. Breaks — no meetings on 2nd meeting date in August and December
c
m
Q
m
c
m
x
w
c
c
m
a�
Q
a�
c
a�
r
x
w
M
N
O
N
O
N
r
c
m
E
M
a
3
Packet Pg. 102