2023-03-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
March 22, 2023
Vice Chair Campbell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. at
Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Golembiewski.
Board Members Present
Judi Gladstone, Chair (online)
Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier (online)
Lauren Golembiewski
Jeremy Mitchell
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell (alternate)
Board Members Absent
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Richard Kuehn
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED (5-0) WITH VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER
ABSTAINING.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2023 AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED (5-0) WITH CHAIR GLADSTONE AND BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED,
INCLUDING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CODE AMENDMENT
AMD2022-0008 UNTIL THE APRIL 12, 2023 REGULAR MEETING.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 7
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Finis Tupper, Edmonds Resident, stated that he sent an email to the Planning Board on February 8 and other
emails since then and had not received a response. He asked if the Board had taken action to approve the minutes
from their February 8 meeting, as he had not been able to locate any. He stated that the Board met on February
8, he tried to attend, but was not able to.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds Resident, commented on Interim Ordinance 4283 regarding the design review process
and step back standards in the CG zone. She urged the Board to take an analytical approach to this and not rely
on personal opinion. She recommended they review development codes from two cities in the region that have
the same approach as the Edmonds code for step backs adopted in 2017. She also recommended they consider
the codes from Bothell and Shoreline that have the same approach expressed in the interim ordinance. She urged
them to consider what is best for Edmonds. She also asked them to look at the code language in Edmonds
regarding design exceptions and decide whether it has the degree of flexibility that they want. Some cities
require that a departure from the code achieves the same or better results than strict adherence to the code. Others
require that a departure from the code achieves a superior result. If they are going to add a requirement for step
backs on a project, it should be balanced out with the amount of flexibility in the code language around
exceptions.
Roger Pence, Former Board Member, stated that last night at the City Council meeting, Parks, Recreation, and
Human Services Director Angie Feser made a presentation on a property acquisition that the City is working
on — approximately 1.1 acres on the south side of 232nd Street SW in the 9300 block. This sounds exciting and
positive. He noted that the Planning Board, who is also the Parks Board, should be weighing in on property
acquisitions. He also brought up the SR99 Community Renewal Project. The City had an open house on this
project five months ago. Until recently this had been on the extended agenda for March, but it is no longer there.
This is an important project, and he is concerned that the project has gone dormant.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Postponed until April 12, 2023: Public Hearing on Design Review Process and Step Back Standards in
the CG Zone (AMD2022-0008)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Planning Board Handbook
Board Member Maxwell said he couldn't find anything in the handbook that would give the Board quasi-judicial
powers. He doesn't see that they do anything other than make recommendations. He noted that there are
references to parts of the code that have been repealed, and he is concerned that is the part that gave them the
quasi-judicial power. He recommended following up with the City Attorney on this and taking another look at
the handbook and the code. Planning Manager Levitan explained that there are two quasi-judicial reviews that
the Planning Board is responsible for — rezones and development agreements. This information can be found in
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 7
Chapter 20.01 where it details all the different land use application types. He explained the Board's role in this
process, which is to make a recommendation, as opposed to the final decision. Board Member Maxwell thanked
Mr. Levitan and said he was comfortable with the handbook as presented.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MITCHELL, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD HANDBOOK AS PRESENTED. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
A. March 28 Planning Board Update to City Council
Chair Gladstone noted that she will be making the presentation, and Vice Chair Campbell will be assisting. She
asked if anyone else wants to present or attend the meeting. She also asked for input on what the Board thinks
is important to provide to the City Council.
Chair Gladstone commented that in the past they presented on what the Board had done over the year and what
was on the agenda going forward. She thought that this is a good opportunity for the Council to tell the Board
where they think it is particularly important to hear from the Board and if there is anything else they think should
be on the extended agenda. She also thinks it is a possible opportunity to directly share the Board's feedback on
the vision statement.
Regarding the vision statement, Vice Chair Campbell was concerned that the City was not interested in getting
feedback. She said she was interested in hearing if the vision statement was validated by the feedback that was
received from the community. She also wanted to know the next steps and the Planning Board's role in that.
She said she wanted to make sure that, if they are providing feedback on the Comprehensive Plan, they have
the appropriate framework on which to couch their responses and make sure they're approaching it in the way
the Council wants.
Board Member Golembiewski thought the meeting with Council would be a good opportunity to discuss the
overall process in which the Comprehensive Plan update is going to happen and how the communication will
happen between the Council and the Planning Board. She is struggling a bit with things coming to the Planning
Board from the City Council without a direct question or request for input. It seems as if it's more of a courtesy
review. She feels there is confusion between staff, the Council, and the Planning Board as to what their role is
on some of the elements that are forming the Comprehensive Plan. She would like more clarity on which items
are just for information and which items the Board will be taking action on.
Board Member Maxwell commented that there was a Stormwater Plan presented at the City Council meeting
that did not go through the Planning Board. His understanding was that they would see this at the appropriate
time during the Comprehensive Plan process.
Mr. Levitan agreed. He explained there are plans that don't require a public hearing before the Planning Board
such as the Stormwater Plan. This is different than the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan or the Land
Use Element. The Planning Board typically holds a number of different work sessions on all the individual
Comprehensive Plan elements, and that will be later in 2024. 2023 is going to be dominated by information
gathering, public outreach, technical analysis, and background research.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 7
Staff will start to synthesize all of the information into goals and policies as well as some of the narrative in the
individual elements. This is where the Planning Board will start to provide feedback on policy language, hold a
public hearing for public input, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council so that they can consider
the Board's recommendation. The Climate Action Plan was adopted last night by resolution at the City Council.
It is not adopted by ordinance and not technically part of the Comprehensive Plan. It moved through the Climate
Protection Committee, and there was no role laid out for the Planning Board in that process. He explained that
there had been requests by Council to bring this to the Planning Board in the interim period between the
February 28 introduction to Council and the March 21 adoption by resolution, but in a way this just created
more confusion about the Planning Board's role. The Council has some discretion to identify other topics of
interest outside of code amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Planning Board to review.
He explained that if there are specific topics or documents that the Planning Board would like to have a more
official or more formal role in reviewing, they could express that to the City Council.
Board Member Maxwell asked if staff could provide a summary to Council of the way the Board and Council
interact.
Board Member Cloutier explained that the Climate Action Plan is not binding and is not legislation; it is
basically a list of good ideas to pursue. It is up to the Planning Board to take action on parts that they can.
Regarding stormwater, in the past staff has come before the Board to present new standards. He thought the last
time was about three years ago. He noted that it is a very slow process, but this is the way the cycle works.
Chair Gladstone noted there are a lot of planning efforts that go on that may provide information to a
Comprehensive Plan that are not necessarily things that would go through the Planning Board. The Stormwater
Plan is one of those; the Water Plan is another. However, there will be a Utility Element in the Comprehensive
Plan that will incorporate some items from those other documents. The vision statement is the foundation of
what follows in the Comprehensive Plan so those are two very different things. She thinks there needs to be
clarity about what the pieces of the Comprehensive Plan are that they are supposed to be providing
recommendations on. She thinks this is a good question to discuss with Council. One of her big questions is
about when the appropriate touchpoints are for the Planning Board. Is it when staff is just formulating ideas
before they take it to the public? Is it after they take ideas to the public? This is an important question because
it makes a big difference as far as when and how the Planning Board weighs in.
Board Member Cloutier explained that it is generally a mixture of those. Almost always, staff has a draft first
with a range of options that are within bounds. This saves a lot of time and energy. He doesn't think it usually
happens where it goes to the public before it goes to the Planning Board unless it is something that is not directly
the Board's responsibility like the Stormwater Plan.
Vice Chair Campbell summarized that the Board would like to have a discussion to try to narrow down what
Council is looking for from the Board, when the touchpoints are, and what their expectations are. Board Member
Maxwell thought the Board's feedback on the vision statement should also be included in this. He thought that
the Board's impression was that it appears to do a good job of capturing what Edmonds' residents would like
to have happen in Edmonds. Mr. Levitan discussed the vision statement validation process and the possibility
that it might need some additional review depending on how the community feedback process goes.
Chair Gladstone stated that her takeaway from the vision statement discussion was that it was a good statement
of values of the community, but not necessarily a vision statement. Value statements are not going to help shape
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 7
policy. Board Member Maxwell agreed and suggested adding that the next step should be a visualization
exercise where they imagine what it looks like when you walk down the street in Edmonds in 2040.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY CHAIR GLADSTONE,
THAT THEY SAY TO COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE THE STATEMENT AS A STATEMENT
OF WHAT EDMONDS' CITIZENS VALUE AND THAT THEY ALSO FEEL A GOOD NEXT STEP
WOULD BE AN VISUALIZATION EXERCISE OF WHAT EDMONDS WOULD BE LIKE.
Board Member Cloutier said he liked the idea of discussing what Edmonds would be like in the future but he
thinks that is the whole idea of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision.
BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION BY SAYING THAT
THEY AGREE THAT THE VISION STATEMENT REPRESENTS THE VALUES THAT
EDMONDS' RESIDENTS ARE SEEKING, AND THEY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW
THOSE VALUES ARE ENVISIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE MOTION WAS
SECONDED.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that the vision statement is just header in the Comprehensive Plan. It doesn't
need to include a lot of detail or nuance. It is implemented through the Comprehensive Plan and the code
changes.
Mr. Levitan pointed out that there are recurring themes listed below the vision statement which contain more
specificity and aspiration. He suggested that staff could try to tie those in better. He noted that this went through
the process with a lot of public input. The results were synthesized into a succinct vision statement, and they
don't want to rewrite it completely. Those guiding themes are going to be some of the guiding principles and
overarching goals within the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Mitchell said he wasn't sure if they were at the point where they can bring this up to Council
other than saying they are waiting for it to be validated. He doesn't think anything more than that is justified.
Vice Chair Campbell agreed and said she would be voting against the motion because the important thing they
need to know is what the Council wants from the Board.
THE MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Mitchell said he would like to ask Council about plans for the waterfront such as an emergency
overpass or other infrastructure projects that could impact planning for that area over the next 20 years. Board
Member Cloutier explained that the multimodal terminal which had been proposed by WSDOT for the
waterfront area is not going to happen. BNSF is supposed to start construction of the second rail through
Edmonds in 2023. There is no plan for an emergency connector yet. He stated that the Board's role in this
process is to just sit and wait. They will simply review what comes before them to see if it fits with the
Comprehensive Plan and with the surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Mr. Levitan noted that the current
Comprehensive Plan references the multimodal terminal. This is something that will need to be addressed in
the update. As they get into actual chapter and policy development, those are types of things that the Planning
Board is going to be able to bring up in the update process.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 7
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Events and Code Amendments on Extended Agenda
Vice Chair Campbell asked for more information about the transportation open house in June and said she
would like to find out if the Planning Board will have a touch point before that.
Mr. Levitan summarized that there would be two major phases of the Comprehensive Plan update. He stated
that the first phase of the Planning Board's involvement in the Comprehensive Plan update process will be
community engagement. After that they will begin working on the details of the elements. As staff starts to
develop the community engagement plan, they will bring the Board in where relevant. A lot of that will be
informational in nature. There will likely be some interim items on the agenda before the transportation open
house or other open houses so the Board is comfortable with the topic.
He referenced Roger Pence's comment and noted that the Highway 99 topic was inadvertently left off when he
was working on this, but it will be added back. He commented on the extremely packed extended agenda and
noted it is subject to change. He expects that some of the code amendments will have to get pushed out to
provide more opportunities to brief the Board on what the intent is for the open houses. Those items will be
filled into the extended agenda. Those are the touch points in the beginning where the Planning Board can
provide input about what they want to hear from the community. He discussed generally what to expect with
the open houses. He commented on the importance of this being a recurring discussion as far as what the open
houses might look like and including the Planning Board in the programming of the events. There is a lot up in
the air until they see what happens with proposed legislation in Olympia. In general, staff will be providing
relevant information and gathering community feedback.
Chair Gladstone acknowledged the complexity of the housing issue and urged staff to reconsider the order of
the events so that they allow more time for the more controversial topics. She asked for clarification of the
process that staff intends to follow for the open houses regardless of the content so that Planning Board knows
where it is appropriate to weigh in. Mr. Levitan thought they could reorder the events. He will work with Public
Works to talk about the transportation open house and identify potential touch points for the Planning Board.1
Mr. Levitan asked for feedback about the upcoming meetings. Does the Board want to host at their regular
meeting? Do they want open houses to be in lieu of meetings or in addition to the two meetings per month?
Vice Chair Campbell said she would love to be involved with hosting as they can but she expects that meetings
will occur on different days, times, and locations in order to meet the needs of the community.
Board Member Golembiewski suggested working in additional meetings to times when there is already a bit of
a break like longer months where there is an additional week between meetings. Mr. Levitan stated that staff
will work on the schedule and try to find dates that work well.
Board Member Maxwell said he values community input enormously so if there were a tradeoff, he would
rather have more open houses and fewer meetings with more items on the agenda.
1 Chair Gladstone left the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 6 of 7
Board Member Martini asked about alternatives to having in -person open houses. Mr. Levitan explained there
are typically also surveys and online open houses in addition to the in -person open houses. There will be a
consultant on board to help with the planning of outreach and the equitable engagement framework.
Vice Chair Campbell commented that having more than three major items on an agenda has not worked well
in the past. If they take up one of the regular meetings to do an open house instead it will slow them down
significantly. She spoke strongly against removing any meetings.
Board Member Cloutier commented that they talk way too much about things that are not on the agenda. They
could move along faster if they focus on the agenda and get the work done.
B. Extended Agenda
There was discussion about potential reprioritization of topics. Mr. Levitan will work on updating this before
the next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Campbell thanked staff for sending out information via email ahead of meetings. This helps to save
time in the meetings. She commented on the need to continue to improve meeting processes in order to have
more productive meetings. She invited anyone interested to join her and Chair Gladstone at the Council meeting
next week. She expressed appreciation for how engaged everyone is and the value of their comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Maxwell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and invited anyone to let him know
when he goes off topic.
Board Member Mitchell agreed with Board Member Cloutier's comments and said is looking forward to getting
some work done.
Board Member Golembiewski agreed but said she struggles with not having a linear process.
&ID1III I]nooIplinW
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
March 22, 2022 Page 7 of 7