Loading...
2018-06-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 27, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Phil Lovell (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Rubenkonig requested more information about the new State program for creative districts. Director Hope responded that members of the community have met with the Development Services Department staff and the Economic Development Commission to discuss this opportunity, and a public meeting was held on June 7' to provide information to the public. The next step is for the City Council to adopt a resolution to allow the application to be formally submitted. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that a creative district can go beyond traditional art and cultural activities to include creative technologies, graphic design, florists, breweries, and many more. She asked how these additional categories got included, and Director Hope said it was based on requirements and opportunities under the application. Board Member Robles noted that architects are listed as an activity that could occur in a "creative sector" and suggested that perhaps engineers should be included, as well. He pointed out that the City's current code explicitly excludes engineering firms from locating in the BD-1 zones, and it may be appropriate to explicitly include them in the creative district. Director Hope agreed that is an option but emphasized that the first step is to submit an application that meets the State requirements, and then people can get together to work on it. Board Member Robles observed that tech sectors are getting quite "artsy" and they belong in this same category. Chair Monroe asked for information about the consultant services contract, which was a topic of discussion at the June 7" Tree Board meeting. Director Hope answered that, over the past several years, the City has hired a consultant for the Tree Board (up to $6,000 per year) to help gather information, submit an application for Tree City U.S.A. and develop brochures and outreach materials. DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2015 calls for having a Housing Strategy to "increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels and to meet diverse housing needs." For the past several years, the Board has received information and had discussions about a variety of housing issues such as housing affordability, housing availability, housing types and changing demographics. Not counting the draft Housing Strategy, the Board has had housing issues on its agenda 35 times between early 2015 and 2018. Director Hope reminded the Board that an early draft of the Housing Strategy was presented to them on May 23' for discussion and review, and a public hearing was conducted on June 13t''. Since the hearing, the Board has received additional written comments from the public, which were forwarded to them. She also reminded the Board that the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force in the summer of 2017, which was primarily composed of housing specialists. The Task Force provided feedback on strategies on what the City could do to increase the supply of housing affordable for a range of people. The outreach program included a housing forum in the spring, several press releases and articles in the local news media, a dedicated webpage, Facebook, and other public notices and publications. The draft was also presented at a public open house on May 21 st. Director Hope explained that the draft Housing Strategy includes a lot of data and background information, followed by six priority objectives that cover a range of topics. She observed that the intent was to summarize the housing issues and provide some key information. The purpose of tonight's discussion is for the Board to respond to the following questions related to the draft document so staff can determine the next steps. • Does the draft Housing Strategy address a broad range of housing needs relevant to Edmonds? • Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that you particularly appreciated? • Are there aspects of the draft Housing Strategy that concern you or that need more clarification? • What is needed for the Planning Board's next meeting on this topic? Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that at the public hearing, she asked if any corporations within Edmonds are looking at sponsoring employee housing. Director Hope said there are none currently, and she doesn't know of any that are planning to, either. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that staff previously advised that the hospital may be considering this opportunity. Director Hope said that, currently, there is no clear plan to do so. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Housing Strategy could include an additional strategy to look at opportunities for corporations located in Edmonds to provide housing for their own employees. Director Hope pointed out that the Housing Strategy includes quite a bit about workforce housing, but it does not specifically focus on corporations. Chair Monroe recalled that some of the illustrations in the draft document show "tiny homes," which are not something the Board discussed or thought was relevant for Edmonds' needs. He suggested that these illustrations should be eliminated. He also commented that when discussing the needs of Edmonds, they are really talking about housing efficiency and the variety of sizing. The report did a good job of laying these needs out, but it could have done a better job of making it clear that the Board is concerned about housing sizes and not just housing prices. The thrust of the report is the need for a greater variety of housing options than what currently exist in Edmonds. Board Member Robles suggested that perhaps the list of housing needs could be articulated a little stronger to identify the different groups of people that the strategy is intended to address. The list could include people who want to age in place, school teachers, public safety workers, people who grew up in Edmonds and want to return, kids coming back to live with Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 2 parents, divorced couples, etc. Once they were able to get to these points in the public hearing discussion, people started to see how the City is trying to be creative by solving so many problems with a single solution. Board Member Robles noted that the strategy does not address entrepreneurial opportunities that offer a type of bridge product that allows someone to purchase a home with the promise of future cash flows from an ADU unit. Director Hope responded that the strategy does reference a non-profit organization (Community Land Trust) that offers this type of opportunity. Board Member Robles suggested that this reference could be expanded to include a variety of other products, such as crowd funding where a group of homeowners can borrow money from themselves in order to do renovation on a condominium structure. Currently, the only options are to assess all of the owners or borrow money from a bank at high interest. Entrepreneurial tools allow people to borrow the money from themselves, helping to distribute the load and restore housing that already exists. He felt these options could have a powerful impact on the strategy. Board Member Crank said she appreciated that the Housing Strategy deals with a diversity of housing options, plus trying to address some affordability and subsidized housing issues. As she explained at the public hearing, she lived previously in a community (Mountain View, CA) that used a Below Market Rate (BMR) program as one of its housing strategies. The program required developers of multi -use projects to set aside 10% of all new housing units for low and moderate -income persons. In many cases, the developers opted to pay an in -lieu fee instead of providing the units, and the in -lieu fee was used to build new affordable housing or support other affordable housing programs. She recalled that, at the public hearing, citizens were concerned that the Housing Strategy would result in a flood of people into Edmonds, but this was not part of the conversation in Mountain View because the program established priorities for who could live in the units. Based on a priority system, first preference was given to Mountain View public safety employees, public school teachers who work in Mountain View, households who live in Mountain View and households who have worked in Mountain View for at least two years. The simple supply and demand dictated that those who ended up in the affordable units would be people who were already there. The program was all about serving people who were already contributing members of the community, which she believes is also the spirit of the draft Housing Strategy. She suggested that being overt in saying who the plan is trying to serve and identifying certain priorities within the housing piece might allow the plan to garner more community support. Board Member Cloutier said he likes how the strategies are so explicitly stated rather than simply a list of wishes for better housing. The strategies in the plan are real and supported by research. He pointed out that Strategies 4 and 5 speak to the concerns about the homeless population and low-income housing, but additional language could be added to make sure it is clear that the plan is primarily intended to address the people who are already in Edmonds. The meaning of the words "low- income" will continue to change, and perhaps additional language could be added to be more explicit about the intent to continue dialogue rather than drawing the line based on today. Director Hope emphasized that "affordable housing" does not mean the type of housing that is typically considered "the projects." The challenge is that Area Median Income (AMI) is $96,000, which still isn't enough to get a lot of housing in the community. People who earn less than AMI have it even tougher. She pointed out that the Housing Strategy has 32 basic pages, plus some appendices, and only 1.5 pages are about homelessness issues. It recognizes the range and types of homelessness and provides strategies the City could use to address the problems. But the strategies are not plans, they are just ideas the City could consider. The City Council is doing a more detailed study on homelessness, itself, and they will be looking at the actual needs and issues in Edmonds and what more specifically the City should consider doing. Vice Chair Cheung said he appreciates the comprehensive nature of the draft Housing Strategy. He observed that the Board has discussed housing issues more than 35 times over the past few years, so the topics have evolved over time. Without having the Board's previous discussions to provide context, he can see how the strategy came across to citizens as primarily dealing with homelessness or low-income housing. He recalled that the Board discussed a variety of scenarios. For example, there is a large number of single-family homes with 3 or 4 bedrooms that are being filled with single individuals who might want to downsize for a variety of reasons but still stay in their community. Many of these are seniors who want to age in place. Currently, there are not a lot of options for 1 and 2-bedroom units. He recognized that not every scenario can be addressed in the Housing Strategy, but perhaps the narrative could be shifted to focus on the problems they are trying to solve and the people they are trying to help. Director Hope suggested that some graphics, such as the tiny homes, could be changed because they were intended to show a range of options rather than an actual proposal. She also agreed that it is important to be clear that the bulk of the strategy addresses moderate types of housing for average people, but recognizes situations where people may need special help, as well. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 3 Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the document is intended to be a high-level strategy and not a specific plan. He suggested it would be helpful to have a perspective slide showing the purpose of the strategy and emphasizing that nothing would change based solely on the strategy. Perhaps staff could throw out an example about how a problem could be addressed by referring to the strategy and then seeing it through to a code change, etc. However, it is important to be clear that the Housing Strategy is a guiding document, and future programs, code changes, etc. must be consistent. Director Hope agreed that the Housing Strategy is meant to provide a toolbox of ideas. Whatever is adopted, the next step will be to tease out strategies that could be put in place. Anything that requires a code change or funding will require more details and another public process. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, throughout all of the Board's discussions relative to housing, her main concern was the lack of a variety of housing stock. She likes that the strategy addresses a diverse housing stock, particularly the missing middle (duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc.). Through the process of reviewing information from the staff and consultant and hearing feedback from the public, the Board has been able to hone in on the idea of "caring for our own." She felt that the draft Housing Strategy responds well to this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that homelessness is more of a regional issue, and perhaps this could be stressed more in the strategy. Director Hope noted that one strategy calls for participating in South Snohomish County's strategies to reduce homelessness. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Edmonds must be part of a larger, regional effort to address homelessness. Chair Monroe voiced concern that the draft Housing Strategy explains the housing crisis, but it does not explain how it happened. Part of the answer is that there are a lot of regulations on the housing that is allowed to be constructed in Edmonds. He specifically pointed to the condominium laws and the Growth Management Act. These constraints have done nothing but depress the supply and increase demand. He felt the strategy does an adequate job of pointing out the need to remove some of the barriers that have been put in place so the market can take care of the rest. Chair Monroe pointed out that subsidized housing is a sticky issue for a lot of people. Many feel the strategy is asking people who can afford the housing they are living in to pay more property taxes to subsidizes housing for someone else. However, there are lot of strategies that aren't subsidized housing that could help solve the problem and get the City halfway to its goal. Of the six strategies, most do not require subsidized housing. Board Member Rosen thanked the public in attendance for taking the time to listen to the Board's discussion. He recalled that, at the public hearing, concern was raised about whether or not the community had an adequate opportunity to engage in the process, and he cautioned that the City may need to look at other opportunities and tools to make sure they are giving the public meaningful opportunities to express their concerns. Board Member Rosen said he likes the clarity of the draft Housing Strategy, recognizing it is a strategy and not a plan. However, he feels that part of his responsibility is to listen to and address more than just his opinion. He listened carefully to the people who spoke at the hearing and read all the written comments the Board received. He has also listened to the social media chatter that is going on about the topic, noting that there are a lot of strong feelings. While there is no consensus on a number of items, there are also some things everyone can agree on. For example, we want safety, and we want kids to be safe and to reach their potential. If they are in trouble, the community wants to rally to help. We want to protect the aesthetics of the community and protect the natural spaces. We don't want to compromise our property rights and values, and we don't mind if tourists come and spend their money and go away. Concerns he heard related to the strategy included questions about the validity and clarity of the statistics and their relevance to Edmonds and the public process. Although there has been a lot of outreach, perhaps the Board should include another step in the process to make sure everyone's voices are heard. There was concern about the unintended consequences or impacts of the strategies and whether or not the police and fire departments have been engaged in the process, and there was an assumption that the strategy intends to provide subsidized housing and that is why the document exists. More clarity in perspective and context would likely help. There was a perception that the strategy would result in increased density, with ugly, low-income boxes, that there would be more homeless population and crime and drug use would increase. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 4 Board Member Rosen summarized that there appears to be some philosophical differences driving the discussion, and you can like or not like the plan based on where you are standing. For example, there are some who are okay with exclusivity and believe that not everyone should be able to live in Edmonds. There was also a perception that homeless people choose that lifestyle and they are already provided with many options. These differences will drive the lens through which people look at the strategy. He summarized his belief that there are opportunities to improve the strategy in these areas, but he believes in and supports the strategy. Chair Monroe reviewed that the Board has reviewed the plan four times, and their views are a stark contrast to those of people who are seeing it for the first time. They need to do abetter job of communicating their positions. Board Member Robles suggested it would be beneficial to have local professionals (social scientists, scientists, etc.) in the community critique the plan and provide input as to whether or not the strategies are viable. He felt their points of view would be valid and something that people would listen to as opposed to a consultant who is hired by the City and has a vested interest. This concept could be added as a tool to study the value and endorse certain strategies. Board Member Crank went back to an analogy she made at the public hearing about "trying to put meat on the skeleton before putting the skeleton together." Without negating any of the feedback that has been given, she reminded the Board to keep in perspective that a lot of the suggestions are further down the line than what the Board needs to do to move the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council. People should not feel disappointed if certain concepts are not reflected in the strategy because it is not the right time for it. Again, she said a lot of what has been suggested are things that will come further down the pipeline. Director Hope emphasized the need to send the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council in the near future, and the next steps are very important. She suggested that staff make certain changes to reflect some of the things they have heard and to refine and clarify the document. The Board could review the updated draft and forward a recommendation to the City Council on July 11 '. The City Council could start their review on July 24' and hold a public hearing in early August. The public hearing could be followed by additional meetings, with the goal of final approval in late August or early September. She cautioned that the draft Housing Strategy cannot move forward to the City Council until the Planning Board has formulated its recommendation. Chair Monroe asked Director Hope to summarize the changes that would be made to the draft Housing Strategy based on input from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope identified the anticipated minor changes as follows: • More clarification and framing of the issues. • Changes to the graphics • Add a little more about scenarios • Emphasize they are talking about their neighbors, friends, family, etc. • Clean up the data and provide additional clarification Board Member Cloutier asked if the Board Members are satisfied with the strategies outlined in the document or are there missing strategies that need to be added. The Board Members indicated they were satisfied with the strategies as currently proposed. Board Member Cloutier summarized that it appears the Board is ready to move forward at the next meeting with the minor revisions. He re-emphasized the need to make it completely clear at the beginning of the next presentation that there is no proposal to change the codes. The draft Housing Strategy is simply intended to identify the problems and offer potential solutions. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the revisions suggested by the Board at their last meeting were incorporated into the document. Director Hope answered that staff would review all of the Board's discussions and incorporated their recommended changes prior to the next meeting. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the draft Housing Strategy provides the facts of the situation in Edmonds. The Board cannot be proactive in addressing the spectrum of issues unless it can agree to the scope of the issue. From letters received for the public hearing and from social media regarding the issue of homelessness, there is concern for the Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 5 accountability of tax money: Where is the funding coming from and how will the City assess success or impact? There is also concern to actively police the burgeoning presence of homeless camps and transient vehicle living. Rather than cast aspersion on the "downtrodden," Board Member Rubenkonig referred to one of the most poignant points she saw on social media, which proposed an action for our neighbors. "The money (reference to the $250,000 the City Council allocated for homelessness) could be used to help the elderly before they get behind in property taxes, or mortgage payments in Edmonds, and other individuals who have lost their jobs and may lose their homes in Edmonds. Maybe a qualification would be that the person needs to have lived in Edmonds for five years. " Board Member Rubenkonig also quoted another social media post, `Affordable housing would go a very long way toward helping get people off the streets. Ever heard of working homeless? " She commented that many homeless people hold down jobs, and many have children who are enrolled in the Edmonds School District. She cautioned that the words spoken by the Board at this meeting will not alter the problems their neighbors face tomorrow. She said she believes Edmonds cares but prefers to see a structured approach focusing on chosen priorities as identified by the City Council. Again, she expressed her belief that the report provides facts about Edmonds situation and possibly provides a direction to take. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if staff would propose a recommendation for the Board to consider at its next meeting. Director Hope said staff would identify the changes. Board Member Rubenkonig asked that staff provide the Board with some options as to how to craft the discussion and come up with a recommendation to the City Council. Director Hope explained that, typically, Planning Board recommendations are not expected to be big statements. The Board can recommend that the Council approve the document as is or with some changes. They do not need to summarize all of the various opinions. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW INTRODUCTION Mr. Lien reviewed that the City just completed a comprehensive update of the SMP in June of 2017. This update was a complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent with new regulations and guidelines that were adopted by the Department of Ecology (DOE) in 2003 (WAC 173-26). The Board completed its work on the comprehensive update in 2015, but it took a few years to get through the Council due to a few issues. Mr. Lien advised that the SMA requires each city and county in the State to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Given that they just completed the comprehensive review in 2017, only minor tweaks are needed at this time. He referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 4), which summarizes the amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic review. Most of the amendments are minor and no substantive changes are proposed. Mr. Lien said in addition to the potential amendments identified on the checklist, updates to the SMP may result from the site - specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City, including updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed -Use IV shoreline jurisdictions. He explained that the Edmonds Marsh was identified in the updated SMP as a Shoreline of the State, which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet from the edge of the marsh. In the previous SMP it was not considered a Shoreline of the State so the shoreline jurisdiction ended at the marsh. This new shoreline jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square was a controversial topic during the SMP update, and the City Council initiated the study to get more information about the marsh and appropriate buffers. At this time, he is not sure that the study will be completed in time to be incorporated into the periodic review. Mr. Lien said that another potential amendment is related to public hearings (ECDC 24.80.100). In the previous SMP, all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits went to the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision. With the updated SMP, only certain Shoreline Substantial Development Permits can go to the Hearing Examiner. If a Conditional Use Permit or design review is required, applications automatically go to the Hearing Examiner. However, minor projects that do not otherwise require a hearing are staff decisions. As per the current SMP, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits begin as a Type 11 staff decision and change to a Type III decision before the Hearing Examiner upon written request during the comment period. Staff will propose amendments to clarify this process in the SMC, likely using something similar to the Critical Area Contingent Review Process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Lien said that, in conjunction with the periodic review, staff is recommending that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) wetland regulations be revised for consistency with the DOE's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. He explained that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of the updated wetland guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance on wetlands. That means the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline jurisdictions. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide consistency for all wetland regulation within the City. The CAO amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board on July 11 th Mr. Lien said there was a recent code amendment that had to do with the amount of clearing that could occur without a Critical Area Report. However, this recent amendment does not currently apply within the shoreline jurisdiction. By re -adopting the CAO, the amendment will also be incorporated into the SMP, as well. Mr. Lien reviewed the work program approved by the City Council, including a public participation plan. He said the periodic review is due by June 30, 2019, and the intent is to have the work completed by that date. The Planning Board is scheduled to conduct a public hearing in September or October. Following the 30-day comment period, staff will compile and respond to the public comments. It is anticipated the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City Council by the end of 2018. He said he would bring back the specific code amendments that were identified in the checklist on July 25r' for Planning Board discussion. Chair Monroe asked how often the SMP will come before the Board for a periodic update, and Mr. Lien said the periodic update occurs once every eight years. The deadline for the next update is June 30, 2019. Chair Monroe asked if the City would have to wait another eight years to incorporate information from the Edmonds Marsh Study into the SMP if the study is not completed in time for the 2019 update. Mr. Lien answered that if the Edmonds Marsh Study recommends different buffers, the City could update the SMP before the next periodic update is required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the July 11 ' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Critical Areas Ordinance update and a continued discussion on the Draft Housing Strategy. The July 25' meeting agenda will include a presentation on the Shoreline Master Program periodic update, a public hearing on a rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 and a public hearing on a code update related to permit decision making. At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, the Board agreed to review their schedules and discuss possible dates for a Planning Board Retreat at their next meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe announced that Ms. Livingston, the Board's student representation, has resigned due to scheduling conflicts. He thanked her for her service and suggested the Board start the recruitment process to select a new representative. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she filled in for Board Member Lovell at the Economic Development Commission meeting on June 191. At the meeting, it was decided that the liaisons to the Commission would be given an opportunity to report on what their groups are doing. The intent is to invite one liaison to report at each meeting. She advised that the Commission is still interested in having a joint meeting with the Board. �IL111J 711u_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2018 Page 7