Loading...
Cmd012621EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES January 26, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "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." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 6.4, Council Code of Conduct, be removed from the Consent Agenda and added to Unfinished Business as Item 7.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 1 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps said he was making audience comment to warn the people of Edmonds about the affiliation with the Western District of Washington FBI. When he learned in 2015 what he being set up for, he began an email campaign to CNN.com which was the anthesis for a podcast by the president of CNN.com and former U.S. Attorney about the murder of Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Wells, a coverup. Episode 3 details Scott Lee Kimball. He encouraged the Council to watch it, it takes less than 10 minutes to learn what the FBI and the Western District of Washington is truly capable of. Scott Lee Kimball, while being paid by the FBI, murdered four people. The podcast doesn't say that he pled guilty to those murders in a court of limited jurisdiction in Bolder County, Colorado and likely is not in prison. He encouraged the Council to understand what the FBI and people affiliated with FBI are capable of doing. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ROBERT SCARR AND ERIK MORRISS FINISHED BUSINESS 1. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is the employment agreement that she referenced at the last Council meeting that addresses compensation for Acting Chief Lawless. The current policy does not provide him a step increase and only provides 5% over his base wages. He is topped out in his normal salary and is not due to receive a step increase. The employment agreement would provide him a step increase in the Police Chief wage range where he is currently placed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the date that Acting Chief Lawless was appointed Interim Chief. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered his current interim appointment ended January 22"d and the newest interim appointment started January 23d. The prior appointment would have begun six months prior to January 22"d; she did not have the exact date. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the interim appointment began with a 5% increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained acting duty pay provides a 5% increase over an employee's current wage. Had Acting Chief Lawless been confirmed by the City Council after the Mayor appointed him, Councilmember K. Johnson said he would have received a six month step increase. Therefore, had the Mayor appointed him, he would be at a higher level than his current appointment. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it would have depended on what he negotiated for his pay if he had been the appointee. She assumed it would have been close to what he's making out of class. She agreed any employee hired into a new position receives a step increase after six months. Councilmember K. Johnson observed going from Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 2 Assistant Chief to Police Chief would not have been lateral; he would have received some increase. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said six months later, he would have had another increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed the policy provides a step increase after the six month probation is completed. Councilmember K. Johnson said six months after that, having been in the position for a year, he would have received another increase in pay. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered potentially; if someone is hired in the first half of the year, they receive the step increase on January 1 of the subsequent year. If someone is hired in the second half of the year, they do not receive a step increase until the following January 1. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized the idea is after six months, an employee receives one step increase and at the end of the year, depending on the point in the year they were hired, they receive another increase. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that was accurate. Councilmember K. Johnson said theoretically if Assistant Chief Lawless had been hired for this position he would be three steps higher at the end of the year that he was appointed and confirmed. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed he would potentially be three steps higher. The salary ranges only go up to Step 7 and he is currently at Step 5. The proposed wage increase would place him at a Step 6. Councilmember K. Johnson said she will make a motion once other Councilmembers have had their questions answered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the policy for a temporary or conditional job offer, observing Acting Chief Lawless is a temporary employee and there is a separate policy related to step increases. She commented the power was out at her house and in the neighborhood. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the Acting Duty Pay Policy provides that any employee working in an acting capacity in a classification that is higher than the one they currently hold receives a 5% increase in pay. If for some reason their current wage on the salary schedule is so significantly below the acting range, they would at least get the first step in the pay range which can be more than a 5% increase if the employee moving into the acting position is in a much lower band. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained that was not the case with Acting Chief Lawless. The band for Deputy Chief is 19 and the Police Chief band is 21. Acting Chief Lawless was topped out on the Deputy Chief pay band at a Step 7 which equated to a Step 5 in the Police Chief band with a 5% increase. The language doesn't provide for a step increase as it does not contemplate that someone would get a step increase that's outside of policy. If someone is in an acting capacity and they received a regular step increase in their base pay, they would also receive a step increase in their acting duty pay to maintain the 5%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Acting Chief Lawless had only two steps to go to be at the top of the Police Chief band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed; he is currently at 5, it is proposed to provide him a step increase to Step 6, leaving only one more step as there are a total of 7 steps in the pay range. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Councilmember was interested in creating three steps which was not within the band. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed. Councilmember Olson commented an important facet for the Council to know and consider is the pay is not retroactive so there is some value in expediency and moving forward tonight as the new appointment has already started. Council President Paine asked if Acting Chief Lawless received a pay increase in his existing range, range 19, during this time frame. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered he has been topped out on that range for many years so he is not due any step increase in his regular base pay range. He has been a Deputy Chief for many years so he is topped out on that band. On January 1, he received the 2% wage adjustment that all Non -Represented employees received. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 3 COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING COMPENSATION FOR ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION OF HIS ACTING ASSIGNMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to make a different motion. City Clerk Scott Passey said if the motion is vastly different it may be considered a substitute motion, but if it is a minor amendment, it would be an amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said it would be a substitute amendment. As Councilmember K. Johnson began to make her motion, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating a motion could not be made when there was already a motion on the floor. The Council would need to vote down the original motion first. Mr. Passey advised another motion could be made that was a substitute for the original motion. Discussion returns to the main motion and any amendments, discussion then occurs on the substitute motion and the Council votes whether to substitute it for the main motion. Councilmember K. Johnson made the following motion in light of the fact that Acting Chief Lawless has performed his duties in an exemplary way during the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the fact that he has conducted himself in a calm, confident, and professional manner during the Police Chief recruitment: COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS BE AWARDED A MINIMUM OF A TWO STEP SALARY INCREASE. Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmember Distelhorst' restate his motion as she had not heard the entire motion due to interruptions. Councilmember Distelhorst restated his motion: TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING COMPENSATION FOR ACTING CHIEF LAWLESS DURING THE REMAINING DURATION OF HIS ACTING ASSIGNMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA PACKET TONIGHT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many steps were in the current employee agreement. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it was one step which equals a 5% increase in pay. Mayor Nelson asked about the process. Mr. Passey said if the motion to substitute is not changed or amended, the Council would vote whether to substitute Councilmember K. Johnson's motion for the main motion. If that motion failed, the main motion stands. Council President Paine said some fast math regarding the second motion indicated it be an additional $4,000-$4,500 for the remaining six months, the difference between Step 6 and 7 of Range 22 according to the employment agreement. Ms. Neill Hoyson offered to calculate the exact difference. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether there were any issues with proposing something like this. She assumed it was a little unusual but asked if it was so out of the ordinary that issues may be discovered later. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered Mr. Lawless is not required to serve as the Acting Chief if he is not paid a wage he is willing to work for. If he were unwilling to work for a particular wage and the Council approved the wage he was asking for, there was nothing improper about that. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there were any issues with the two-step amendment. Mr. Taraday answered there was no cap; other than staying within the approved salary scale, he was not aware of any City policy that prevented the Council from approving the substitute motion. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 4 with Mr. Taraday; there is nothing the Council would run afoul of as far as policy. What the Council is considering is outside of current policy which is why the Council is addressing it via an employment agreement rather than current policy. The Council can choose to compensate Mr. Lawless in the manner they wish to and there is no issue as long as it is within the pay band established for the Police Chief. With regard to Council President Paine's question, Ms. Neill Hoyson said the additional compensation for 6 months for 2 steps rather than 1 step would be $4,187. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of Councilmember K. Johnson's motion was to increase Acting Chief Lawless from Range 22 Step 5 to Range 22 Step 7. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that was how she understood Councilmember K. Johnson's motion, rather than a 1-step increase to take him to Step 6, a 2-step increase to Step 7. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her support for that motion. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if he could withdraw his motion or should it be handled in the way Mr. Passey previously stated. Mr. Passey advised it would be in order to withdraw the motion. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed this Council owed a debt of gratitude to Acting Chief Lawless. This would be one way in which the Council could express that gratitude while still acknowledging that the City was headed on new path for a Police Chief. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. 2. COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.2) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND 6.2.A TO REMOVE "AVOIDING AGGRESSIVE" SO THAT THE SECTION READS "USING RESPECTFUL LANGUAGE AND AVOI 1NG AGTONES." Council President Paine recalled this had been voted on at the last meeting and questioned what had changed. Councilmember Buckshnis answered nothing had changed, she and Councilmember Olson discussed this due to her concern this was extremely subjective and Councilmember Olson suggested she present it to Council for consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis said aggressive tones can be defined in many different ways. She was concerned the new code of conduct was very subjective and the most subjective was aggressive tones. She observed Councilmembers, the Mayor and others can say someone is using aggressive tones because it is a question of definition. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said use of aggressive tones has been one of issues the Council has had in the last IV2 years. She agreed it was subjective, but it would be up to Council to decide whether they believed an aggressive tone was used or perhaps it was the individual themselves. She did not support this amendment to the code of conduct. Councilmember Olson recalled one of things the subcommittee discussed and was included in the finishing language of the code of conduct was that it be something the whole body was behind. In the final analysis, if this such a sticking point and something that members were significantly opposed to, it would be better for the order to remove that item. She expressed support for removing the language. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the phrase begin with "use" rather than "using" as that was correct grammar. She preferred the statement read, "use respectful language." Unless someone can provide an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 5 example of an aggressive tone used in the last year or the problem this language seeks to solve, it was her opinion that no one had been beyond the range of appropriate behavior. Council President Paine pointed out the Council had just approved the minutes that included the discussion from last week; there was a 3-4 vote on this same amendment last week. She questioned whether this motion was proper. She heard what Councilmembers were saying, but the Council voted to include "avoiding aggressive." Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Passey if the motion was proper. Mr. Passey advised Councilmember have the right to pull items from Consent because it implies unanimous consent; items can be pulled for a separate vote. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification, if a specific element had been voted on during a previous meeting, it can be revisited by pulling it from the Consent Agenda and voting again. Mayor Nelson said that was his understanding. Councilmember Distelhorst said lie hears the conversation and was surprised. Being respectful and civil along with other language in the code of conduct about inflammatory and insulting language, conduct and decorum was expected of the Council, in business or in a volunteer organization. He hoped that everyone could follow that language and decorum. He worried when conversations strayed into what has happened in the past, as one of the goals of the subcommittee was to have a global document that was not based on past experience but a document that would apply now as well as in the future and keep Council in its conduct focused on policy, decorum and working toward solutions. He was struggling slightly, especially with the self -enforcing nature of the document; he did not expect that Councilmember would continually be sending emails entitled code of conduct reminder, but rather that this would be a self -reference guide much the same as the Council uses Robert's Rules of Order. Councilmember Buckshnis said this new code of conduct is too subjective, it sets the stage for retribution by a simple majority and can create a tribunal setting. Resolution 1306 that covered the Mayor, Council, boards and commissions and working groups was sufficient despite the fact the reason for this new code of conduct was never stated. In her opinion, the reason to divert to this very subjective and expansive code of conduct was to define that Councilmembers can put themselves in jeopardy, particularly those in the minority and she has seen that happen. She did not support this code of conduct because it was far too subjective and the biggest issue was the reference to aggressive tones. She pointed out that is not addressed in Robert's Rules and she preferred Resolution 1306. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out Robert's Rules of Order, which the Council has previously adopted, includes a chapter on tribunals and trials of Councilmembers and, therefore, it was not contemplated in the code of conduct. The subcommittee had not considered that other than recognizing it existed in Robert's Rules. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO STRIKE "THE CITY ATTORNEY" IN THE CHAPTER HEADING OF 6.2, SO IT READS, "CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she thought that had been done last week. Councilmember Distelhorst answered it was removed from 6.2.1), but not from the title of 6.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 6 COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE UNDER 6.E THE LAST WORDS, "OR OTHERWISE INTRUDING ON THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS." Councilmember K. Johnson said this was too broad a statement. It is the Mayor prerogative to tell the Council what they can and can't do. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this language provides clarity to the Council's responsibilities. She received more complaints last year regarding Council's abrupt interaction with staff such as walking into offices and demanding staff do certain things. This clarifies for Council that that is not their role. She encouraged Councilmembers to vote against removing this language. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STRIKE 6.3.E, THAT DISCUSSES WHEN ATTENDING A NON -CITY SPONSORED EVENT, MEETING, CONFERENCE OR OTHER ACTIVITY, COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ONLY. Councilmember K. Johnson explained when she attends many events, she is there because she is a City Councilmember and is expressing that point of view. She is not there as Kristian Johnson, citizen of the City of Edmonds, but as an Edmonds City Councilmember. She said her experience should provide some weight to this. Due to COVID, many Councilmember have not had the experience of going to meetings, conferences or other activities, but she guaranteed when they attended, they were there as a Councilmember, not as an individual. Council President Paine commented she reads 6.3.E differently, to her that sentence means a person is acting as their own self as a Councilmember and not representing the full Council and she believed that was the interpretation during abundant discussion last week. This same motion was made last week and the situation has not changed. She did not support deleting that section. Councilmember Distelhorst said he had the same understanding, recalling a lengthy discussion last week where the section was reworded to make it clearer. Including "Councilmembers shall do so" clarified that a Councilmember was representing themselves as an individual Councilmember and not the Council as a body. What the maker of the motion stated is consistent with the language in this section; a Councilmember represents themselves as a Councilmember, but were not representing the Edmonds City Council. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND 6.3.E, TO READ "...SHALL DO SO IN AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER CAPACITY ONLY...". UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 7 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the BLM rally, a Councilmember spoke and indicated they were representing the City which can lead to a dangerous situation. This amendment may resolve that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT AS AMENDED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. NEW BUSINESS COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT #2 HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is an amendment to the employment agreement with Maureen Judge that addresses her continued employment for 2021. As with past renewals of this employment contract, it goes from February 1 of the current year through January 31 of the following year. Her evaluation may have been completed; if not, the Council can still choose to proceed with the agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated administration drafting the employment agreement and asked whether that was a legislative role that should be handled by the Council President. Council President Paine explained said she asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to put this on the Council's agenda and make the presentation about the changes to the contract to ensure it was in compliance with standard practices for Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled as a contract employee previously, Ms. Judge did not have benefits. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she is a full-time regular employee and receives benefits in the same manner as other Non -Represented employees. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was proposal, and asked whether she received benefits in the past or was she strictly a contract employee without benefits. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it appears she has always had access to City benefits. The one difference in her contract is she accrues vacation leave at a higher rate than a Non -Represented employee based on years of service; she accrues leave at 10 hours/month which is higher than she would receive based on her years of service if she were a regular Non -Represented, non -contracted employees. There is no proposed change to that in the proposed agreement amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council previously agreed to provide the legislative/administrative assistant a higher leave rate versus a higher salary. Her evaluation has not been completed but is in process. She has heard only good things about the Council's legislative/administrative assistant. This last year has been monumental due to her assisting with the training of four new Councilmember during a pandemic. Ms. Judge has put energy into making everyone feel welcome and assisted and her evaluation will reflect that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTRODUCTION DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 8 Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien commented this is the long awaited tree regulation update. He reviewed: Urban Forest Management Plan 0 2014/2015 Tree Code Update ■ Did not have policies in place to support code update 0 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan Tree Regulations Update Goals o Improve tree retention with new development on private property o Implement low impact development principles o Establish a Tree Fund o Other updates ■ Definitions ■ Existing permitting process ■ Penalties Related UFMP Goals o Goal 1 —Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not meet the no net loss policy. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds Draft Tree Regulations o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC IN Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, violations o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund ECDC 23.10.020 - Definitions o Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) -Diameter of tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground o Significant tree —A tree with at least 6-inch DBH o Protected tree —A tree identified for retention and protection, or a replacement tree required during development of a site ECDC 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development o Short Subdivision (up to four lots) o Subdivision (five or more lots) o New multi -family development o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single- family house o Tree removal on developed site not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040 ECDC 23.10.040 - Exemptions o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas o Removal of non -significant trees not protected by other means o Removal of trees for utility maintenance o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park's Department Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 9 o Routine landscaping and maintenance ■ Trees previous topped can be topped to previously topped level o Exemption with supporting documentation ■ Hazard Tree Removal ■ Nuisance Tree Removal ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited o Removal of protected trees unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees o During permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct demolition activity o Trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in Chapters 23.40 —23.90 ECDC ■ Trees and Development o First retain existing trees o Second replace trees that are removed o Third pay for trees removed but not replaced • ECDC 23.10.060.0 — Tree Retention Requirements o ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention for Pro used Develo tnent -Development Retention Requirement New single family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site o Retention Priority ■ Priority 1 —Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas, trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH ■ Priority 2 —Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a screen function, other significant native and nonnative trees • Priority 3 —Alders and cottonwoods • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement o Replacement required for each significant tree removed o Number of required replacement based diameter of trees removed: 0 6 inches to 10 inches DBH —1 replacement tree required ■ 10.1 inches to 14 inches DBH —2 replacement trees required ■ Above 14 inches —3 replacement trees required • ECDC 23.10.080.E — Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu o A fee -in -lieu may by allowed after consideration of all other options o $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees required to satisfy the replacement requirement but not planted o Paid into the City's Tree Fund • ECDC 23.10.085 — Protected Trees Notice on Title o The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design o Provide flexibility during subdivision design to aid in tree retention o Setbacks ■ No street setback less than 15 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 10 ■ No rear setback less than 10 feet • No side setback less than 5 feet o Lot size may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone o Coverage on individual lots may be increased as long as the overall coverage allowed by the zone is not exceeded o Allow variations in access widths Chapter 3.95 ECC — Tree Fund o Funding Sources Revenue from Chapter 23.10 ECDC: fee -in -lieu or civil fines • Civil penalties from critical area violations • Donations or grants for tree purposes ■ Other monies allocated by the City Council o Funding Purposes • Tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds ■ Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional ■ Paying for services that support urban forest management and health ■ Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City ■ Purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes o Funds from fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting (added by Planning Board) ECDC 23.10.030 - Permits o Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 processed as Type I permit o Planning Board receptive to the Council referring consideration of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed from a single family lot without critical areas in a given period. (Removal of trees on private property a controversial topic during previous Tree Code proposal and will require more staff to administer such a policy) o Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties o Civil Penalties ■ Economic benefit derived from violation ■ Appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or larger ■ $1,500 for trees less than 12 inches DBH o Aiding and Abetting: Tree cutter equally liable as property owner Development Examples o Next five slide are examples of implementing the draft regulations o Compare the fee -in -lieu tree fund payments with other development fees o City Impact Fees ■ Traffic - new single family residence $6,249.14 ■ Parks - new single family residence = $2,734.05 o Utility Charges ■ Water - 3/a" meter = $5,050 ■ Sewer — new single family +$4,417 o Credit is given for existing development New Single -Family Development 0 15 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 5 Trees o Tree Retained — 6 Trees o Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 11 o Required replacement trees not planted 22 o Tree Fund Payment $22,000 o Retain one additional tree and plant three more ■ $16,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450 2. Short Subdivision — Four Lots 0 41 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 12 Trees o Trees Retained — 13 Trees o Assume 3 Trees/lot — 12 Trees o Required replacement trees not planted — 58 Trees o Tree Fund Payment - $58,000 o Retain 8 additional trees ■ $37,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $55,351 3. Subdivision —Ten Lots 0 90 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 27 Trees o Trees Retained — 20 o Assume 3 Tree/lot — 30 o Required replacement trees not planted — 98 o Tree Fund Payment - $98,000 o Retain 1 additional tree and plant 4 per lot ■ $85,000 Tree Fund Payment o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $129,151 4A. Conservation Subdivision Design (Standard) 0 153 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 46 Trees o Trees Retained — 15 Trees o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees o Required Replacement trees not planted — 315 o Tree Fund Payment - $315,000 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801 4B.Conservaton Subdivision Design (Flexible) 0 153 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention — 46 Trees o Trees Retained — 62 Trees o Assume 3 Tree/Lot — 12 Trees o Required Replacement trees not planted — 202) o Tree Fund Payment - $202,000 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801 5. Multi -Family Development —10 Unit Apartment 0 8 Trees Predevelopment 0 25% Retention —2 Trees o Trees Retained — 0 Trees o Required Replacement Trees —18 Trees o Tree Planted — 36 Trees o Tree Fund Payment - $0 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $38,595 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 12 Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board talked a lot about the fee -in -lieu program including changing the replacement ratio or the dollar value per tree to be paid into the fund. The Planning Board felt it was important to have a higher cost as an incentive; if there is a cost for trees not planted, developers will make a greater effort to retain trees rather than pay the fee into a tree fund. The Planning Board considered different levels of flexibility, but forwarded a recommended with a higher dollar value. Mr. Lien advised a public hearing on the tree code is scheduled for February 2°d-. The Planning Board minutes are included in the packet. The Planning Board forwarded other recommendations along with the tree code. Comments raised at the Planning Board included view issues which are not addressed in this code and removal of trees on developed properties without critical areas. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating many people have stated the round robin format is inefficient and ineffective. The Council just passed a code stating Councilmembers should not dominate a meeting. She suggested the Council vote whether to do round robin or not. There may be Councilmembers who do not have questions and it is an ineffective method of handling Zoom meetings. Rather than taking time to ask if Councilmembers have questions and some replying they do not have a questions, she preferred Councilmembers ask questions and not use the round robin format. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the round robin format was presented to Council during training on Robert's Rules of Order. Further, it keeps one or two Councilmembers from dominating the conversation and not allowing others an opportunity to speak. She concluded round robin was a fair way to allow everyone to participate and not be dominated by Councilmembers who get their hands up quickly and have multiple questions. Council President Paine preferred round robin for at least the first round of questions to ensure all voices were heard. Councilmember Olson agreed with Council President Paine, doing round robin for the first round of questions followed by Councilmember raising their hands to ask questions. Mayor Nelson concluded the format would be round robin for the first round and then try individual Councilmembers and see how that goes. Councilmember Olson thanked staff, recognizing that this has been a huge project and the proposal is a great start. She was surprised at the tree retention; she thought if the 30% was met, there would not be fee versus the proposal which includes a fee even if the retention requirement was met and exceeded. She asked Mr. Lien to address that as well as comment on what other cities have done. Mr. Lien displayed the following: • Other Jurisdictions Retention and Replacement Requirements o Lynnwood ■ No specific retention requirement ■ Replacement based on "tree units" derived from diameter of tree cut ■ Fee -in -lieu option: ■ $187 per tree ■ $106 per tree if site cannot support required number of replacement trees o Shoreline ■ 20% of significant trees required to be retained, 30% if critical areas are present ■ Replace required if more required percent of trees are not retained Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 13 is Up to three trees are required for tree removed depending on tree size 41 No Tree Fund or Fee -in -lieu option o Redmond 35% of significant trees required to be retained One to one replacement required for each significant removed, except landmark trees (30" dbh) required to be replaced at 3:1 No tree fund, but fee -in -lieu to cover the cost of tree replacement Mr. Lien explained other cities have fee -in -lieu of programs but it was more tied to when the tree retention requirements were not met. Tree requirements vary from coverage, percentage of significant trees, and tree units cut. In the proposed code, the fee -in -lieu is for any tree cut. The Planning Board discussed that and the reason they had a fee for every tree not replaced was the overall no net loss goal in the UFMP. Trees are removed with development, if only 30% are retained, 70% are being cut. When a tree is cut, it should be replaced and larger trees replaced with a different ratio. The intent behind the Planning Board direction was by requiring a fee -in -lieu and those funds used to purchase trees for planting in the City of Edmonds, that was one way to help achieve the no net loss goal. Councilmember Olson recalled in one of the examples a higher number of trees needed to be replaced than had existing on the lot before it was developed. That seemed extreme and almost punitive. She understood development was taking down big trees and replacing them with smaller trees, but to expect the developer to have more trees than were on the original lot seemed a little odd. Mr. Lien said in every instance more trees were required to be replaced than existed previously due to the replacement ratio. On most of the examples, a lot of the trees were over 14 inches in diameter; for every tree 14 inches in diameter, 3 replacement trees are required to be replanted. Councilmember Olson asked if that was done in other cities or was it only in Edmonds. Mr. Lien said for the fee -in -lieu of for trees that cannot be planted, the proposed flat fee was different than other jurisdictions. Lynnwood has a flat fee of $208. In most other jurisdictions, the fee -in -lieu of was the cost of purchasing and planting the tree. Parks indicated the cost to purchase and plant a tree is approximately $350. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Lien, Ms. Hope and the Planning Board; any time there is a 275 page agenda item it is clear a lot of work across many months has gone into it. Observing a public hearing was coming up, he highlighted things he appreciated such as all the comparisons of different types of properties and developments from single family to multi -family to apartments and how those impacts are handled, low impact development, and creative solutions that work for both housing and the environment. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the desire was to get some code in place and then look at the other issues or include regulations for existing developed properties now. Mr. Lien said he will take direction from the Council, but when this started the largest complaint was clearcutting when properties are developed so that was addressed first. Removal of trees on all properties was a point of contention during the last tree code update so the first step was to address tree retention with development via this code, but the Planning Board's recommendation indicted a desire to have that issue forwarded back to them. More will need to be done to meet no net loss. Other things to consider next include a heritage tree program which would recognize significant trees throughout the City, looking into incentives — financial incentives that can be provided to property owners to retain trees on a site such as reduction in the City's portion of property tax, reduction in stormwater utility fees, etc. Development Services Director Hope said staff considered the most critical issue; the thing that came up most was what happens with trees as development occurs. Staff focused primarily on that and closely related issues such as a tree fund, recognizing that rather than take another 6-10 months to address all the other issues that could be included in a tree ordinance, focusing on the critical issue, recognize there are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 14 more issues, but adopting these regulations that focus on concerns that have been raised and direction Council has already given staff. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the team that developed the code as well as for the packet, noting the Planning Board minutes are extremely valuable. She was hopeful some things could be remanded back to the Planning Board. Private property is a hot topic, but consideration needs to be given to tree canopy and no net loss. In Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery, the tribes are talking about net ecological gain. She asked what percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property would be considered. Mr. Lien answered this code applies to development on private property. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the code applied to development, her question was in regard to existing homes. Mr. Lien answered his research found there have been an average of 10 subdivisions (short subdivisions and formal subdivisions) per year over the last 10 years. He did not now how many vacant properties had been developed with a single family home. There has been a lot of redevelopment that this code would apply to as well. to He displayed a table from UFMP that shows the existing canopy coverage as of 2015: Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9,5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8,9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: s 30.3%v existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) 1,6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground • 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation • 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) • From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of 3,495 acres Private residential properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. o Among parks in Edmonds, Southwest County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) Mr. Lien noted private residential properties have most of the canopy (83%), followed by public (12.9%) and commercial (4.1%). Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the examples in the presentation, expressing hope that when the housing stock changes, instead of 10 big houses, there would be more. She was hopeful LID will also have a positive impact on tree canopy. Council President Paine said she was on the Tree Board during the last effort that included single family residential option; the joke was people were out with pitchforks or chainsaws. She was glad this was being presented to Council. One of the things that most concerned her and others in the conservation community was the loss of canopy cover, the loss of contiguous canopy cover and wildlife corridors. She asked if better protections for groves and contiguous canopy cover were added along with elements in draft code, would that put the brakes on having this coming together. She asked how adding protections for groves and the understory rather than just single specimen trees would change the draft tree code. She recalled the UFMP called for maintaining 30% canopy cover. She expressed interest in an annual update on the canopy cover to provide metrics to judge against. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.060.C, Tree Retention Requirements, commenting retaining trees in a grove is better from an ecology standpoint as well as survivability of those trees (less subject to windthrow). He referred to the retention priority in ECDC 23.10.060.0 noting on some sites, all the trees are in the developable area. When developers are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 15 looking at a site and working with the City, the highest priority is given to big trees and trees that form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical area as well as larger trees. Priority 2 is small tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around the perimeter, trees that perform a screen function. Priority 3 are the non -desirable urban trees (alder and cottonwoods). With regard to wildlife corridors, Mr. Lien said most are associated with other critical areas such as streams which are protected by the CAO. In the RS-12 and RS-20 zones in north Edmonds, there are larger properties due to the presence of critical area slopes. The tree code together with the critical area code provides more protection for habitat corridors. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked staff for the presentation and for their dedication to updating this code. She appreciated many part of the draft, particularly the prioritization of LID. This has been a long process and during that time a lot of tree canopy has been lost. Edmonds prides itself on its climate action goal of 1.5% or less from preindustrial levels and trees play a critical role in carbon sequestering. Instead of no net loss, she suggested a goal of net ecological gain. To meet the 1.5% goal, the City will have to gain back some of what has been lost. She suggested this code mirror other efforts by setting a higher goal. Mr. Lien referred to the development of the UFMP which includes a no net loss goal as well as discussions around what the City's goal for an overall canopy cover should be. The City was at 30% in 2015; should that be the goal or should it be 40%. If the goal is higher, that policy needs to be established by Council before code is drafted. If the Council wanted to retain trees on developed single family property, the Planning Board has discussed a coverage requirement. The way the code is currently drafted, a site with no trees is not required to retain any trees and they do not have a replacement ratio. Mr. Lien explained at least one Planning Board Member was interested in establishing a coverage requirement. For example, should there be a 30% coverage requirement versus a 30% retention requirement. There are many ways jurisdictions establish coverage, some do tree credits based on the size of trees, basal areas, density, etc. If the Council wanted to consider a net ecological gain or a specific canopy coverage goal for the City in the future, the policy would need to be established first and then consider code language to meet that. In addition to code, consideration should be given to incentives to encourage people to retain trees on their sites. Education is a big part of that; for example, a large healthy tree within a certain distance of a house is not necessarily a hazard tree. A more holistic approach that includes education, incentives, tree vouchers, etc. will be required for a net gain. Ms. Hope said the goal for the canopy matters less than the actions taken to improve the situation. It is impossible to determine the exact canopy, but there can be a goal to do better. It can be addressed by code as well as incentives, special programs, planting the right tree, etc. It needs to be looked at holistically, recognizing this is an important start but it is not the end. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for the much anticipated tree code, commenting staff and the Planning Board have done an excellent job. She asked how it was envisioned the tree fund would be spent, where and on what. Mr. Lien displayed the slide regarding Chapter 3.95 ECDC - Tree Fund which identified funding purposes such as tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds, paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional, paying for services that support urban forest management and health, acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City and purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes. He noted the addition by the Planning Board that funds for the fee -in -lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting, was added before he prepared the examples. There could be a significant amount of money paid into the tree fund if the fee - in -lieu of program was structed the way it was proposed. If there continues to be ten subdivisions per year that are similar to the examples, there could be $200,000 in the tree fund in a given year which equates to a lot of tree purchases. He suggested the Council consider whether those funds could be used for preserving wooded areas as well. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 16 Mr. Lien said he understood the Planning Board's intent to require funds from the fee -in -lieu program be used to purchase trees for planting, but that could be a significant dollar amount and there were only so many places to plant trees within the City. He recalled some citizens commented on the importance of tree canopy in the northwest and suggesting rather than only using the funds in Edmonds, they could be used to participate in other programs such as Mountain to Sounds Greenway. He was uncertain restricting the fee -in -lieu of program to purchasing trees for planting was realistic. Councilmember K. Johnson liked the idea of acquiring, maintaining and purchasing wooded areas as that may create opportunities over time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Lien's comments about civil penalties and his reference to a clearcutting incident that occurred on a weekend. It was her understanding that that landowner never paid a civil penalty. Mr. Lien said they paid at least $100,000 for that tree cutting. A settlement agreement was reached with the developer on that site. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it was considerably less than what the current policy required. Mr. Lien answered not with the policy that was in place at that time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the landowners were charged the value required by the policy in place at that time. Mr. Lien answered he was not 100% sure, that occurred in 2003 before he came to the City and he did not recall exactly what the fines were or how many trees were cut. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it was in 2011. Mr. Lien said Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may be recalling a different incident than he was. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her question was whether landowners were charged for the cost of clear cutting. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.100 — Violation, Enforcement and Penalties slide, noting the penalties are not a straight up flat fee. Civil penalties are determined by the economic benefit derived from violation, appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or higher, and $1,500 for tree less than 12 inches DBH. Assessment of fines in the past was not simply the maximum; a number of things are considered when assessing fines such as did the property owner know it was a violation. If they were told they could not cut a tree(s) and did it anyway, that property owner might get a higher fine. If a property owner flat out did not know what they were doing and they were responsive to staff when they were made aware of the violation, they would receive a lower fine. There is some subjectivity in fines. The fines listed in ECDC 23.10.10 are the maximum fines but each situation is different. With regard to tree replacement, Councilmember Olson said the Planning Board also considered a tree bank option, trees could be planted elsewhere if there was not a place within Edmonds. She recalled a Council comment about obtaining an annual tree canopy assessment, pointing out that is a big expense and was probably too often for the City to afford. The moratorium that the Council put in place awaiting the tree code puts a great sense of urgency on the Council. There is more than one way move forward and lift the moratorium which was motivated by development; one way would be to support the proposal related to development and then develop a plan for addressing other issues and modifying the code in the future. With regard to tree replacement, Council President Paine asked when a large Doug fir or big leaf maple in good condition was removed, were equivalent trees supposed to be planted or could it be a tree like a dogwood which would not provide the same canopy. Mr. Lien displayed ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement, explaining if a 30-inch Douglas fir was cut down, there was no equivalent replacement tree which was the reason for different replacement ratios; the larger the tree, the more replacement trees. Over time the trees will grow into big trees but whatever is planted to replace a large tree will not be the same. He compared it to mitigation ratios within wetland and critical area, an impact to a wetland is required to be replaced at a higher ratio. For example, the proposed code requires 3 replacement trees for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 17 the removal of one tree above 14 inches. He concluded there was not a straight apples to apples comparison because a big tree cannot be planted. Council President Paine agreed a big tree could not be planted but pointed out planting two small dogwoods would not result in the same canopy as if a large tree were retained. She noted the replacement tree list encouraged planting of native trees. Mr. Lien said the tree code does not mention what type of tree should be planted. The concept of right tree in the right place was discussed during adoption of the UFMP. If a 100-foot tree is cut in a view area, the residents uphill may not be happy if a 100-foot tree is replanted and a 25-foot tree may be the right tree in that situation. The code could state native trees are preferred, but not everyone wants native trees when landscaping their property. Council President Paine commented replacement trees planted as part of redevelopment or new development may not provide similar canopy. Mr. Lien said this code is based on numbers not coverage ratios. A developer retains 30% of the number of trees on the site. That somewhat equates to coverage, but different tree species provide different coverage. For example, a big leaf maple may not grow as tall as a Doug fir, but the coverage of a big leaf maple is times a Doug fir. Conversely an evergreen weeping Alaskan cedar hardly provides any canopy and will add little to the coverage. Snohomish County has a coverage requirement that requires calculating the coverage in 20 years based on the species of tree planted. That type of code is more difficult to implement. Ease of implementation of the code needs to be balanced with understanding. There are many ways to look at it, the proposal is a straight retention requirement. Ms. Hope said sometimes replacement trees provide more canopy. There are a lot of considerations, whether the trees are in the right place to avoid interference with utilities, etc. Rather than micromanage each site, it seemed if there were good incentives, education and a requirement to plant trees, a reasonable balance could be found. Council President Paine said she truly understood the importance of placement. She had house fire because a tree rubbed on the power line and caused an electrical fire. With regard to replacement trees, Mr. Lien recalled the Tree Board has been working on a tree list that can be provided to property owners with tree heights, canopy spread, etc. That is one of the education pieces for right tree, right place. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to packet page 130 under exemptions, Item E states "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone." If a tree had been topped improperly, for safety reasons it may need to be topped back to the previous point; she asked if that was "may" or "must." She suggested rather than providing a flat exemption, there could be an incentive to regrow topped trees. She asked if that was a possibility. Mr. Lien provided an example of a single stem evergreen tree such as Doug fir or hemlock; when those trees are topped, they do not grow back the way they should and there are large lateral branches that are not as secure and become a safety issue. That is why trees that have been previously topped can be topped to the previously topped level. If a tree has not been topped and it is on a property that is not exempt it cannot be topped; that is considered cutting a tree. There are a number of trees in the City that have been topped and re -topped and it is a matter of safety and health of the tree to maintain it at that height. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this area grows a lot of evergreen trees and few of them have actually been planted. They self -seed sometimes in the wrong place, but they are magnificent, grow well, and love the soil, conditions and rain. She supported encouraging native trees whenever possible. Ornamental trees are no comparison for the height, coverage or beauty of a native tree. She expressed concern with ECDC 23.10.040 exemptions that allows for the removal of trees on an improved single family lot without critical areas. She frequently hears chainsaws in her neighborhood where people are removing trees on improved single family lots and she wanted that practice to be controlled. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 18 Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson's comment about getting something approved. She was also interested in getting a timeline from the administration about working on other aspects such as no net loss. Since the last tree canopy assessment occurred in 2015, she knew of at least 7 pocket forests of Doug firs that had been removed. She expressed interest in having a new tree canopy assessment done. She also had concerns with some of the exemptions such as nuisance trees and the director being allowed to make decisions. For example in tree replacement, the director may consider smaller -size replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited. This is a good start, but the City's tree canopy needs to be monitored and hopefully enhanced and the ecological net gain improved. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timeframe for addressing other aspects of the code to address no net loss, tree canopy, etc. Mr. Lien advised that was not on his schedule yet. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that needed to be figured out. Although the priority was tree retention with development, she wanted a promise from the administration on a timeframe for other aspects of the code. Ms. Hope answered staff will be working on that, but had prioritized the most crucial things. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the housing issue will also play a part in this. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 3. TITLE 19 BUILDING AND FIRE CODE UPDATES Development Services Director Shane Hope commented there is a lot of technical information on this subject. She explained the building codes are updated approximately every three years. The City follows the state rules and guidelines and are very similar to other cities. Building Official Leif Bjorback • Adoption of 2018 International Codes o Building and Fire Codes are contained in Title 19 of the ECDC o Building code updates normally on 3-year cycle • Delay due to state integration with national code • Delays due to COVIDI9 0 2018 building and fire codes effective statewide February 1 • Edmonds building and Fire Code o Objectives of the update ■ Maintain compliance with state requirements for adoption by February • Maintain alignment with the base (national) codes • Align with the standards and practices of mybuildingpemit.com ■ Provide minor clean-up • Sample Code Changes 0 19.00 International Building Code (IBC) • Requirements for medical gas rooms moved from the Fire Code into the Building Code • New requirements for Mass Timber construction ■ Gender neutral restroom facilities allowed in lieu of separate facilities per Washington state amendment 0 19.05 International Residential Code (IRC) • Heat detectors now required in garages in new homes • Washington state adopting Appendix Q, standards for tiny houses • City of Edmonds adopting Appendix E, standards for manufactured homes ■ 19.10 Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA) o Minor modifications to clarify the applicability of this chapter to only the North Edmonds ESLHA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 19 o Clarifications to project posting requirements Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer reviewed the following sample code changes: o 19.25 Fire Code (IFC) * Minor changes to sprinkler room access ■ No significant changes to fire sprinkler requirements Clarification of high rise definition Mr. Bjorback continued his review of sample code changes: o 19.30 Energy Code (WSEC) ■ In general, buildings will be required to be more energy efficient • State energy code is moving toward achieving the legislative goal of 70% reduction in fuel consumption in buildings by 2030 Ms. Hope advised staff is seeking Council adoption of the ordinance so the City is in line with the state requirement of February 1s' Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Bjorback for answering the questions she emailed. She did not see anything about tiny homes in the code, only manufactured and mobile homes. Mr. Bjorback referred to 19.05, the adoption language for the IRC includes an adoption of Appendix Q which is newly adopted language regarding tiny homes. Ms. Hope assured it did not change the zoning code, only the building code. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the ESLHA in north Edmonds. Mr. Bjorback displayed a map of the North Edmonds ESLHA that has been in the development ordinance for many years. The last time that ordinance was revised was 2006 or 2007. The update did not change the regulations, it was just clarifying the application of that chapter and minor clean-up. The map of neighborhood in the northern tip of Edmonds encompasses 100-110 residential properties. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definition of a high rise building, a building with an occupied floor or rooftop located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of a fire department vehicle access. She asked if that was a regular fire truck. Fire Marshal Fitterer answered it was a ladder or fire truck. Occupied floor can be confusing; if there is a roof top garden and/or a gathering area on top of a building, that top floor is an occupied floor. Even if there are no actual rooms on the top floor, if it can be occupied by the public, it is an occupied floor. With regard to energy savings, Council President Paine asked what that meant when building a new home or multi -family complex. Mr. Bjorback answered in every 3-year cycle, developers are required to build to higher efficiency standards. This time it will encourage developers to use things like heat pumps for the heating system. The thermal envelope of a house can only be insulated so much or the air leakage tighten LIP. In addition to the prescriptive minimums, the code now looks for additional energy credits that can be achieved by picking from a list of options such as a heat pump, having heating equipment within the thermal envelope, high efficiency plumbing and fixtures, etc. The mandate established around 2005/2006 by the legislature was by 2030, a 70% reduction in energy use would occur in new homes and other buildings. This is related to realizing that goal. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there appeared to be significant changes in the international swimming pool and spa code as there was a lot of new language. Mr. Bjorback answered there was new language in the ordinance, however, there was really no change in the requirements for swimming pools. The language comes from the state adopted language so it was included in Title 19. Including that language makes it clearer where find to regulations for swimming pool facilities. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 20 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY'S BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed the Snohomish Health District reported yesterday that for the first time since early November, case counts have dropped from the highs of 400+/100,000 to 253/100,000 in a two week period. That is good news, but unfortunately because Snohomish County is linked with other counties in the state recovery plan where hospitalization numbers have gone up, there would not be any change in reopening. The governor announced today the federal government pledged a 16% increase in vaccines coming to Washington. Approximately 1.5 million Washingtonians quality for the vaccine but do not yet have access because there is not yet enough available. Work continues at all levels to get more vaccines sooner. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was elected vice chair by the bipartisan Snohomish Health Board. One of their goals will be to continue to fight the pandemic and continue to provide information to the public. Today the new President signed an executive order for racial equity and justice. That sets the tone for a better future as a community. There are a couple of groups in Edmonds who continue to spew hate and misjustice by putting signs on telephone poles, yard signs, threats, comments on social media, letters to the editor, etc. The message from President Biden is about everyone working together to move forward in a progressive manner. She read a quote by John F. Kennedy, "Let us not despair but act. Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." She encouraged everyone to move forward into the future as has been seen in national politics to provide a working together approach to get out of the pandemic. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Dean Olson and the Diversity Commission for captions on the meeting display, a welcome addition for anyone hard of hearing. She thanked Dave Rohde for bringing her a new and improved iPad today; for the first time in two months she can read from her iPad. She thanked Council President Paine along with everyone else who made this accommodation possible, commenting she was very grateful. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was very happy with what President Biden was doing. She acknowledged several first including Kamala Harris, the first woman, first African America and first Asian American Vice President; Senator Maria Cantwell became the chair of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, impressive in a male dominated senate; Janet Yellen was confirmed as the first female Treasury Secretary; Arvil Haines was selected as the Director of National Intelligence; and Lloyd Austin was the first African American appointed to Secretary of Defense. As Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, change is coming and it is wonderful that people who have worked so hard for so long are being recognized. She summarized she was hopeful for 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 21 Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' message, not the Republican answer, not the Democratic answer but the right answer, commenting that was a great motto for the Edmonds City Council. Councilmember Olson offered her condolences to members of the community who have suffered as family members and friends of young people who have committed suicide. The isolation of the pandemic has exacerbated life's challenges and mental illness. She hoped everyone was doing their best to keep each other safe from the pandemic and as safe as possible from the downfalls of isolation. To anyone listening who mighl be in that circumstance and feeling isolated, she assured people were thinking and caring about them and hoping sooner rather than later that with the news of the vaccine and it's availability things will get better. Councilmember Olson encouraged people not to volunteer for additional stress or self-imposed stress. As a liaison to the Housing Commission, she appreciated their hard work, but it was true that due to COVID there had been less engagement that would have been ideal and the City will do its best during the next phase to engage and communicate. It is not a finished process; the Housing Commission's recommendation will come to Council to be vetted. She thanked everyone for participating at the Housing Commission and she looked forward to participating in the next steps and hearing from the public. Council President Paine expressed appreciation for everybody's comments. She reminded that the state legislative session begins tomorrow and she encouraged the public to contact legislators about the issues they were passionate about. Because the legislature will be meeting remotely, there is an electronic system for the public to express their thoughts and interest on bills. Spring is around the corner and there is a lot of renewal going on. In her circle of friends, five babies have arrived plus another in two weeks. A lot of good things are happening that may be surprising because people have been sticking close to home. She expressed her appreciation for staffls dedication and diligence, commenting tonight was the culmination of a lot of hard work. Councilmember Distelhorst said seeing the case rate drop is definitely encouraging; seeing new strains show up is a little discouraging. He urged the public to be as diligent as ever by staying home if possible, masking or double masking and using KN95 masks on essential trips, and staying 6 feet away even outside wearing masks. It is encouraging to hear that more vaccines are coming but the rollout is bumpy. For the sake of your neighbors and businesses, play your part in getting us back on track. Councilmember Distelhorst reported on the Recovery Taskforce meeting; the City will be sending out more multi-lingual information to businesses in the City to promote federal funding they may have access to as well as distributing more compostable containers to food establishments to help support takeout for local restaurants. He thanked Councilmember Olson for her comments, pointing out that a major part of staying healthy is mental health, especially for children. This Saturday Sno-Isle Libraries has a free online event, "How to Recognize Anxiety and Depression in Kids." Further information is available by googling Sno-Isle Libraries and "Issues That Matter." For anyone with youth in their home who are struggling, he assured support is available. The City's WeCare.Edmondswa.gov webpage is still available and has free 24/7 online, phone and text message resources. He urged everyone to look out for their children and their friends and neighbors' children and to stay safe and healthy. Councilmember L. Johnson said it was recently brought to her attention that the local girl scout council is struggling during these times and have made a number of sacrifices including selling certain properties to stay afloat. Even though they're struggling, they have prioritized the public and the scouts' health by choosing to forego door-to-door or onsite cookie sales that fund girl scout programs. As a long time girl scout, former leader, daughter of a girl scout leader and the wife of a boy scout leader, she knew the value of those programs. Scouts are doing all they can to continue to offer programs to kids safely during these Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 22 times. If girl scout cookies, boy scout popcorn or other club sales were something people would expect during normal times, she encouraged those who are able to search out those programs and make a purchase or donation to help youth and to help programs continue. She questioned who could not use something as small as girl scout cookies showing tip on their doorstep via a no contact delivery. Student Rep Roberts urged the public to be safe, practice social distancing and wear masks to ensure the case counts continue to drop, Recovery from the pandemic depends on us all and we must all work together for our future. 12, ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. MI AEl NELSON, MAYOR OTT ASS Y, CITY CLE ) dmorids City Council Approved Minutes .lannary 26, 2021 Page 23 Public Comment for 1/26/21 Council Meeting: From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:37 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment on Draft Tree Code 1. First and MOST OBVIOUS Comment - WHERE'S THE SCIENCE? Trees are an integral part of our natural environment and any/all decisions (i.e., codes, ordinances, regulations) on removal and/or replacement should be based on BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCEI I The draft rule has percentages, diameters, etc. with NO scientific or societal basis for those metrics. What are the metrics in the draft code based on? Where is the rationale and calculations that resulted in the metrics chosen in the draft tree code? What tree protection and canopy goals/objectives will or will not be achieved? How will the level of tree removals authorized by the draft code affect the ecological services that native trees provide? 2. Will the "Intent and Purposes" of the draft tree code be achieved by the prohibitions set forth in the draft tree code, or will the exemptions and replacement requirements (as drafted) make that impossible? Is it really the intent of this draft rule to implement the City's Urban Forest Management Plan? One of the goals of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan is "no net loss to overall tree canopy." Unless there are analyses (as stated above) that indicate otherwise, the draft tree code appears to fall way short of that goal and will more likely result in continued significant loss of tree canopy. 3. Is this draft code consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, under Environmental Quality, states: "Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 24 "So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system." Any/all allowances in the code for tree removal must take into account the "ripple effect." We are already seeing the "ripple effect" in the Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek watersheds where land development practices have caused HUGE erosion and flooding problems in our creeks. 4. What percentage of the existing tree canopy on private property in Edmonds could potentially be removed under this draft tree code? The Council and the public must be provided the answer to this question before it proceeds to a public hearing on the draft tree code. 5. Starting off the draft code with "blanket exemptions" to all of the prohibitions and requirements is BAD NEWS for trees in Edmonds. The entire exemptions section should be DELETED. If there are necessary exemptions for social or safety reasons, they should be specifically described under the appropriate provision in the code. Further, there should be an accompanying document that explains exactly why and where the exemption is necessary and how such exemption affects achievement of the goals of the UFMP and Comp Plan. 6. "One size does NOT fit all" - the draft rule needs to address differences between the watersheds in Edmonds. More tree protection should be provided in environmentally sensitive watersheds (such as Perrinville and Shell watersheds) that will be further damaged with every large tree removed (i.e., the ripple effect mentioned above). Further, the remnant wildlife corridors provided by trees and tree canopy in Edmonds should be afforded more protection to preserve the wildlife. Thank you to those Council members that are actually listening to public comments and making informed decisions by requesting additional information from staff and asking staff to make necessary changes to the draft code BEFORE it goes to public hearing. From: STEVE WAITE Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:15 AM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien edmondswa. ov> Subject: Tree Code, City Council Review (2/26) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 25 Hello Kernen, Might you include my comments below for the City Council 2/26/21 meeting: City Council Members, The Draft Tree Regulations do not consider the accommodation of solar access, either passive or active, on a single developed lot, *. Sustainable energy practices should not be mutually exclusive of the natural environment. Adopting solar access will allow reasonable use of property, while still balancing holistic ecological concerns. I ask that you consider this issue for inclusion into the Tree Code. Thank you, Steve Waite, Edmonds *The concept of solar easement was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes (10/18/20), but that referenced only adjacent properties with no further discussion or consideration. From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:43 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson; The proposed tree code that you will hear about tonight is a good start. It covers about one third of what a good tree code should cover. The proposed tree code does a good job of addressing private undeveloped lots when they come up for development. But, the proposed code does nothing to address the already developed residential lots. That is where most of our forest canopy grows and where it is being cut down. Little cuts lead to big tears. I hope the Council will take the time to fix this proposed code. Get it right. Address all the trees in Edmonds. Get a sustainable self funding tree planting program set up. Tree replacement planting is the key to a good tree code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 26 We gotta realize that more and more trees are gonna come down; for all the usual reasons. Our commitment should be to planting replacement trees for every significant tree lost. Any tree, any place, at any time for whatever reason should have multiple replacement trees planted. I've looked at other tree codes in neighboring cities. They all try to control and/or mitigate the loss of tree canopy on private land. The attempts at "control" include: fees, permits, inspections, penalties, "fees -in -lieu -of", and endless enforcement issues. Attempted control of privately owned trees leads to public resentment because of added expenses and hassles. It leads to cries of "private land rights!". Whereas, "mitigation" recognizes and acknowledges the loss of forest canopy, which leads to action. Positive and cooperative action. We can all agree to the idea of planting new trees, just as long as they're not in my way ! We all recognize the environmental benefits of forests. And it's a lot less hassle and cost to City staff. I encourage the Council to not "kick this can down the road." Let's just do it right the first time. (Oh, no wait, the second time!) Let's take the time to institute an all encompassing and self sustaining Tree Code that actually fulfills the UFMP goal of "no net loss." Let's institute a "Lost Tree Notification" system. You just notify the City of when you are cutting down trees. Then the City can replant multiple "of kind" tree saplings. We can advertise this program through the City water bills, local media, pamphlets and city groups. All tree replanting and retention efforts should occur in Edmonds first; through tree vouchers and lower storm water bills. But it may require us participating in a local tree preserve, such as the Snohomish County Healthy Forest Initiative, in order to fulfill our obligations. It will feel good to do it right. We need it. A sense of accomplishment. Let's do it! An all encompassing, self sustaining and meaningful Tree Code. For our future. Thank you for your consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 27 From: cdfarmen@comcast.net <cdfarmen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 7:55 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The proposed Tree Code Update In order to have an effective overall tree code, special emphasis needs to be placed on sites that are unique in topography, have steep slopes, deep ravines, wetlands, and more importantly are the headwaters and drainage system of a local stream. With that in mind, my focus was to review the proposed code in that context. The following is a summary of conclusions with respect to the proposed Tree code update. 1. The "Conservation Subdivision Design" regulation on page 13, references20.O75, the ECDC chapter on Subdivisions. As currently written, there are no provisions indicating that the 30% tree retention limit and all other tree related regulations in the proposed tree code are applicable to this section. The Conservation Subdivision should be included with other subdivisions on page 7 where retention requirements are listed. 2. There are no provisions for any of the following monitoring plans that are necessary to verify compliance of the tree related regulations. a. Construction phase monitoring to assure all tree retention and protection plans are being followed. b. Tree replacement monitoring plan to assure compliance of the tree replacement plan. c. Post development inspection plan to assure the replants are being properly maintained by the applicant and to check for trees that have not survived and need replacement. Semiannual monitoring should be conducted for at least the first two years after planting occurs. 3. The monitoring of the construction site, pre -development, during development, and post development needs to be done by a qualified professional. 4. Monitoring by a licensed arborist is warranted for any development requiring a tree plan. An arborist should be onsite to make certain all the tree related regulations are being followed. 5. Any Tree Replacement Plan needs to include the number of replacement trees, size and species being planted, and a " tree spacing" requirement to avoid over planting. If the replant site is over planted the survival rate will be adversely affected. The size of the replacement tree at maturity is an important spacing factor. Tree replacements should be of same species removed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 28 6. Item 4 "Property lines" of the Tree Protection Measures should include the statement that the applicant shall be required to install a fence barrier along the adjoining property line to cordon off and protect those trees on the adjoining property. Verification of this protective measure needs to be included in the pre -construction site meeting. Thank you, Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Shannon Roeder Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021, 6:53 PM Subject: Edmonds Tree code being discussed 1/26/2021 To: <council a edmondswa. ov>, < ubliccomnent edmondswa, ov> I am writing to the Edmonds City Council to provide input regarding the Tree Code that is being discussed 1/26/2021. 1 have lived in Edmonds since 1986 when I purchased my home in the Seaview neighborhood. One if the reasons I purchased a home in Edmonds was due to the extensive canopy of trees especially in the wooded areas near my home. I want to make sure that the Edmonds City Council takes the right actions to preserve our wooded areas, keeping our urban forests, especially the Seaview / Perrinville Wood. As I understand it, one of the original tasks of the Edmonds Tree Board in 2010 is to, "preserve and protect existing trees, encourage planting of additional trees, safeguard trees in parcels where construction or renovation is occurring or planned to occur", and encourage Edmonds citizens to become "active stewards of the urban forest." Moving to the Urban Forest Management Plan the focus should be to "maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage" through updated tree regulations. I fully support and urge the Edmonds City Council to adopt a policy of no net loss to overall canopy coverage, ensuring protection of trees in environmentally critical areas, and establish a "tree bank" fund to cover the costs of plantings and other tree programs. I believe that Seaview/ Perrinville Wood fits the description of an area needing protection in a critical area. Please do not waste any time in preserving Seaview/ Perrinville Wood and other such areas within Edmonds. Thank you for considering my input regarding the Edmonds Tree Code. Sincerely, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 29 Shannon L Roeder Norman J Hawker From: ACE President Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:07 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: From the Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds As the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission concludes this Thursday, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) thanks the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners, for volunteering their time, committing to this aspirational process. Understandably, the process was made more difficult for all involved due to Covid-19 restrictions, mandating virtual meetings and eliminating the original promise of neighborhood meetings throughout all of Edmonds. The Commission did, however, offer one in -person Open House and survey before Covid restrictions, followed by 3 more surveys combined with 3 prerecorded virtual Open House viewing options, and one Zoom Webinar. ACE followed with optimism and had high hopes for this 16-month process. However, we are concerned that input the Commission received at each public engagement touchpoint, in the form of hundreds of questions, comments, emails and feedback from local folks, was disregarded. Edmonds' citizens were not given their promised place at the table in this citizen -driven process. The Edmonds City Council formed this Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) via Resolution No. 1427 which stated in part: "...options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation." In addition, an expanded timeline was created "to enable direct citizen involvement in this important process." Neither Edmonds' Development Services Director Shane Hope, who is in charge of this Commission, nor the contracted consultant group, prioritized citizen input although it was solicited by the Commission as each round of its proposed policy ideas were put forward. Commissioners should have been better directed to consider and incorporate citizen feedback, particularly as it often overwhelmingly contradicted policy ideas put forward, such as adding duplexes, triplexes, and townhome developments into single-family neighborhoods citywide, local sales tax increases, and most disturbingly, the elimination of current single-family zoned Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 30 neighborhoods. CHC policies will be voted on this Thursday. We are concerned that, if these policies receive the votes in the Commission to move forward, the Planning Board and City Council will be asked to vote on many policy ideas that discounted and ignored community input throughout the process. Examples of lack of response to questions/comments by the public are as follows: • 26 families in one neighborhood targeted as a "Transition Zone", wrote a letter to the Commission, Council, Mayor and Tree Board, outlining concerns about losing the single- family character of their neighborhood. They were told their concerns would not be discussed openly by the CHC, with one Commissioner saying: "Historically inequities develop because you have a group of people that feel more privileged to be vocal for multiple reasons... holding a special discussion on letters we received not in the context of all of the feedback that we've gotten feels like we're perpetuating that sense of privilege." • The above example, coupled with the 78% in the first survey who agreed that it is important to preserve single-family zoning, is evidence that citizen input has, selectively, been dismissed by the CHC. • The above further indicates that one Commissioner's use of the subjective term "sense of privilege" has influenced how citizen input is addressed by the Director, who controlled the public engagement process with the paid public engagement consultant. Although there were 68 citizen questions and comments posed live by written option only at the January 7, 2021 online Open House public outreach event, only 8 questions from the attendees were selected by the Staff/consultant to be discussed. • There is no indication that there has been, or ever will be, a public response to any of the remaining 60 questions/comments. • Before Covid restrictions, Edmonds' citizens were encouraged to make in -person comments on record at live meetings. After Covid restrictions, citizens were instructed to engage with this Commission's process only via email to the CHC. These emailed comments were seldom discussed during CHC meetings, resulting in no transparent public record of these emails, not even in the meeting packet or notes. Examples of citizen input being discounted or ignored are significant enough to red flag unanswered questions about CHC recommendations to Council, to be finalized at their January 28, 2021 meeting. Some of ACE'S clarifying questions are: Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop property values and thus create more affordability? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 31 • Has the CHC received significant feedback and support from our community to justify citywide up -zoning of all single-family zoning in Edmonds, as their specific "Inclusionary Policy" recommends? Why, under the Director's leadership, have they facilitated a discussion by the CHC of relaxing State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) guidelines in the context of developing affordable housing options in Edmonds? In support of relaxing SEPA thresholds, one Commissioner stated: "SEPA is used by people who don't want housing built in a location. It's weaponized by people who don't want housing and poor people, or people who aren't homeowners, or whatever other NIMBY BS." How are the biased terms "weaponized" and "NIMBY" of use in a thoughtful discussion of SEPA thresholds? What evidence has been presented to the CHC that the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) project at Westgate has provided affordable housing that justifies 12-years tax- free on ALL 81 residential units, in exchange for 20% so-called "affordable" units? • Given the fact that our code has been in need of a re -write since 2000, why is the Development Services Director facilitating introduction of "policy options" that would require drastic alteration of existing inadequate code? • What evidence has been provided by the Director/Staff that our existing Chapter 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units code, is insufficient to both retain single family quality and provide additional affordable housing? There are points where Edmonds' citizens agree with the CHC, such as concentrating density closer to transit and conveniences, simplifying code language, creating low-income home repair programs and other creative ideas. Greater collaboration between Edmonds' citizens and the Housing Commission should have been facilitated by the Director, Staff, and the consultant group to have further developed those common ideas. As we move forward, ACE encourages open, transparent processes -a true back and forth discussion -about this critical issue: what is the best way to add additional types of housing in Edmonds and what will Edmonds look like in the future? ACE recognizes the hard work of the Citizens Housing Commission. We sincerely hope that there will be further extensive citizen engagement as the Commission's final recommendations move to the Planning Board and City Council. We also ask any steps taken by Council on this issue be paused until we can again gather in person. Board of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds CC: Citizens Housing Commission, Development Services Director, Edmonds City Council, Planning Board, Edmonds Tree Board, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 32 "References: Resolution 1427: Resolution+1427+ 1 . pdf (squarespace com) Code 20.21 ADU: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (codepublishing.com) WA State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA): Chapter 220-600 WAC: Link to CHC 1/14/21 meeting SEPA discussion begins at 1hr26min: Video Outline _ Edmonds WA (icim2.com) From: Will Strong Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 1:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trees Please remove all unstable trees on Olympic view drive , also on 80th ave from 18100 block to 186th total hazard .Consider this a formal notice of unsafe road to travel on from 184 th and 80th to 186th as there are many trees that are about ready to fall on to road. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 6:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for January 26, 2021 City Council meeting Please see below a June 13, 2012 email that informed that ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. I informed that: This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 33 The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. 1 informed that: I've actually witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 (i.e. location of tree covered areas) on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. I said: This must be fixed! In April of 2012, 1 had emailed City Attorney Jeff Taraday that: 3. ECDC 20.75.040(C). A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050htt www.mrsc.or me edmonds Edmonds20 Edmonds2075.html plat at the applicant's option. Section 20.75.050 does not discuss a preliminary plat map. It discusses lot line adjustments. The reference should be to Section 20.75.060. Here we are in 2021 and ECDC 20.75.040.0 still contains the same error. Why aren't citizens respected and listened to when citizens try to help? Subject: My General Requests of the Tree Board Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:18 -0700 To the members of the Tree Board, Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss the City's Code related to trees during last week's meeting. Much was discussed, but I believe the main point is that there is often a conflict between development rights and tree protection under the City's Code. I believe that accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process coupled with proper application and enforcement of the City's Code by Mayor and staff will greatly assist the protection of valuable trees in Edmonds. As such, my general request of the Tree Board is twofold: 1. Please strongly encourage the City Council to closely review the City's tree related Code and make corrections and IMPROVEMENTS where necessary. I believe that the Code needs to be strengthened related to accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process. For example, ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. I've actually witnessed a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 34 developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. This must be fixed! A second example is found in ECDC 20.75.060.N. This Code Section states that the following shall be shown on the plat: The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director. There are two problems here. First of all, there is no such position as planning director. Secondly, even if there was a planning director, why should the disclosure of the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas be subjective? I believe leaving such an important Code requirement optional and subjective gives the applicant and the City a potential excuse for failure to disclose trees on preliminary plats. I believe the more accurate detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process the better! I think accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas on adjoining properties is also very necessary. 2. Petition and respectfully request that the Mayor and his staff be diligent in the application and enforcement of the City's Code related to trees. For example, valuable healthy trees located in critical areas should not be lost to development because the trees weren't disclosed during the application process. Vesting is supposed to be based in equity. It is not equitable to gain vested development rights as a reward for not disclosing trees as required under the City's Code. For example, development applications should be deemed incomplete if the application fails to disclose the required trees and tree covered areas. Thank you very much for your hard work as members of the Tree Board. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ken Reidy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 35