Loading...
Cmd030221EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 2, 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 ORDERIFLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Dave Turley, Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rolide, 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 Councilmember Distelhorst 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. PRESENTATION PROCLAMATION HONORING MARY LOU BLOCK Mayor Nelson read a proclamation honoring Mary Lou Block and acknowledging that her contributions to the City of Edmonds will be missed. Councilmember K. Johnson shared that her last memory of Mary Lou was sitting on park bench overlooking Marina Beach; they had just completed a tour of the entire Edmonds waterfront that was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 1 organized by Val Stewart and led by Bill Phillips and included his activities on the Planning Board, Mary Lou's activities as Planning Director and Mr. Cook from Edmonds-Woodway High School. The tour of the waterfront provided a history lesson of everything on the waterfront from Brackett's Landing to the Marsh and beyond, a wonderful day for all of them. Mary Lou Block's husband, Peter Block, accepted the proclamation. He thanked Mayor Nelson, the City Council, the Port Commission and friends and coworkers in attendance for honoring Mary Lou with the proclamation and her many contributions to the City, County and Port. She would have been so pleased and proud to receive this recognition as she greatly valued her work in public service. He commented there was never a day when she did not look forward to going to work and she treasured the many relationships she developed over the years through her service. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, commented Perrinville flooding has been so severe that the City stormwater engineers were unable to control it, , salmon are unable to access Perrinville Creek, and moving the streambed is considered an option. This tragedy in the Perrinville Watershed proves the area is in crisis and adds greater urgency of the issue of development of the land above the creek known as Perrinville Woods. It is imperative that Perrinville Woods be left to do its work of absorbing rainwater. The City must find a way to keep those trees and as many others as possible. The destruction of Perrinville Creek demonstrates the necessity of creating a tree code that will actually preserve trees needed for stormwater absorption throughout the City. The Perrinville Watershed problem and the dramatic loss of tree canopy citywide are the result of decades of shortsighted development. Now the City Council and Mayor are faced with the job of figuring out how to clean up the mess. Fortunately, the City has dedicated elected officials who care deeply about the environment. To start with, the citizens are counting on them for an effective tree code. Gregg Schwab, Assistant Superintendent, Edmonds School District, provided an update on reentry plans to bring back K-2 and special education students beginning March 22"d. Fall sports are also underway with the first round of contests this week. Students in grades 3-12 will be brought back in smaller groups beginning on March 29"' There is a capital levy on the upcoming ballot; to the question of how can the District have a capital levy going to voters in less than two months while dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, he said how can the District not continue to move forward with a 2021 capital levy. Harmony Weinberg, Communications Manager, Edmonds School District, explained the 2021 capital levy needs to go to voters next month because the District's capital needs are critical. The need to preserve schools does not go away just because not all students are back in person yet. Students will be back and the buildings need to be ready for them. Ballots are due April 27"' and will be mailed around April 8"'. More information about specifics regarding the capital levy and information about the tax rate, which would remain a steady education tax rate if successful, is available on the District's website. She offered to return to the Council to provide more details on the levy. She summarized four reasons for the capital levy, 1) preserving buildings by making necessary repairs, 2) safety, security and accessibility improvements are necessary, 3) addressing capacity issues; many Edmonds schools are over capacity and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 2 the population will continue to grow, elementary schools are currently at 107% capacity, and 4) replacing two very old schools, Spruce and Oak Heights Elementary Schools. (Written comments submitted to PubIicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM NATHANIEL COOK 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH HBB FOR DESIGN OF THE GATEWAY SIGNS AS PART OF THE HWY 99 REVITALIZATION & GATEWAY PROJECT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2021 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Dave Turley explained there are 31 requests; detailed decision packages are contained in the Council packet, including three he will present tonight as they. He reviewed three new decision packages that were added late and were not discussed during the Finance Committee meeting: • Mayor Nelson's proposal to add $25,000 to this year's Development Services budget for a study to assess the City's current tree canopy coverage • Reauthorize Crime Prevention Officer related cost center (frozen in the 2021 budget) + Reauthorize PD Police Officer First Class (frozen in the 2021 budget) Mr. Turley commented the Police Department currently has seven vacancies; the request to reauthorize these positions is necessary now to allow recruitment to begin. With the exception of the tree canopy study, the remaining items have been previously approved by full Council. The first 28 decision packages were reviewed and approved at the February 91' Finance Committee. The overall effect would be to increase beginning fund balance by $3,256,000, increase revenue by $4,272,000, increase expense by $6,554,000 and decrease ending fund balance by $25,000 for the tree canopy assessment. He recommended approving the ordinance in the packet amending Ordinance No. 4211 as a result of unanticipated transfers and expenditures of various funds and fixing a time when the same shall become effective. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the City's funding of an SRO officer was not deleted from the budget because it was being used for another purpose. She asked if the proposed budget amendment would delete the SRO and create another crime prevention position. Mr. Turley relayed the Edmonds School District decided a couple years ago they did not want the SRO so the Police Department repurposed it to a different position, possibly the crime prevention officer. Both these positions and all the other positions in the budget were approved 18 months ago in December 2019 and included in the 2020 budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 3 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the SRO was still in the 2020 budget even with the addition of a crime prevention officer. Mr. Turley answered the SRO position was repurposed to something else so there is not an SRO in the budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the position was repurposed to. Mr. Turley did not recall and Mayor Nelson said there was no one present tonight from the Police Department to answer that questions. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there was one omission. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO CARRY FORWARD $10,000 FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ALLOCATION FOR INTERNS TO DO AN EXTENSIVE STUDY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Councilmember K. Johnson explained this was previously approved in the budget but due to difficulties in the Planning Department and COVID, the positions were not filled. Carrying forward the funds would be a placeholder and could be used to hire interns this summer or next. She summarized this was not adding anything new to the budget, it had already been approved. She relayed Development Services Director Shane Hope's comment that it was an oversight. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the $10,000 would pay for, commenting interns generally did not cost $10,000. She would not support it without an understanding of how the $10,000 would be used. Ms. Hope said the $10,000 amount was identified previously and she did not recall the exact plan for how it would be spent. She recalled there would need to be at least two interns and their work would take a period of time. While interns do not cost as much as staff, obtaining interns with the right background does require some money. That amount was identified to allow them to do a detailed study, compile information in a professional manner and make a presentation. Councilmember Olson commented the prioritization of historic elements in downtown Edmonds was one of her priorities and was reinforced during doorbelling, specifically the movie theater which Councilmember K. Johnson and she have been in conversation with the owners about. She was excited about this carry forward and joined the past Council in supporting it. She also supported paying the interns, commenting only the wealthiest students can afford to do unpaid internships so this would open it to all. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Councilmember K. Johnson's comment that this would be a placeholder and that not including it as a carryforward was an oversight. Given the current situation, she asked if it was feasible to do this now or was that why it was a placeholder. Ms. Hope answered the intent had been to start early in 2020 but COVID changed the focus and it was put on the back burner. Life got so busy that staff did not think about again until Councilmember K. Johnson brought up again. The question is whether to include it in the budget as a placeholder so later in the year when students can be hired the project could begin. Council President Paine asked for clarification that this amount was approved in 2019 for the 2020 budget. Ms. Hope agreed it was. Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the cost center. Mr. Turley said it was in last year's budget so it will be carried forward exactly the same. If this item is approved, lie recommended the motion state "as amended." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 4 Councilmember Buckshnis requested Mr. Williams address the budget amendment related to the gasification project, such as what is going on with the amendment and how that wonderful project is progressing. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the most notable thing about this budget amendment is it is very large; the reason it exists is when the budget was being developed in mid-2019 for 2020, it was anticipated the carbon recovery project would be in construction toward the end of 2020 and would have spent money rapidly. That did not happen so the spending authority needs be to carried over into 2021. Nothing has changed related to the cost of the project; it is still a $26,121,040 project. This is simply an accounting adjustment related to when the funds will be spent. Councilmember Buckshnis asked him to address how things in general were progressing with COVID and if there were any additional expenditures. Mr. Williams said with regard to COVID, the department has gotten by surprisingly well during the past 12 months. Employees worked split shifts March to May but since then were able to get all the PPE and protocols in place to do all their work. It has been a strain but not a financial burden on the department. Some expenses have been reimbursed by CARES Act funding but not a major amount. CARES Act funds were used for additional janitorial services that were required as well as to support LEAP that Parks is operating in the Frances Anderson Center which required a full-time temporary custodian. COVID has not had a major impact on the underlying budget. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS WITH THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT. At Councilmember Distelhorst's suggestion to include the ordinance verbiage, Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion: TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. 2020 YEAR END FINANCE PRESENTATION Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed: ■ Diagram of 32 City funds (propriety funds [5] and governmental funds [27]) • 2021 Expenditure budgets by fund type (in millions of dollars) General Fund $46.11 Sewer Fund $35.63 Water Fund $10.58 Special Revenue Funds $9.04 Storm Fund $6.85 Capital Projects Funds $5.36 Debt Service Fund $2.75 Internal Service Funds $2.54 • 2020 Sales Tax Revenues Sales Tax Receipted For sales made in Budgeted Actual Over(Under) Actual as a in Collections Collections Budget Percentage of budget January 2020 November 2019 $635,000 $692,248 $57,248 109% February 2020 December 2019 800,000 847,349 47,349 106% March 2020 January 2020 595,000 648,279 53,279 109% April 2020 Februar 2020 565,000 501,725 61 275 89% Ma 2020 March 2020 73 0,000 500,196 229,804 69% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 5 June 2020 Aril 2020 666,000 570,127 95,873 86% Ju!l 2020 May 2020 707,000 688,334 18,666) 97% August 2020 June 2020 785,000 734,031 (50,969) 94% Sept 2020 July 2020 730,000 736,091 6,091 101% October 2020 August 2020 748,000 799,304 51,304 107% November 2020 Sept 2020 789,000 803,547 14,547 102% December 2020 October 2020 1 700,000 793,815 93,815 113% $8,450,000 $8,317,046 $ 132,954 98% • Graph of 2020 Sales Tax Receipts, Projected v Actual • Graph of Sales Tax Revenues Year over Year and Quarter over Quarter by category ■ Sales Tax Revenues Year over Year and Quarter over Quarter by category Year over Year Quarter over quarter Retail Automotive -2% +13% Misc Retail +16% +25% Construction Trade -7% +19% Business Services +8% +16% Eating & Drinking -21% -16% All other -2% +4% • Pie chart of 2021 General Fund Expenditure Budgets (from largest to smallest) o Police Department o Fire District Contract o Parks & Rec o Development Services o Engineering o Facilities Maintenance o City Attorney, Prosecutor, Public Defender o Comm. Srvs/Econ. Devel. o Municipal Court o Mayor's Office & HR o Finance o Prisoner Care o Other o Transfers to Other Funds o City Clerk o Public Works Admin. o City Council • IJndated General Fund Results for 2020 (nreGminarv) Amended Budget Actual Results % Total Revenues $44,055,157 $41,660 318 95% Revenue Under Budget -5.4% Total Ex enses $49,365,292 $44,014,931 89% Expenses Under Budget 1 -10.8% Revenues minus expenses $ 5,310,135 $ 2,354 613 Beginning Fund Balance $15,552,187 $15 552,187 Ending Fund Balance 10 242,052 13,197,574 • Fund Balance in the General Fund o Reserved and unreserved o General Fund Operating Reserve = 16% of GF Operating Adopted Expenditure Budget (in millions of dollars) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 6 General Fund & Subfunds GF Operating Reserve Civic Field Dec 2019 $9.33 $7.72 $2.00 Sept 2020 $5.24 $7.72 $2.00 Dec 2020 $7.04 $7.72 $2.00 • Further financial information about the City of Edmonds, presentations are given in Finance Committee each month, and recordings of all Council meetings and Committee meetings are available on the City website at http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx • PDF copies of the monthly and quarterly reports are also available on the City website at http://www.edmondswa.gov/financial-reports.htmi Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the fire contract was settled in 2020 or 2021. Mr. Turley said the payment was made in December 2020 so it was reflected in 2020 expenses. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Mr. Turley recommending that it not be included in the 2021 budget and he was right. 3. DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT Development Services Director Shane Hope commented as the City Council and Planning Board, who have met regarding this many times, know this set of tree regulations are not the total sum of what tree regulations may be in the future but represent an important first step. This is being presented tonight as the first stage of the tree regulations, particularly related to development. The presentation will also include a review and opportunity for input on the timeline for Stage 2. She recommended the Council adopt the ordinance with any amendments and then move forward with Stage 2. Environmental Project Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Recommendation o Staged Review of Tree Regulations R Stage 1 - Updated Draft Tree Regulations ■ Stage 2 - Provide direction on next round of tree regulations and programs Stage 1 Updated Draft Tree Regulations o Updated regulations in Attachment 1 ■ Added definition for canopy ■ Added additional parameters for maintenance of previously topped trees ■ Tree plan must show trees on adjacent property where tree canopies extend onto project s ite ■ Development sites that lack significant trees are required to plant so there are at least 3 trees per 8,000 square feet of lot area • Minor housekeeping and corrections Stage 1 Ordinance o Adopting this ordinance is intended to establish the initial round of new tree regulations primarily related to development: ■ Strengthen tree retention and protection as development occurs; ■ Set priorities for tree retention; Strengthen tree replacement requirements; * Establish a fee -in -lieu replacement program; ■ Clarify permitting exemption for single-family properties; • Establish a tree fund allowable uses for it; ■ Strengthen civil penalties for tree violations; and Provide opportunity for conservation o This is a strong start, does not address all the goals in the UFMP, more goals addressed more in Stage 2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 7 Ms. Hope reviewed • Stage 2 Upcoming Tree Related Items Item Timing Inventory of downtown Streets Q2 2021- 3 2021 Inventory of other public trees 2022 or TBD Street Tree Plan update Q2 2021- 4 20221 Tree canopy assessment Q2 2021-Q3 2021 Heritage Tree Program Q32021- 4 2021 Tree Canopy Goal Q3 2021 Assessment of staffing and other resource needs Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Exploration of other incentive programs 2022 or TBD Open sace acquisition Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Tree retention on grivate 2roperty (not related to development) 4 2021 Partnerships with other organizations Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD Annual reports on City tree activities Q2 2021 Treegive-away program 2022 or TBD View corridors 2022 or TBD Wildlife & habitat corridors Q3 2021- 4 2021 Expanded public education & Information Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD Stormwater & watershed Analysis Q4 2021-2022 or TBD Other tree -related issues 2022 or TBD Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. As the first two Councilmembers did not have any questions, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested returning to questions by request after one round of round robin. Mayor Nelson agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson referenced the outline for the future, specifically tree retention on private property, recalling during discussions a couple weeks ago, Ms. Hope anticipated the additional parts of code could be completed six months. However, from the list of items in Stage 2, it appears the quarter she anticipated work on the topic would end is now when that would begin. Ms. Hope answered it depends on how long the Council takes on each item. The list illustrates a conservative view, the dates shown are when the items would come to Council. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the Council has not yet had a discussion about the broader issues. She suggested taking them one by one and reaching a consensus before editing the proposed regulations. For example, there is a lot of concern about conserving native species, protecting views, and impacts on the watershed due to development. Councilmember Olson referred to tree retention on private property and view issues and suggested taking those together because views are not just for homeowners, but residents and visitors who want to see the water. It is a balancing act and to the extent you cannot have it all due to climate and environmental pressures, the scale is tipped to tree protection. Taking those two issues in silos would not work for the ultimate objective to find the right balance for all the priorities. Ms. Hope commented one of ways staff looks at it is views themselves are part of the thinking related to tree retention on private property. View corridors may be a more specialized topic related to City streets, etc. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding that view corridors would be a separate issue but the view issue related to private property would have a different timeline. Ms. Hope agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the issues cannot be considered in silos; issues include housing, stormwater, and trees that are being cut down and not replaced with native or trees with like diameters. She commented a tree with a 12 inch diameter is 60 years old. The Council received a letter from Mr. Farmen stating 57 trees were cut to build a 4,000 square foot home. She suggested determining in the timeline how to include housing codes such as low impact housing development that addresses retaining trees and zero lot lines as well as view versus non -view. She believed the City should mail the small tree brochure to all the residents in the bowl to assure people the intent is not to put big trees in the bowl or view areas. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson about having a discussion about the overarching global aspect and the Council's intent regarding how to retain and enhance the tree canopy. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the City of Edmonds does not have regulations that protect views. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the only place she was aware that had such regulations was Innis Arden. Ms. Hope said that was a notable one although there may be others, but it was not a common thing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she wanted to be sure people were clear the City's codes do not protect views. Council President Paine appreciated the desire to have a broader discussion, but what is before the Council is the conservation subdivision design flexibility tree code. Those broader discussions will bring in the desires within the proposed code and she wanted those discussions to occur during code amendments. This is at least the third time the Council has seen the draft codes as well as presentations and discussions at the Planning Board. There is some pressure related to approval of this ordinance as the building moratorium ends on March 10"' so the Council has tonight and the March 9t" meeting to get through this. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section 23.10.040 Exemptions, commenting it does not require a permit, but exempts removal of trees on single family lots except if within a critical area. However, Section 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity, refers to retention of trees for new single family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single family house. She asked if the intent was to exempt single family homes from the tree regulations. Ms. Hope answered the proposal in Stage 1 is to deal with it at the development stage, require retention or planting of trees at the development state, to maintain the existing exemption for non -developing single family properties, but put that on the list of topics for Stage 2. That will be a very complex issue such as permitting requirements, notification requirements, criteria, and resources to implement and provide education to the public and property owners. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if was the intent to apply the regulations to single family lots that were being developed or redeveloped. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember L. Johnson made the following motion, recognizing there were time constraints and to facilitate discussion of amendments: COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND 23.10.000 INTENT AND PURPOSES, BY ADDING A NEW C "PRESERVE, THROUGH DESIGN AND INTENTION WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 9 Councilmember Olson asked for clarification of the definition of intention in this statement. Council President Paine answered it is to affirmatively address the preservation of wildlife corridors and habitat, look at that as a meaningful element during design review for each project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if that was addressed within the packet. Council President Paine answered no. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her question was to Ms. Hope. Ms. Hope said wildlife corridors and habitat are addressed in critical area ordinances and there may be a reference in the regulations. She said Council President Paine may be interested in ensuring that was also stated in the intent statement. Mr. Lien said most wildlife habitat corridors are along stream channels which are protected by the critical area code and the critical areas code is referenced several times in this code. One of the things that could be done during Stage 2 with regard to wildlife habitat corridors although it may not be regulatory, would be to improve the quality of habitat corridors by partnering with groups such as Adopt a Stream and Students Saving Salmon as well as stormwater crews who often come in contact with property owners. There are regulations related to wildlife corridors in the critical area code but education, outreach and partnership with other organizations will help improve the quality of corridors. Much of the City was developed before critical area regulations, SEPA, etc. and although there are buffers established in the CAO, they often do not exist on the ground. Improving the habitat corridors will be incorporated into Stage 2 regulations. Mr. Lien offered to display Word version of the code (Attachment 1) to illustrate amendments. Councilmembers agreed that would be helpful. Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the definitions of preservation and habitat and how would this amendment be implemented. Ms. Hope said typically the purpose statement did not get into the regulatory detail. The regulatory detail will state how it will be implemented and it did not necessarily need to be identified or defined separately. Councilmember Olson asked staff's thoughts about addressing this in the critical area ordinance or including in the intent. Ms. Hope said she did not see it as necessary, but it was not harmful. Wildlife corridors and habitat are an important issue, but that will be spelled out in more detail in the tree retention scheme and will be handled in a greater extent in the critical area regulations which govern wildlife corridors and habitat in quite a lot of detail. She summarized it would not hurt to include the language but its inclusion in the intent statement did not necessarily change things. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.000 INTENT AND PURPOSE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AS A NEW SUBSECTION C. "IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN." Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City did not have a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and she was unsure this was relevant until the CAP was approved by the City Council. Councilmember Olson commented knowing there is a CAP now and the Council would not be revisiting the code once the new CAP is approved, she favored including this amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 10 COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND TO ADD TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION A DEFINITION FOR NATIVE TREES THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 303 OF THE PACKET AND LISTED IN APPENDIX F AND WOULD INCLUDE BOTH BROADLEAF TREES AND CONIFERS SUCH AS BIG LEAF MAPLE AND DOUGLAS FIR. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there has been a lot of discussion about maintaining native trees, but it is not defined or spelled out in the code, an oversight that needs to be corrected. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien said that was not really a definition as the only specificity was bigleaf maple and Douglas fir and there are many other native trees. Native trees are currently mentioned in the code and the critical area code states replacement trees need to be native and indigenous; many trees are native to the region but not necessarily indigenous to Edmonds. He would need soiree time to draft a definition of native trees and could not have it ready for the ordinance tonight. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to packet page 303, which Mr. Lien said was from the UFMP. Councilmember K. Johnson said that page includes a description of native trees and a list of common ones and states a more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F. Ms. Hope supposed there could be a definition that refers to the UFMP as identified on page X and in Appendix F. Ms. Hope agreed it was difficult to make complicated amendments on the fly; if that was an acceptable approach and it was later determine that was not working, it could be amended. Councilmember K. Johnson said that that was her initial suggestion; she wanted to refer to the UFMP's definition of native trees. She commented if trees were not growing in Edmonds, they would not be indigenous to a certain extent. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND TO REVISE FORMER SUBSECTION C WHICH IS NOW SUBSECTION D AS FOLLOWS "TO PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY BIODIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF EDMONDS, AND PROVIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION BY PRESERVING... ". Councilmember Olson suggested replacing "by" with "and," change "preserving" to "preserve," and remove "and" prior to "provide." Councilmember L. Johnson accepted that friendly amendment. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: REVISE SUBSECTION D TO READ, "TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, BIODIVERSITY, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF EDMONDS, AND PROVIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS MITIGATION By AND PRESERVEING...'I AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said a lot of people do not believe hazard and nuisance need to be defined separately. She suggested changing the definition of hazard trees to "a Li ni ican tree that is dead, dying, damaged..." and deleting the definition of nuisance tree because a hazard tree is a nuisance tree and a nuisance tree is a hazard tree. Mr. Lien said he had seen another amendment that would make a hazard tree and a nuisance tree the same. By only adding "significant," there is still a difference between a nuisance and a hazard tree. He referred to the definition of a hazard tree, "A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective tree." A nuisance tree may be a big, perfectly healthy tree but Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page l l it is buckling a driveway, clogging a sewer line, or close to a house but is not in danger of falling. That is the reason a distinction was made between a hazard tree and a nuisance tree. Councilmember Buckshnis commented they are both hazards. Regardless of the tree, if it is buckling a driveway, it is a hazard. She clarified a healthy tree that was causing a hazard was a hazard tree not a nuisance tree. Mr. Lien said the definition could be amended to cover both. The way the definitions are now, if nuisance was deleted, the current definition of hazard tree would not cover a nuisance tree. Ms. Hope recalled an amendment that was submitted that could cover both added, "or causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure, sidewalk, curb, road, water, sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway or parking lot." Councilmember Buckshnis commented some hazard or nuisance trees are good for the environment because they can be used for snags. Perhaps that could be a reason to differentiate the definition because a nuisance tree is a hazard and a hazard tree may not be nuisance but could be kept for snag purposes. Mr. Lien said there are hazard tree regulations in critical areas that encourage creation of wildlife snags rather than removal because if a snag fell, it would not cause damage, but would provide some habitat. That would not fit in the definition of a hazard or nuisance tree. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out there are different decision criteria for hazard trees and nuisance trees. Unless the decision criteria was changed in 23.10.040.17, there needs to be different definitions. The type of documentation the code asks for is different for nuisance trees and hazard trees. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO ADD "SIGNIFICANT" TO THE HAZARD TREE DEFINITION. Council President Paine said a significant tree is 6" D13H. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if there were times a hazard tree was not 6" but rather 4" and then would not qualify as a hazard tree. Mr. Lien answered a tree smaller than 6" could be hazard tree but that was much easier to remedy than a larger tree. These regulations are tied to the cutting and removal of significant trees. If a tree is not a significant tree, it is not subject to these regulations provided it is outside a critical area. If a tree is a hazard tree but is not a significant tree and there are no critical areas, it could be removed. The regulations apply once the 6" threshold is met. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the proposed amendment would not have any change to implementation. Councilmember Olson asked how the amendment adds value to the definition. If a tree is smaller and it is a hazard, it may not be restricted from removal, it may be a greater hazard if it were bigger. A tall skinny tree that could fall on a car is still a hazard tree. She prefer not to approve the amendment and said the fewer words to get the point across, the better. If the Council is iffy on something, she preferred to err on leaving it out. Councilmember Buckshnis said a hazard tree is a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees. She wanted to add "significant" because younger trees are typically not dead, dying, diseased, damaged, etc. Mr. Lien said there may be a tree that is not a significant tree (less than 6") but is considered a protected tree by this code. A protected tree is "A tree 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." These are trees that are required to be retained or planted through development. It may not be 6" but has specific protection requirements including a protected tree covenant that's recorded on property. Including only "tree" in the definition instead of "significant tree" would cover both a significant and a protected tree. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 12 Council President Paine asked if the hazard tree definition followed the tree assessment tool used by the ISA. Mr. Lien answered removal of a hazard tree outside a critical area requires a tree risk assessment form completed by an arborist. There are times that is not required such as if there is a large, obviously dead tree next to a house. The tree risk assessment form is required for a live tree. Councilmember Olson asked for additional clarification. Mr. Lien explained there is a different category of trees created by this code, a protected tree. It may/may not meet the definition of a significant tree. Not including "significant" in the definition of hazard tree would cover both significant and protected trees. Adding "significant" limits it to a tree 6"+ DBH. Mr. Taraday commented adding "significant" to the definition could make it difficult to remove a protected tree that has become a hazard as it is smaller than 6". Councilmember Olson asked if that would be a bad thing. Mr. Taraday said it could be a bad thing; he assumed the City wanted to make it easy to remove hazardous trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the tree code is about significant or bigger trees. She asked if a permit was required for a hazardous significant tree or could a hazard tree of any size be cut. Mr. Lien answered documentation is required, not a permit. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if documentation was only required for significant trees. Mr. Lien answered alteration'of a critical area required critical area review and there are specific requirements in the critical area code related to hazard trees. Outside critical areas, this code would address a hazard tree. Councilmember Buckshnis said this code is dealing with big trees. Councilmember L. Johnson said it was shortsighted to consider only big trees, big trees started small so the code is about all trees and what they will eventually be. While there is additional emphasis on protecting large trees that cannot be replaced in our lifetime, there is also emphasis on what can be done within our lifetime to benefit future generations. She wanted to ensure that fuller picture was kept in mind. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to a tree in Yost Park by the pool that was cut down because it was hazardous, but the first 15 feet were retained and provided a lot of insects for birds, etc. She asked if consideration had been given to retaining the trunks of trees for that purpose, observing it may not be attractive on single family property. Mr. Lien said the critical area code does specifically address that; rather than removing a tree it should be turned into a wildlife snag. Ms. Hope said the challenge would be requiring all hazardous trees to become snags such as on a small single family property. That is encouraged and will be part of the public outreach. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Councilmember Olson referred to Section 23.10.020 definitions, N.2, pointing out the second "track" should be "TRAQ." Mr. Taraday said that could be handled as a scrivener's error. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.A INTRODUCTION. "...THE CITY REQUIRES APPROVAL OF A TREE RETENTION AND PROTECTION PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH..." Mr. Lien said tree retention plan is mentioned at least 13 other places in the code; therefore if this change is approved it would need to be changed throughout the code. Council President Paine recommended the change be made throughout the code wherever it makes grammatical and useful sense. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 13 Councilmember Olson asked what Council President Paine saw as the value of that amendment and whether the plan offers any tree protection. Council President Paine said tree protection plans often include the perimeter around the trees that is protected during development, an area where trucks, equipment or storage will not occur in the critical root zone and the tree protection zone is clearly identified on the plan. A tree can be retained, but if the critical root zone is not also protected, tree could be protection would be for naught. Ms. Hope said the idea of protection is included in the plan. The amendment would make it clear that that protection is included. Council President Paine agreed that was her intent. Mr. Lien referred to a section that describes the protection measures for trees during development. Council President Paine said that was done beautifully. Ms. Hope said if the Council approves this amendment, it will be amended in all the appropriate places in the code. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.II TO READ, "ACCURATE LOCATION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHERE THE CANOPY AND/OR CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF ADJACENT SIGNIFICANT TREES EXTEND ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY..." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.040.E, BY REMOVING, "PROVIDED PRUNING WILL BE UNDERTAKEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND TREE HEALTH." Councilmember Olson explained when a tree topped inherently the regrowth is weak and can present a hazard for people, animals, or dwellings underneath at the wrong time, especially in wind or post storm when trees are further weakened. A requirement like this asks the homeowner to show compliance that it meets the standard which is an expense and a burden. Topping is a bad practice that creates weakened regrowth; this is not good code and she recommended not including that language. Mr. Lien asked if she was referring to the pruning of previously topped trees or only the language, "providing pruning will be undertaken only to the extend necessary for public safety and tree health." Councilmember Olson said she wanted the added language removed. Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, referring to the statement "Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone," commenting that is leading the person with that type of tree to believe they have to prune them back to where they were previously topped. She appreciated that once a limb was cut, it was gone forever and restoring improperly pruned trees can take years and in some cases a tree that is improperly pruned or topped could be lost forever and cannot to be restored properly. Earlier in that section, there is language that refers to ANSI A300 (Part 9), Tree Risk Assessment, describes how to restore a tree that has been severely damaged through vandalism, storm damage or over pruning or topping. She did not want to lead people to think that a tree has to be re -topped for safety. It may need to be, but whether that is necessary should be assessed Councilmember K. Johnson said there have been times when the Council has been faced with improperly topped trees when the homeowners or HOA topped the trees to protect their views and have been fined. However, once the trees have been topped, they have to be re -topped again and again which is essentially rewarding them for maintaining their views. The City should have a replacement program; if someone illegally tops a tree that is not terrifically mature, perhaps it should be replaced rather than continuously re -topped. Mr. Lien said if someone illegally topped a tree, they would subject to the violation provisions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 14 of the code which potentially include replacement. This section is related to routine landscaping; numerous trees throughout the City have been topped over and over and it becomes a safety issue. For single stem trees such as a Douglas fir, it is not possible to rebuild the crown after it has been topped. The branches have weak connections and create a safety hazard. If a permit were required for the initial tree topping, the topping would fall under violations and could require replacement. This section is related to tree previously topped which can be topped to the previously topped level primarily for safety reasons. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there are many trees along the electric/communication lines that the utility companies top regardless of the species. Councilmember Olson clarified how that section was written before that language was added it was considered maintenance and not a requirement that the City insists be done which appeared to be Councilmember L. Johnson's assertion. Assessments cost money and citizens should not be required to have an assessment when by nature that regrowth is inherently dangerous. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the wording could be amended so that it did not lead a property owner to assume a tree needed to be topped at the level it was previously topped. She understood that topping a Douglas fir to the previously topped level was appropriate but there are many other trees. The ANSI A300 (Part 9) clearly states that a number of trees can be restored to a previous canopy. She wanted to ensure that people were not led to the assumption that all previously topped trees had to be re -topped. Councilmember Distelhorst suggested changing the language from "for public safety and tree health" to "for public safety or tree health." Ms. Hope agreed, noting there is reference to the ANSI A300. Mr. Lien referred to Section 23.10.040.F, pointing out subsections a-c do not require any supporting documentation and is allowed by the code. If documentation is required to look at previously topped trees to ensure it is being maintained as necessary for public safety and/or tree health, perhaps the previous topped trees section should be moved to F and there needs to be documentation. Councilmember Olson said that was one of her points; some of these trees have been topped for decades and the current homeowner may not have been responsible for topping the trees in the first place so that burden should not be added. This is related to finding the balance between views and taking care of environment; this is not a total plus for the environment and is a potential hazard. It may have been done at one point for view purposes, but where it has been done in the past, she did not see the value of making it a thing. Council President Paine agreed "or" would provide some flexibility to allow a homeowner to continue to top a previously topped tree or for a new homeowner to allow a tree to regain its crown. It was her understanding that the prior tree code allowed a topped tree to be maintained. Ms. Hope agreed. Mr. Lien pointed out there is similar language in the critical area code but not in the tree code. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not like any of the exemption and agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson. The goal is to educate the public that trees are not bad. With regard to power companies that trim trees along the power lines, she relayed her neighbors were given the option of having the trees cut lower and they didn't just because they hoped to regrow the trees even though it had been previously topped. She questioned how this would be implemented or policed. Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not intent that it would be policed, she just wanted it for clarification so people did not assume that trees had to be re -topped. She agreed with Councilmember Distelhorst's suggestion to change "and" to "or" as it added additional clarity. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 15 Councilmember Olson said her amendment was to remove the language following "alone." One of the goals is to turn everybody into tree loves and this provision will have the exact opposite effect. Councilmember K. Johnson said this section does not appear to require pruning be done, just that if tree had been topped, they could only be prune back as necessary for public safety and tree health. The responsibility is on the landowner who topped the tree to begin with. She did not support removing that language as it was the responsibility of the homeowner, whether or not they were the person who originally topped the tree. Councilmember Olson said there was nothing that says it has to be maintained even if that language was removed. By leaving it in, people can prune at that level and if someone questions it, they can simply say they did it for public safety and health. It is much cleaner without that language and removing it still does not require people to maintain the topped tree height; it simply says it is considered maintenance. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.040 BY REPLACING "SAFETY AND TREE HEALTH" WITH "SAFETY OR TREE HEALTH." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.I1, BY ADDING "AND TREE CROWN DIAMETER" FOLLOWING "SIZE (DBH)." Council President Paine said by adding "tree crown diameter" would show the size of the tree crown on the plans. Mr. Lien said there are no regulations related to tree crown diameter; although it would be shown on the plan, there are no regulations to address it. The regulations related to tree protection are the critical root zone which is based on the diameter of the tree. Councilmember K. Johnson said there is also reference to the drip line during construction. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Olson asked if the input from Mr. Lien was that tree crown diameter would be an additional burden for the contractor but would not add any value to the information it provides the City for the purposes of monitoring the construction project. Mr. Lien answered it would not inform the review of the proposal because there are no regulations related to that. Councilmember Olson concluded the addition would not provide any benefit. Mr. Lien answered not in reviewing the proposal. Councilmember L. Johnson said she seconded the motion hoping to gain further understanding regarding why to document the tree crown diameter with development. She understood documenting the roots and drip line but not tree crown diameter with relation to development. Council President Paine said she would like to have it added as it would help show interconnection between a grove of trees; showing the tree crown would demonstrate the canopy cover on the site or to adjacent canopy cover. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if that was something that a consultant would be qualified and able to provide. Mr. Lien was not certain what it would take to provide that information. Site plans show a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 16 canopy around the trees which he assumed was relative to the DBH size, but he doubted they actually measured the tree crown diameter. Surveyed locations of tree are not always required and he assumed the tree canopy diameter would be estimated. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that it would be a best guess rather than a measurement. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan that illustrate tree locations with the DBH with some sort of canopy around it. He pointed out a 40" tree and the canopy, a smaller tree with a smaller canopy, an 18" tree with a slightly bigger canopy, and a grove of trees and their canopy. Site plans typically show a canopy but he assumed it was an estimate rather than measured. Councilmember Distelhorst observed that would be acceptable under Council President Paine's amendment. Mr. Lien said he would expect to see that but rather than estimated crown diameters it would be a little related to what was actual on the ground. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD "ESTIMATED" PRIOR TO "TREE CROWN DIAMETER." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that the tree crown for conifers is insignificant compared to the drip line which show the broadest part of the tree. Confers' more global shape is equivalent to the crown line of tree. She viewed this as an added step that developers did not need to provide as the current regulations were adequate. For trees more closely associated, the site plan illustrates protection for groups of trees. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.II TO ADD "AND ESTIMATED TREE CROWN DIAMETER." UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Paine suggested continuing the discussion next week and moving on to the remaining agenda items. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY INTERIM REGULATIONS RELATED TO LANDMARK TREES Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the packet contains an emergency interim ordinance for six months that can be revisited prior to six months. The intent of the ordinance is to apply not only to development but apply broadly to all private properties and prohibit the removal of trees greater than 24" diameter at breast height (DBH) during the interim period unless they are hazardous. The intent of the ordinance, proposed by Council President Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson and supported by Mayor Nelson, was to recognize the Council intends to revisit private property tree regulations. As that will take several months to complete, the emergency interim ordinance will preclude cutting of those trees during the interim period. Ms. Hope explained the ordinance also sets a public hearing date of April 20, 2021 to discuss continuing or changing the ordinance. If approved by a super majority, the ordinance could go into effect Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 17 immediately upon adoption. She referenced Section 3 Prohibition, which states, "For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree." A landmark tree is defined as 24" DBH unless it meets the definition of a hazard tree or nuisance tree. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the ordinance will be enforced. She recalled driving down the street recently and seeing that a row of trees had been removed from the backyard of a house and asked bow that will be prevented. Ms. Hope agreed that was the most challenging issue with this prohibition. If a tree code is adopted in the future that applies to all properties, it will also raise issues related to review criteria, enforcement, etc. and will require extra resources. There are definitely fewer 24" DBH trees so it will not necessarily affect all the properties in the City. Enforcement would be via seeing it or someone reporting it. If the emergency interim ordinance is adopted, the City will try to get the word out but violators could be subject to penalties. Councilmember K. Johnson said she often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood and trees greater than 24" DBH being topped or cut down. She pointed out once you hear a chainsaw, it is too late as the tree is already being cut down and they usually start at the top and work their way down unless they are logging it for the wood. She suggested once this is adopted, sending a notification to the major tree companies so they know not to cut those trees in Edmonds without permission. Council President Paine said she was glad to have this emergency interim ordinance drafted that protects and preserves landmark trees which are the biggest. She was hopeful it would maintain the status quo and allow the subdivision tree code to be completed as well as put together the resources and planning for an effective urban forestry program, look at canopy data through the canopy study and develop a thoughtful tree code via an extensive public process like was done in 2015. The ordinance will provide that time and prevents impacts on the tree canopy. A lot of the tree canopy has been removed in the last couple years and it would be a shame to lose more. The ordinance will provide time for a more thoughtful tree code that covers all properties. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was excited about this, but it should not use a definition that is not in the code; she suggested rather than "landmark tree," using "significant tree", and instead of 24" DBH, using 12" DBH because a 12" DBH is 60 years old. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's concerns and referred to an application for tree and vegetation removal that the applicant applied for after the fact to remove 2 hazard trees and 11 additional trees. She emphasized tree are being cut down and she preferred to err on the side of caution and use language already in the code. She concluded this is a great step and she applaud the Council for taking it. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Administration for hearing their concerns and for working with them to put this together. At the bare minimum, this will protect old growth trees that could never be replaced and grown to the size they are in our lifetime. This is the minimum that can be done; it is really important and should have been done a while ago to protect those trees. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson, Council President Paine, Councilmember L. Johnson and the Administration for their work on this. He appreciate the landmark tree and the focus on the 24" DBH. He feared going down to 12" DBH would be more difficult and may be too broad a focus for an emergency ordinance. As with the moratorium, his preference is not to legislate via emergence ordinance and moratorium in general. He hoped having this in place for six months provided the time necessary for public outreach and a process by the Administration and whatever resources the Administration needed to complete that work and to work with residents to have a fuller code and ensure the Council did not continue to legislate via emergency ordinance and moratorium. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 18 Councilmember Olson said her concern with things that arise on short order is the unanticipated consequences. She asked if this would apply to someone doing a renovation on their property or was that covered in another way related to the development aspect. She asked if there could be an exception or caveat that would allow a Council hearing for a tree that someone feels they need to address in the six month period and would provide some flexibility for things that may arise that the Council is not thinking about right now. Ms. Hope said the ordinance does not cover trees going through a permitted development process because that has different requirements. This is related to other areas where people are choosing to cut trees for various reasons. As written, the ordinance would apply to roughly 90% of properties in the City. Mr. Lien clarified it would not impact trees being removed with a reviewed development. This ordinance does not apply to any tree removal associated with a permit through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. It is intended to preserve large trees on developed single family properties while the other regulations are being developed. He concluded trees reviewed with a development proposal could still be removed. Council President Paine said she asked similar questions of Ms. Hope regarding a smaller tree diameter. The challenge is there is not enough code enforcement as well as seeking a balance between preserving large trees and hoping to have good compliance with the understanding the City is seeking greater tree canopy and the ability to monitor it. She had inquired about 12" or 16" DBH and was convinced the 24" DBH during the interim period would be more successful and not overstrain resources. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that trees associated with a permit for a short plat or subdivision could be removed because the moratorium ends March 10'11. She expressed interest in extending the moratorium because she was uncertain the code would be approved by March 10". She concluded if a developer submitted a permit for a subdivision for a property with a lot of trees, they could be removed regardless of size after March 10"' when the moratorium expires. Mayor Nelson said the issue before the Council is the emergency interim ordinance, not the emergency moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Mr. Lien's statement that this ordinance would not apply to tree removed as part of a subdivision. She asked whether subdivisions should be included in this emergency ordinance since the moratorium ends March 10"'. Mr. Lien answered the thought was that the regulations that the Council reviewed in the previous agenda item would be adopted; the new Section 23.10 referenced in the emergency ordinance has regulations that preserve trees with development. If that regulation is not adopted by the time the moratorium expires (Ordinances 4200 and 4201), the regulations would revert to the current tree code. This ordinance may need to be amended if it is adopted prior to the other ordinance because it specifically references Section 23.10. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained when the emergency interim ordinance was drafted, it was assumed the tree code would already be adopted and this would be next. Realizing the Council potentially wants to make more amendments to the tree, he proposed adopting the tree code tonight with the amendments that were made and come back next week and continue to make amendments. The result would be instead of making amendments to a draft code, the Council would be amending an already adopted code. That would address the concern about the moratorium expiring. He believed if the Council waited until next week, the moratorium would be expired at the time of next week's Council meeting. Council President Paine said as she understands the emergency moratorium, when the conservation subdivision code is adopted, the moratorium will expire. Ms. Hope answered yes, the way it is currently written. Mr. Taraday said there is a repealer section in Section 4 of the tree code ordinance that expressly repeals the tree moratorium because the new tree code goes into effect. An argument can be made [Mr. Taraday discontinued participation in the virtual meeting]. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 19 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday and she have been discussing the fact that approving the tree code repeals Ordinances 4200 and 4201, the moratorium on subdivisions and short plats. If the Council approves the tree code as Mr. Taraday suggested, she has more amendments that she feels would solidify the tree code. She was leery of approving the tree code tonight. Ms. Hope said the tree ordinance in the packet specifically repeals the moratorium which otherwise would expire March 10". If the Council adopts tree regulations as amended, and cornes back next week to make further amendments, that may be preferable to extending or creating a new moratorium. Mr. Taraday said there is language in Ordinance 4200 that tries to avoid this situation from occurring by stating something like the ordinance will not be presumed to have been repealed or expired but the Council will do that by ordinance. He was uncertain that language had been tested in court; it was included as a potential safety net. He would prefer not to rely on that language and would rather the Council not accidentally allow the moratorium to expire. Ms. Hope said by adopting the proposed tree regulations with the amendments approved tonight, the moratorium would be ended, but next week Council could consider making additional amendments to the adopted tree code. That would prevent the unintended expiration of the moratorium expiring or creating a new moratorium on the fly. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council has gotten off subject. The issue before the Council is the emergency ordinance and the Council should make a decision on that before deciding on other things. Councilmember Buckshnis explained if the Council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it refers to definitions in the tree code which haven't been approved. If the Council approves the tree code, it removes the moratorium. She asked if the Council could approve the tree code and remove Section 4. Mr. Taraday said Section 4 of the tree code ordinance could be removed. He did not want to represent to the Council that the moratorium was bulletproof and remained in effect by virtue of removing Section 4 because Ordinance 4200 specifically states it is a 4 month moratorium and the 4 months expire on March 10`1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM EMERGENCY TREE ORDINANCE FOR LANDMARK TREES AND MOVE BACK TO DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR AND COME BACK NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the emergency ordinance references code that does not yet exist until the Council adopts the tree ordinance which is why the tree ordnance needs to be adopted first. Mr. Taraday said the ordinances certainly were not intended to be adopted in the order that is currently being considered but a few minutes' difference would not be a problem. Councilmember Olson suggested an option would be holding an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the remaining tree code amendments and the existing moratorium issue. Mayor Nelson said he was not available on Friday. Councilmember Olson said the Council could have a meeting without the Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also was not available. Council President Paine restated the motion; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 20 TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO CHANGE "LANDMARK" TO "SIGNIFICANT" AND CHANGE "24" DBH" TO THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE WHICH IS 12" DBH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADOPT THE AMENDED DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was leery of doing this when it was not complete. There have been examples in the past where there has been an attempt to bring ordinances forward and the minority could not get it done. She hoped there was a promise that additional amendments could be considered, noting she has about nine more amendments. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, "ORDINANCES 4200 (MORATORIUM) AND 4201 (ASSOCIATED INTERIM REGULATIONS) ARE HEREBY REPEALED." Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the Council would spend quality time to consider all the amendments and address the moratorium next week or when it expires. She felt it was premature to have Section 4 in the ordinance. As City Clerk Passey began to take a roll call vote (Councilmember K. Johnson abstained and Councilmember Distelhorst voted no), Councilmember Olson raised a point of order that the original moratorium stated the moratorium would expire when the tree code was passed or when it expired, whichever came first. Ms. Hope recalled it stated a 4-month period which would be March 10"' unless Council acted to repeal it sooner. Mr. Taraday read from the ordinance, "The moratorium imposed by this ordinance shall commence on the date of adoption of this ordinance. The moratorium shall not terminate until four months after the date of adoption unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have to occurred." He explained that is the language he referred to earlier as untested. He suggested if the Council's intent is not to have the moratorium repealed right away, amending Section 4 to read, "The effectiveness of Ordinance 4200 shall be extended to March 24, 2021" which would give the Council two more weeks to resolve anything outstanding in the tree code. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with waiting two weeks, anticipating at 10:14 p.m., the Council could be meeting half the night trying to make all the amendments. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 21 TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, REPEALING ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "ORDINANCE 4200 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021." Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the motion needed to include Ordinance 4201. Mr. Taraday recommended they be handled as a package as they were originally adopted as a package. He requested adding "effectiveness" so the motion stated, "The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 will be extended to March 24, 2021." Council President Paine restated the motion: TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021." Councilmember K. Johnson asked which ordinances these were, whether it was the moratorium ordinance. Council President Paine answered yes and Ordinance 4201 was the associated interim regulations. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. 2. 4T" AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS Due to late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported today the President and Governor announced additions to those eligible for immediate access to the vaccine - school educators and licensed childcare workers. As more people become eligible, hopeful the availability of vaccines will also increase. The numbers in Snohomish County continue to drop, yesterday's report was 109 cases/100,000 (previously 119/100,000). That is still not enough fast enough so he encouraged the public to continue wearing masks, washing hands, and watching their distance. II. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson wished all be well and happy. Councilmember Distelhorst said March is Women's History Month. He is honored to serve alongside his colleagues on Council. International Women's Day is March 8"', a big day in his household because in Mongolia where his wife and two daughters are from, it is actually a national holiday. While he lived in Mongolia, it was a widely celebrated holiday Anyone interested in learning more about notable figures, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 22 the Sno-Isle Library has a recommended book list for adults and teens including a lot of graphic novels that are more approachable and easier to read than non-fiction history books. There are also a number of events this Sunday and Monday related to Edmonds' International Women's Day. He gave a huge shout out to Dr. Kizzy Corbett, one of the key scientists developing the Moderna vaccine; his mom finally got her first shot this morning. Counciltnember Buckshnis wished .lack Beven, a former Councilmember, a Happy 98"' Birthday. Mr, Bevin is .doing well and often asks abokrt the tree code. She announced the Potlatch Bistro at Edmonds Waterfront Center is opening March 4"'. Reservations can be made at Open'fable; up to 50 people can be seated and the view is gorgeous, Council President Paine said she was excited about tonight's actions. She referenced the recent difficulties with Perrinville Creek, expressing her appreciation for the Mayor and Administration's leadership in providing an outline of what has happened and their plans; improvements that have been needed for nearly a decade. ,She was glad to see the Edmonds School District representatives talking about the capital levy. She wished everyone be safe and well, Councilmember L. Johnson said she was excited and relieved teachers are now eligible for vaccination; they have been shouldering a huge burden with many unknowns. There was a lot of excitement in her household when then learned teachers would be eligible. Student Representative Roberts was delighted to hear that educators are now able to get the vaccine and glad it was one step closer to going back to school. Ile was able to get the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine a few weeks ago as a volunteer :for Swedish and he encouraged everyone to get vaccinated when it is offered to them so this virus can be put in the past. He urged the public to wear a mask, make safe choices and check in with each other as we're all in this together, 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. MI AEL NELSON, MAYUR_ c_ SC6 ASSEY, CITY CLER Edmonds City COnneil Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 23 Public Comment for 3/2/21 Council Meeting: From: cdfarmen Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:17 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Prposed Tree code Dear Council Members, Amending the proposed tree code to meet the expectations of retention and no -net -canopy loss will be no easy task. The terminology used throughout the proposed code is not restrictive enough to prevent the unabated cutting of the trees the city wants and needs to protect. Initially, I was under the impression the 35% tree retention was a requirement. But, what I came to find out it was not a precondition nor an obligation on the developer to retain 35% of the trees on the property. When I asked Mr. Lien about that, he said the intent expressed by the Planning Board, was to make the 35% retention the first effort (or step) in tree retention. That being the case, if the developer chooses not to meet that level of retention, the next option becomes cut and replace followed by a third option of cut and pay. No matter how you perceive the proposed tree code, clear -cutting is still a viable option for the developer. Without some true retention requirements, how do you achieve a goal of no -net - loss of canopy or anything ecologically related? The statement at the top of page 7 where it says "significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows". That clearly is a misrepresentation of reality. Doesn't the definition of "shall be" indicate that there is an obligation to preserve rather than an option? There are parts of the tree code where the term prohibited is used such as in the case of certain situations within described critical areas or in the case of "protected trees". Why not prohibit the cutting of a specified percentage of all viable trees on the property? Why not make the applicant be a responsible partner in tree retention? There needs to be a " stop limit" required so that, at a minimum, for example, 20% of all existing viable/significant trees must be preserved. Such a required retention limit is needed so the developer cannot clear-cut the entire subdivision site and "buy their way out" of any tree retention measures. The other weakness in the proposed code is that the Director has far too much discretion in deciding how to apply the tree code. There are more than 12 cases where the director reserves Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 24 the right to take certain discretionary actions. How can the tree code be appropriately applied under those circumstances? It is very important that you develop a vigorous tree protection code, one that can prevail in its first real test of its effectiveness when applied to the development of the Seaview Woods subdivision. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Bonnie Kirby Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 8:23 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree issue Hello! I want to second the email sent to you from Johanna Malloy, my neighbor. She has stated exactly what I would have sent to you. New tree issues really need to be addressed. Thank you. Bonnie Kirby From: Johanna Molloy Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 7:33 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: New Tree Code Dear Edmonds City Council, Thank you for all you do to maintain our beautiful town of Edmonds. As you are reviewing the new Tree Code, we would like to call your attention to a few issues that we feel are of vital importance: 1) Safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles around street corners that are extremely dangerous because of overgrown trees, bushes and out of control vegetation. This includes not only visual impairments as people approach an intersection (both walking and driving), but potential dangers from falling trees and limbs -especially during stormy weather. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 25 2) Trees that infringe on PUD, cable and/or other communication wires that can cause potential fires, lack of quality in communication lines and repeated trimming trips to the same location to try and keep areas clear. This can cause aesthetically negative outcomes, as well as rising costs for consumers. (See pictures below -facing both directions and directly from across the street.) 3) Real Estate Values on "View" properties that decline because of neighbors that do not honor other's views and financial investment by keeping the trees on their property maintained/trimmed. 4) Please make sure that there is reasonable consideration for individual situations that may need extra attention because of extenuating circumstances. For example, the measurements used to address whether or not a tree is an issue in the pictures below, may not reflect the fact that during non-Covid lockdowns, many children cross that intersection on field trips to the water, which is one block away. There are also many joggers, parents with strollers and dog walkers that make visiting 2nd and Edmonds their daily routine. One can clearly see that these limbs (that now spread almost completely across the entire street since these pictures were taken) are a danger and annoyance as people try to avoid them, regardless of the actual measurements. We hope that you will consider these community concerns. We know that MANY neighbors where we live on 2nd Ave N, have complained over the years regarding the overgrown trees on the NW corner of 2nd and Edmonds Street. PUD has approached the owner of the property there (121 Edmonds St) and offered to remove the trees at no cost to the owner and even provide a voucher for new trees, but the owner refused. We love the trees here in the Pacific Northwest. However, we also love being civically pro- active regarding safety in our community, preserving our exceptional views and keeping our financial investments secure. Thank you again for all your hard work. We appreciate your time and attention to these concerns, Johanna and Bill Molloy PS Please forward this email to any parties that may be helpful to addressing our topics and concerns. From: Katy Bigelow Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 4:31 PM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 26 To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Dill, Debra <Debra.Dill @edmondswa.gov>; Spellman, Jana <Jana.Spellman@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Notes to consider for the tree code Basic edits are needed: 1. Revise: 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA Track to read "TRAQ" not "Track" 2. Should be noted that development which contains a Critical Area are held to different standards .. and those standards locations need to be referenced. Questions: 1. How are 30% or 25% retention requirements determined? Is it by total tree diameters? By best looking trees according to the developer/tree professional? By canopy cover? 2. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 8.3.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 5: Tree Ordinance (Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment) 15 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor - By determination of a tree professional? 3. Under civil penalties, "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. " what if the tree professional determines that pruning is not the best course of corrective action or can not be completed as the tree is close to a total loss? Final thought: The City would benefit from having an actual arborist on the Tree Board. This is a strong recommendation that could yield better advice in future rounds of edits. Katy Bigelow ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist PN-6039B PNW ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist® #490 Member - American Society of Consulting Arborists Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 27 From: Eunice Jones Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 8:02 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Citizens Housing Commission Please vote NO to urbanize and up zone all of Edmonds. Affordable housing will NOT be accomplished with the Urban Density proposals that are scheduled to be presented to you on Tuesday, March 16. And our family lot suburban neighborhood will likely be gone if you approve those policy proposals. Those consequences would be tragic. Please do not destroy our Edmonds. Thank you, E. A. Jones From: art jones Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:09 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizen Housing Commission 02/26/2021 Open Letter to Edmonds City Council RE: Citizens Housing Commission believe the Commission should be thanked for their time and effort to achieve more affordable housing in Edmonds. believe their final list of 15 proposals is a VERY large negative for current residents of Edmonds. believe implementation of those proposals would have an irreversible effect on the ambience and character of Edmonds and ultimately help produce the opposite outcome of the original intention. PLEASE! PLEASE! DO NOT ALLOW SUCH TO BECOME IMPLIMENTEDH Thank you, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 28 A.L.Jones Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 29