Loading...
Cmd031621EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 16, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Fraley-Monillas 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 HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts relayed three hearing examiner decisions have been issued since the last annual report to the City Council. The reduced activity may be attributable to the pandemic although some other clients have kept him very busy. The most distinctive thing that happened last year was hearings were conducted virtually due to COVID-19. When Governor Inslee first authorized meetings to be conducted virtually, he placed strict limitations that only necessary business could be conducted out of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 1 a fear that the public may not be able to participate as effectively as they did with in -person hearings. Over the past year, that has proven to be the opposite, virtual hearings have enhanced public participation. He recalled the first hearing he held in 2020 was in February for Auburn regarding a plat and was attended by 24 people. Following the hearing, the City of Auburn received several compliments about how effectively questions were answered via the Zoom format. In a presentation he made to approximately 200 planners last December regarding legal issues associated with virtual hearings, 70% indicated they planned to continue virtual hearings when the pandemic is over. He anticipated there would be a hybrid model, an in -person hearing that also allowed people to participate virtually. He anticipated code enforcement hearings, where attendees are typically only the violator and the City, could easily be held virtually. He reviewed the hearings held in 2020, commenting the virtual hearing process worked well in Edmonds although there were only three hearings, all of them relatively benign that did not draw a great deal of attention or controversy: Comonds Civic Center Pla field Conditional Use and Variance (2/10/20): Conditional use permit and two variances approved for improvements to the Civic Center Playfield. The two variances were for the height and setbacks of fencing for existing tennis courts. The conditional use permit was for the height of light poles that will be replaced for the soccer field. Lighting will be reduced from eight 60-foot poles to six 60-foot poles and the new lights will have cut-off shields that will result in less light spillage on adjoining properties. The fences were moved closer into the property than their existing location but still within the 20-foot setback which required a variance. One person inquired about light spillage onto their property and staff stated fairly confidently that the light spillage would be less. He has done a lot of playfield light cases for the Seattle School District and the City's lights are similar to those used by the school district. Distinctive Dentis Conditional Use Permit (10/22/20): Conditional use permit approved to relocate dental practice to an existing building located at 22815 Edmonds Way. No exterior modifications were proposed. The prior use was a naturopathic clinic. The proposal didn't attract any public comment. Diamond Parking Conditional Use Permit (11/15/20): Approved conditional use permit to convert three private parking lots at the Bank of America site in downtown Edmonds to commercial parking lots. The proposal drew concern from some business owners and residents because it was perceived to reduce the amount of parking available in downtown Edmonds. The lots are private and according to staff they were created in the 50s and 60s and were not required to provide parking for any specific business. The proposal did not involve any improvements to the parking lots. The hearing on the application was re -opened twice to address potential irregularities in the mailed and posted notice of the project. Ultimately, the City was found to have complied with mailed notice requirements. However, in an abundance of caution, the City was found to have potentially violated posting requirements at designated bulletin boards. Hearing notice was reposted to ensure compliance. Staff had not initially posted notice at the bulletin boards because the buildings in which they were located were largely inaccessible to the public due to the pandemic. A citizen activist also raised an issue with mailed notice within 300' of development; the applicant used assessor records to obtain a list of property within 300'. The list is usually based on the billing address for the property owner which can differ from the physical location of the property. The activist objected to this, stating it should have been physical location. The hearing was reopened to ask about the discrepancy and staff explained in City projects, they use the GIS data to provide mailed notice and project applicants obtain a list from the Assessor's Office. As a result, he ruled that either method was appropriate and staff has decided they will always use GIS data for the physical location. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO ADD THE YOUTH COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO SEND PRONOUN INFORMATION TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO THE AGENDA AS UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS ITEM 8.2. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD 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 AS UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 8.3. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the ordinance was done very quickly and the Council did not get to go through all the aspects because the Council was also passing the tree code. There are issues in Section 2 that she would like to get clarification on from the City Attorney because many citizens are concerned that homeowners are being penalized more than a developer with regard to landmark trees. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was a decision whether to extend the ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained Councilmember Buckshnis was asking for the agenda to be amended so he can answer questions publicly regarding the effect of Ordinance 4217. He did not understand her motion to be asking for action on Ordinance 4217, only to publicly answer questions about the effect of the ordinance. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Distelhorst requested Item 7.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted on separately. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, stated his comments would be regarding the hearing examiner's report, recalling that lie has talked to the Council in the past about public participation. He relayed there was no such thing as a billing address at the Assessor's Office; there is a taxpayer address and an owner address. The City of Edmonds' GIS links to those addresses in the Snohomish County Assessor's Office and can see both addresses. The mailing address that the County uses is the taxpayer address. The Edmonds City Code states notices are mailed to the owner's address which is not the mailing address that Snohomish County uses. The issue with the Civic Center Playfield was notice was mailed to him but it was returned to the City; the City had a copy of the envelope mailed to his street address. He has a vacant mailbox due to his mail being continuously stolen which led to ID theft problems. He opened a post office where he receives his water statement from the City every two months. He requested the City update the code to state the taxpayer address is used to mail public notices. When notice was sent regarding the parking lot, which although it may be private property, it was being leased to the City as a municipal parking lot that provided 3-hour parking for people visiting downtown stores, restaurants, theater, etc. The Council has contracting authority whether to discontinue public parking. Tana Axtelle, Edmonds, a 29-year resident and alternate on the Citizens' Housing Commission, explained after following the previous attempts at housing and growth planning in Edmonds and being Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 3 very disheartened by the loud and contentious rhetoric of some citizens, she decided she wanted to be part of the solution so she applied for a position on the Housing Commission. She was impressed with the way the Council chose commission members, ensuring all neighborhoods were represented. She was also impressed with commission's transparency and the community outreach accomplished even during COVID. She was proud of the proposals that the Housing Commission presented to Council and was hopeful the Council would take their take time and due diligence when reviewing each proposals. Growth is inevitable and being proactive and prepared is prudent. Edmonds should be a welcoming and inclusive community, a City that provides diverse options for housing so those who want to live in this amazing town might have the opportunity to do so. Rick Nishino, Edmonds, an alternate on the Citizens' Housing Commission for Zone 6, said he was also very impressed by how well the Housing Commission handled itself and he learned a lot. Many cities are addressing the missing middle; all have their own concerns and are addressing them concurrently. Edmonds' unique character and size are very important and it is important for the Council to consider all the Housing Commission's recommendations and to fit them into Edmonds' character. He concurred with Ms. Axtelle's comments. AJ Johnson, Edmonds, said he was attending tonight's meeting due to a piece of literature left on his doorstep. He never thought he would be a person engaging on housing issues in the community. A new Edmonds resident who has worked and lived near Edmonds for seven years, he expressed support for the polices recommended by the Citizens' Housing Commission. Edmonds has changed dramatically over the last 40 years and needs diverse housing options that are not just along the Highway 99 corridor. The "dog whistle" of don't turn Edmonds into Seattle or Lynnwood is a tired, old argument. This is an opportunity to get this right; he urged the Council not to pass the buck like the generation before did with mass transit. Now is the time to enact these policies to enhance the livability of the community and shape the future to be better for generations to come. Rifik [last name not provided], said they have lived in Edmonds approximately two years. A lot of development has occurred in their neighborhood including impacts on the foliage and trees. After 4-5 months, the developments result in a nice layout of planning and housing in their neighborhood. A lot of the development that has occurred near their property has been beneficial. They expressed concern with the inability to contact the County Assessor's Office related to property taxes. Donna Murphy, Edmonds, a 4-year resident of Edmonds, expressed support for the recommended policies developed by the Citizens' Housing Commission. The commission was chosen by elected officials so she trusted when officials elected to reflect the community's beliefs select people to sit on a commission, the process is all encompassing and brings all points of view. She reminded that although the pushback regarding the plan may be by the loudest, it does not reflect most views. If the City fails to plan, it is a plan to fail. Planning provides opportunities and creates vibrancy in Edmonds and continuing to have the bucolic, lovely town that remains a gem and has the same type of vibe. She referred to a piece about suburbs in Edmonds, where someone said Edmonds is no longer Deadmonds and downtown has become a great place to live. She would love to see her children raise their children here, seniors age in place and teachers, coaches and others remain in the community. She reiterated her support for the recommended policies of the Housing Commission and said she is grateful for the opportunity to live in Edmonds. Ashley West, Edmonds, expressed concern over the Citizens' Housing Commission's recommendations. Living near Yost Park, she is concerned with potentially changing the housing code to allow additional dwellings or sub -dwellings in her area or other similar areas as there was not enough infrastructure for housing for additional families. She loves that she knows her neighbors and that her block and area get to be a small community and get to know each other. She was concerned with potential exponential growth that this particularly area in Edmonds cannot support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 4 Salina Bolotin, Edmonds, a 30-year resident of Edmonds, expressed support for the Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations. She supported the ability for teachers, firefighters, and young families to live in and contribute to the richness of Edmonds. A truly healthy community is characterized by a mix of ages, incomes, professions, beliefs, backgrounds, etc. The City Council should encourage and provide housing codes to allow duplexes, cluster or cottage housing and detached ancillary units that would be compatible with many neighborhoods. For example duplexes exist in many areas of Edmonds with no adverse impacts. Cottage housing is also a great way to provide well designed, smaller homes with shared green spaces and she has seen beautiful architectural designs for small cluster communities. She has several friends who would like to build detached ancillary units for themselves while grown children and their families live in the original house or have the ability to rent the axillary unit to supplement a fixed retiree income. She acknowledged parking, size, location and true affordability would need to be considered and guided by codes and structure. There is no need for scare rhetoric; there is time to let the Council do their job to consider the advantages of more affordable housing while putting structure in place to ensure compatibility with Edmonds' values and livability. Theresa [and Randy] Hollis, Edmonds, 20 year residents of Edmonds, thanked the Council for the articulate mission statement for the Citizens' Housing Commission which reflects wisdom and she assumed the Council understood the difficult decisions ahead. She opined it was not the Council's job in implementing the housing policies to make her a millionaire through homeownership. It was the Council's job to continue to nurture a diverse, growing, healthy community. Their elder son, an aircraft mechanic, bought his first home in Renton, a fixer -upper that he improved with a goal of selling and buying a home in South Snohomish County, but has been priced out of the market. When they first moved to their home on Madrona Lane, the neighbors included a baggage handler at an airline, an insurance salesman, and a retired UW biologist. Their newest neighbor 18 months ago is a Microsoft employee who drives a Tesla and computes an hour each way. The same thing is happening around the region. If developers have incentives to build the missing middle or handsome duplexes like those around her neighborhood in unincorporated Snohomish County, their son would be able to reach his goal and purchase a home in the Edmonds area. Joe Hollis said young people are increasingly unable to afford to purchase a house despite being increasingly more educated than any preceding generation. Housing prices have outpaced wages for over 95% of the millennials and zoomers. Property taxes on houses in Edmonds will be in the ballpark of one- fourth of their pretax income even if they inherit a house instead of buying it. That means one's house cannot be used as a reliable inheritance package for their kids, because it will cost their children more than they can sell it for because no one under 30 will be able to purchase it. As a disabled person, he likely would be unable to afford the property tax on his parents' house when they die. At the current rate of housing price increase in their neighborhood, no one will be able to afford to purchase it when he tries to sell it. Changing the laws to permit more family dwellings per lot is both beneficial to the City and others like himself, because unless changes are made, when the current residents die, the town will die with them as the population will not be replaced. Valerie Kendall, Edmonds, urged the Council to move the Citizens' Housing Commission's recommendations forward for additional consideration. She grew up in Edmonds, graduating from Woodway High School in 1973. At that time, Edmonds was an affordable, welcoming community with naturally affordable housing. Taking measures now to enact policies that provide for a range of housing options ensures that Edmonds will continue to attract diverse residents which contributes to the overall healthy fabric of the community. Not taking action will have consequences. Ed Augustavo, Edmonds, said prior to moving to Edmonds he lived in Seattle where backroom deals are a way of live and that seems to be coming to Edmonds. He pointed out 80% of people surveyed do not support the Housing Commission's recommendations, the wide open building ability. No one talks about Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 5 the tremendous tax break that developers get such 12 years without property taxes; the people who pick up the slack from that are the taxpayers. He did not come to Edmonds to be part of this kind of setup, a backroom thing. The love fest, that everyone loves the Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations, is not true and the Council needs to talk to people who live here and not just stuff the ballot box with those who love it. There are some good parts of the recommendations, but a lot of it is not good. He encouraged citizens to read and understand the Housing Commission's recommendations, anticipating Edmonds neighborhoods would become Lake City. Growing up in Seattle, he knew of good neighborhoods that went bad. He disagreed the policies will result in affordable housing, anticipating developers will purchase smaller houses, demo them and build 3-4 houses in their place. Alessa Villa, Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds, raised her children here and hopes to retire in Edmonds. The thriving middle class is a foundation of the economy. She read the Citizens' Housing Commission's policy recommendations and believes they will strengthen the middle class and she supports them. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said in the Housing Commission's recommendations, an important piece has been glaringly omitted, the actual input from the community at numerous public outreach events the CHC provided. Some of the final policy recommendations have been included despite strong public input to the contrary. At a minimum, this should have been given its place in tonight's presentation, to honor the critical promise made in the resolution, that from the outset this Council -led process would be different from the previous failed administrative attempts. She questioned how the 15 policy proposals could be evaluated without the community input. She urged the Council to ask the director for the input from the input provided over 16 months beyond the small majority of 15 voting commission members who recommended upzoning the entire city and eliminating single family neighborhoods. One of the highest response from any survey was 78% of respondents asked not to change single family zoning. Comments and outreach events told the same story. There was also no majority of public support for an increase in local taxes and only 34% support an interlocal agreement with HASCO. Ms. Dotsch explained feedback from the survey that resulted in the final policy proposals showed 59% of respondents opposed the proposal to establish a new zoning type of single family housing that allows for construction of zero lot line duplexes, triplexes and quadraplexes of 1-2 story height located in specific areas of Edmonds. Only 35% supported extending the MFTE and 57% opposed increasing the number of areas for using MFTE. Other policy proposal had great support; 59% of respondents supported the idea of adopting language making parking solutions a goal in the transportation element. Other input collated from hundreds of surveys and public comments provided since September 2019 are not included. Some commissioners believed the citizens they asked to participate via surveys, open houses, etc. did not deserve a voice as they had "privilege" or were "loud voices." She questioned how that was welcoming input from citizens. She objected to cherry picking what they want to hear and fixing their own viewpoint, whether a commissioner or a director. She was hopeful the Council would be more willing to hear from citizens and not be afraid to listen and hear input the Council promised would be prioritized. Michael McMurray, Edmonds, a member of the Housing Commission, said there were a lot of nice people on the commission. He agreed it was not perfect and it was hard work. He pointed out the City's townhouse policies are essentially carbon copy of Seattle's policies. The Housing Commission never got to those policies and he encouraged the Council to consider them. He referred to nice townhomes on 212t" as an example where the layout is very condensed but there are no yards. He suggested there would be less angst in the community if there was an Edmonds -kind of townhome policy that would ensure there were only two townhomes on each lot. There are currently developments where three properties are combined and ten McMansions constructed. Unless the policy is investigated further, if two townhomes are allowed, a total of 20 could be constructed. He suggested a townhome policy that requires more open space, commenting every development including commercial should have open space. Before looking at the other policies, he recommended considering the townhouse policies because townhouses are the future Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 6 of development. In Edmonds, a townhouse sells for $600,000 to $700,000, an option and an opportunity for younger families and those who cannot afford $1.5M houses. He was interested in ensuring developers could not purchase three lots and construct more than three homes regardless of the type. In Seattle, usually 6-8 homes are built on two lots via adjacent developments. He offered to serve on a subcommittee to discuss making townhomes assimilate better into Edmonds. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds since 2007, agreed with some of the previous comments related to the Housing Commission and the concerns expressed by Mr. McMurray, Ms. Dotsch and Mr. Augustavo. She thanked the City Council, the Tree Board and Kernen Lien for the extensive work they did to adopt the beginnings of a Edmonds tree code which is important to the City's future environmental health and beauty. It is important to take a balanced approach to large issues the City is trying to solve including trees, environment and housing. Getting to the tree code took a fair amount of time considering the UFMP was adopted in July 2019 and unexpected complexities arose due to the pandemic. While the impact of development on the tree canopy is being addressed, there is a great deal of work to be done to realize a comprehensive tree code that will deliver the outcomes we strive for. She expressed support for prioritizing the work and for advancing a heritage tree program and offered her time to speed up the timeline. Ms. Fleming explained tonight the City Council will begin its work on the Housing Commission's proposals; she feared the Council was stretching itself across two complex and important issues.. While the Housing Commission did great work during a very difficult time, this is the most important and crucial decision the Council and citizens have before them and it must be considered carefully and given the time and research it deserves. She recommended the Council focus on completing a comprehensive tree code before making any decisions on the housing issue. The City has already lost numerous trees over the past few years through loopholes and inflexible codes and citizens are awaiting the new tree canopy assessment. She was invested in the tree code due to her engagement in efforts to save a 100-year old heritage tree approved for removal in a short plat development project in her neighborhood. Kelsey Foster, Edmonds, a 48-year resident of Edmonds, said she grew up in Edmonds and was lucky to be able to raise her two kids here. She referred to comments about keeping Edmonds the same, pointing out when she was growing up, Edmonds was a place where teachers, grocery and deli clerks, restaurant severs, mail carriers, and car mechanics lived just as commonly as attorneys, executives and real estate developers. A family making $50,000 could comfortably raise their family in Edmonds. Now if someone makes less than $100,000, they are risk of not being able to find housing that is considered affordable in Edmonds. She urged the Council to strongly consider the Housing Commission's recommendations that will allow for more affordable options and allow the Edmonds she remembered to continue to exist, a place where people from all walks of life, jobs and incomes can afford to live and contribute to the community. She hoped someday her children could afford to live and raise their families in Edmonds. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OT ITEM 7.4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 3. GARDEN AND SUMMER MARKET EVENT CONTRACT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 7 5. JANUARY 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MURRAYSMITH FOR THE PHASE 9 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE PH. 12 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE 11 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 9. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES POLICY AND BUDGET AUTHORIZATION ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 4. PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 GRANT ILA #2 -LEAP COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE TO APPROVE. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST ABSTAINING. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained this item is a continuation of amendments to the tree code that the Council did not finish last week. He displayed a list of amendments proposed by Councilmembers via email and compiled by Council Assistant Maureen Judge. He highlighted amendments approved at the March 12' meeting and one amendment rejected at the March 2°d meeting. At a previous meeting, Development Services Director Shane Hope presented the concept of stages of the tree code update; the amendments in the table are identified as Stage I and Stage 2 amendments. Stage 1 tree code is focused on tree regulations related to development; Stage 2 will address tree removal outside development on all property. He recommended tonight going through the Stage 1 amendments to the tree ordinance that was passed on March 2"1; the Stage 2 tree code and amendments will be addressed immediately following the completion of Stage 1. Mr. Lien referenced an amendment that Councilmember Buckshnis had made a motion on but the Council had not yet voted on: 23.10.080.E. Change opening sentence to "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer may apply for a fee -in -lieu exemption to the tree retention/replacement requirements. A tree replacement fee shall..." Councilmember Buckshnis commented she also has a number of definitions to propose such as no net loss, net ecological gain, landmark trees also known as heritage trees, wildlife corridors, land corridors and water corridors, as well as to correct the hazard tree definition. She asked if the Council preferred to approve them all at once or individually. Mayor Nelson suggested one at a time. Council President Paine suggested taking them one at a time. Councilmember Olson suggested if the Council heard all the definitions proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis, the Council could make amendments if a Councilmember did not like one or more of the definitions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 8 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was a given, for every item, Councilmembers can make amendments if they choose. She agreed with voting on the definitions individually. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF HAZARD TREE TO READ, 23.10.020.G HAZARD TREE - A TREE THAT IS DEAD, DYING, DISEASED, DAMAGED, STRUCTURALLY DEFECTIVE On EXPOSED BV FECEINT R-EMOV A' Q—F "�"m " T RF-1 8 Wurru MAKES IT -vjECT TOA—HIGH PROBABRAT-V OF FAEE UR AS DETERMINED BY A QUALIFIED TREE PROFESSIONAL. Council President Paine relayed her understanding that only one tree would be risk assessed as a hazard rather than basing it on adjacent trees. Mr. Lien answered the hazard tree assessment is done on individual trees; the line that is proposed to be deleted is one reason why a tree could become a hazard tree. For example, if a tree was adjacent to other trees and those other trees were removed, it has a high probability of failure. That could be documented when the hazard tree evaluation is done. He did not see any problem with this change to the definition. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO ADD A DEFINITION: LANDMARK TREES — LANDMARK TREES ARE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS EXTRA SPECIAL TREE DUE TO THEIR SIZE OR AGE AND IS DEFINED WITH A 24" DIAMETER. LANDMARK TREES CAN ALSO BE KNOWN AS HERITAGE TREES. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Tree Board has used landmark rather than heritage; adding the last sentence avoids confusion between a landmark and a heritage trees. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding the City would be looking into a heritage tree program in the future. She was concerned that may be different than a program based on tree size, age and a 24" diameter. She asked if that was the intent of a heritage tree program. Mr. Lien said one of the Stage 2 items was a heritage tree program. A heritage tree can be different than a landmark tree and may not be 24" in diameter. That program has not yet been developed, but he envisioned it something like the City's historic register, trees that are recognized as special species, forms or shapes and are not necessarily landmark trees. He summarized a landmark tree and a heritage tree are different things. Councilmember Buckshnis accepted removal of the last sentence in the definition "landmark trees can also be known as heritage trees" as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed a heritage tree program was listed as Stage 2 in Q3 and 4 2021 and the tern "landmark tree" is not regulated anywhere in the code. He prefer to wait to make the designations until that work is done. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' request, Mayor Nelson reread the motion TO ADD A DEFINITION, LANDMARK TREES ARE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE CITY AS EXTRA SPECIAL TREE DUE TO THEIR SIZE OR AGE AND IS DEFINED WITH A 24" DIAMETER. Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday had a long discussion about this; she used to be a technical writer, is old school and believes definitions are very important. Even though the definition of landmark tree is not in the code, it is in Ordinance 4217. It is important for citizens to be aware of language the City Council uses and it does not cause any harm to include definitions commonly used in discussion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 9 Councilmember Olson agreed if the language was used in other ordinances, it may be of value to include a definition. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how "extra special" would be defined, whether it was specifically age or a minimum of 24" diameter. Councilmember Olson suggested a friendly amendment, landmark trees are defined as trees with a diameter of 24" or greater. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was open to the definition in Ordinance 4217, "a landmark tree shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or more." Councilmember Olson suggested removing "shall be defined as" so the definition reads, "Landmark tree - any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24" or more. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested "chest height" instead of "breast height." Mr. Lien answered breast height was the industry standard of how trees are measured. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out the term "landmark tree" does not appear anywhere in the code. The Council can feel free to disregard his philosophy on code writing, but he generally does not define terms that are not used the in code because one would have occasion to look for the definition of landmark tree because it is not used in the code. That phrase is included in the interim ordinance but that is not the code and the interim ordinance is not a permanent regulation. It would not cause a lot of harm, but in his opinion it clutters the code with unnecessary language. Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday have discussed this and they have to agree to disagree. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. (Councilmember K. Johnson was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY L. JOHNSON, TO ADD A DEFINITION OF NO NET LOSS: "NO NET LOSS MEANS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF THE CITY'S SENSITIVE AREAS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES AS ACHIEVED THROUGH A CASE -BY -CASE REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. EACH PROJECT SHALL BE EVALUATED BASED ON ITS ABILITY TO MEET THE NO NET LOSS GOAL." Councilmember Buckshnis said some of the Stage 1 amendments attempt to address no net loss. It has not yet been addressed and is likely to be part of Stage 2. She has written codes and regulations in the past and believes definitions are very helpful for individuals reading the code. She commented these terms are used freely throughout WRIA 8 grant presentations. This definition should be included now as those issues will be addressed in Stage 2. Councilmember L. Johnson said similar to Councilmember Buckshnis, she would like the City to move toward a goal of no net loss. However, she agreed if that term was not used in the current code, it could be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 10 confusing to include it in the definitions as people may look for it in the code. She agreed with incorporating it in the future, but saw value in limiting definitions to terms used in the code. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to 23.10.000.K Intent and Purpose, mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal and land development through on site and off site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of Edmonds. The UFMP also includes no net loss. He did not see much difference between 23.10.000.K and the definition and suggested the definition was unnecessary as it was already included in 23.10.000.K. Mr. Lien answered the definition of no net loss proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis is not the same as net loss of canopy coverage. The definition Councilmember Buckshnis proposed is more extensive, no net loss of sensitive areas functions and values. The no net loss of canopy coverage in the UFMP is referenced in 23.10.000.K. No net loss is also not addressed in the code and he concurred with Mr. Taraday about not including definitions for terms not used in the code. Councilmember Buckshnis said the tree code is related to development and subdivisions which is why she wanted to include this definition. She agreed this was much more detailed and took into account wildlife, water and land corridors which is why she supports including it. Council President Paine commented the previous definition and this one are terrific definitions, but they are Stage 2 definitions that can be related to information gathered from the canopy assessment. She concluded the definitions were premature and needed to wait until Stage 2. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is very pertinent to land development and subdivisions where the intent is to preserve undeveloped lots which have land, wildlife or water corridors. These lots are probably the least likely to be developed, but as land becomes scarcer, it will be given a second chance by developers. She concluded these definitions are important for the purpose of developing undeveloped land in Edmonds. Councilmember Olson suggested changing the format to "No net loss — the maintenance of..." Councilmember Buckshnis accepted that as a friendly amendment. Councilmember Olson said she embraced the concept, but until a term is applied in the code, she did not support including it in the definition. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD A DEFINITION: "NET ECOLOGICAL GAIN — A STANDARD FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, POLICY, PLAN OR ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE IMPACTS ON THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY CAUSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ARE OUTWEIGHED BY MEASURES TAKEN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW MITIGATION HIERARCHY TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS, UNDERTAKE SITE RESTORATION, AND COMPENSATE FOR ANY REMAINING IMPACTS IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT FOR THE GAIN TO EXCEED THE LOSS." Councilmember Buckshnis said it is important to be consistent with net ecological gain, a new thing that is coming forth in environmental groups she participates in. She supports including the definition so that citizens can understand the City will be looking toward net ecological gain as well as no net loss. Council President Paine said this lengthy definition combines policy direction and definition. She supports net ecological gain but including policy direction in the definition makes it muddy. She liked the definition, but felt it was more appropriate in Stage 2. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember L. Johnson said she supports this definition and goal. However, it appears to relate to individual development, stating the gain from steps taken on individual development will outweigh the loss but that would not be achieved with the way the code is currently written. She envisioned it could be included in Stage 2. Mr. Lien explained there is a bill in the legislature that deals with net ecological gain and includes a definition. The policy of net ecological gain needs to be looked at more broadly than individual sites. He read a portion of HB 1117 that made it out of the House and is currently in the Senate, "the advancement of ecological function and advancement of net ecological gain within each WRIA or independent natural drainage that flows directly into marine waters will occur through the appropriate selection and implementation of publicly funded projects, including voluntary grant programs, salmon recovery projects, ecological improvements made through the municipal stormwater permit process, and investments made as a result of the capital facilities element and transportation element of the comprehensive plan." That definition is much broader and designates Fish & Wildlife to develop rules for what net ecological gain means. It is a big term and a lot of work needs to be done to define what net ecological gain is. Council President Paine suggested this statement, with minor edits, would be better in the Intent and Purpose section. Development Services Director Shane Hope commented net ecological gain is a great concept that needs to be considered. However, one of options is for Council to consider in Stage 2 how to apply it rather than just adopting something now. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is just a definition and there seems to be a difference of opinion; she is an old school technical writer. She would accept moving the definition to Intent and Purpose as Item L. It is a very important concept that is moving forward. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for clarification regarding Stage 2, relaying her understanding that that was related to private property and this ordinance deals with land development such as subdivisions, short plats, etc. Ms. Hope answered tonight's amendments were related to the development related tree regulations and then returning to the larger issues as part of Stage 2. Mr. Lien referred to the Upcoming Tree Related Items & Timing, pointing out Stage 2 includes wildlife and habitat corridors and stormwater and watershed analysis. A holistic look at the City's codes, development and plans will be required to reach net ecological gain and it is not something that can be achieved with the tree code alone. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that there would be additional work done in Stage 2. She sees large tracts of land that will be impacted if a holistic view is not taken so it is not just one or the other as there is an overlap of the two issues. For example, if there is a significant land area with water, wildlife or tree canopy, doesn't the City want to have some mechanism to evaluate it or set the policy to try to retain as much as possible? Ms. Hope answered the tree regulations related to development try to get to that via intention, protection and planting requirements, etc. but provides guidance/requirements in specific numerical form instead of a general policy statement. The concern is including a general policy statement could be confusing with regard to how it applies on top of the numerical standards in the code. It may be better addressed during Stage 2 which will include consideration of a net ecological assessment. Otherwise it does not really do anything specific. Councilmember K. Johnson said it did not need apply to all development, but suppose there was a development with the SEPA checklist and the tree code, shouldn't some sort of assessment by a qualified professional be required to inform about the existing habitat that could be lost in terms of animals or the tree canopy? Ms. Hope said a professional assessment is required for certain things with most Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 12 development. Having something in a definition or intent statement does not trump what would be in the plain language of the code. Mr. Lien said a habitat assessment might be required if there is a critical area involved, but a 2-lot short plat with no critical area would not have a habitat assessment. The habitat assessment and those requirements are tied to critical areas. Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion with the agreement of the second: MOVE "PROMOTE NET ECOLOGICAL GAIN, A STANDARD FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, POLICY, PLAN OR ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE IMPACTS ON THE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY CAUSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ARE OUTWEIGHED BY MEASURES TAKEN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW MITIGATION HIERARCHY TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS, UNDERTAKE SITE RESTORATION, AND COMPENSATE FOR ANY REMAINING IMPACTS IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT FOR THE GAIN TO EXCEED THE LOSS" TO ITEM L IN THE INTENT AND PURPOSE SECTION. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern that the definition seems to indicates net ecological gain is attainable through development and she was not sure that was something that could be backed up. Given where the City is with the code, she did not want to do a disservice the definition and what it should mean to the environment by potentially misleading anyone to think it is attainable through development. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; she has seen net ecology gain occur in developments and she has seen policies related to it. She did not see this statement as giving anyone false hope. The City can put good code in place and promotes net ecological gain. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Lien started at top of list of amendments, an amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: 23.10.060 A.5 DELETE ANY TREE REMOVAL ON DEVELOPED SITES NOT EXEMPTED BY ECDC 23.10.040. Mr. Lien explained this is identified as an exemption in the list of amendments, however, it is not an exemption. It means if it one of the exemptions above does not apply, it is subject to the tree code. As proposed the amendment would delete types of development that are subject to the tree code. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO ADD "DESCRIBE AND SHOW ON MAPS EXACTLY WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PLANTED INCLUDING LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE SITE AND EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER APPROVAL FOR REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS ON THE ALTERNATE SITE." AS 23.10.060.B.VIII. Mr. Lien pointed out the site plan already requires the location of replacement trees. Councilmember Buckshnis explained this will ensure the homeowner provides information regarding where the replacement trees will be planted. Councilmember Olson said this was a good addition so that the owner of the recipient land for the replacement trees is on board, evidence that the City would want to have. Councilmember Distelhorst commented it is already included in 23.10.060.b.vii. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 13 Council President Paine observed this is different than vii as it is related to the placement of trees on an alternate site. Mr. Lien said ECDC 23.10.060.C.5 is related to the minimum number of trees required when a site does not have any trees and ECDC 23.10.080 is the replacement requirements. The difference is this amendment adds the description of alternate sites; the first half of vii and viii are similar but viii adds language about alternate sites. Councilmember K. Johnson commented tonight's Council meeting was advertised as presenting the Housing Commission's recommendations, scheduled for 60 minutes. As it is now 9:00 p.m., she did not envision the Council could complete the tree regulations tonight and still honor the promise to present the Housing Commission's recommendations. Mayor Nelson deferred to Council regarding how long they wanted to spend on this item; the Council has now been discussing it for 55 minutes. Council President Paine suggested finishing this amendment and then do the Youth Commission's pronoun agenda item and then have the Housing Commission presentation and if there was time, come back to the tree regulations. Councilmember L. Johnson asked for clarification of the amendment, if it was asking the developer to give evidence where trees will be planted on alternate sites. Councilmember Olson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis and Mr. Lien discuss combining vii and viii and bring it back next week. They are very similar, but one is related to replacement on the same property and the other is about replacement trees elsewhere. It is worth including, but there may be a way to say it more succinctly and with more clarify. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to work with Mr. Lien on this for next week. She commented there were at least 10-12 amendments other and she hoped the Council would complete those tonight. She was happy to work with Mr. Lien on this amendment. 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. USING PRONOUNS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Council President Paine recalled last week the Youth Commission presented tools and resources for using pronouns with titles, emails and screen identifiers and requested the Council send it to boards and commissions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ACCEPT THE YOUTH COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD THE INFORMATION AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY USE PRONOUNS ON THEIR SCREEN NAMES AND EMAILS AS VOLUNTEERS FOR CITY IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is a great idea, however, some people may be computer challenged or may not want to make that change. She asked what would happen if not all board and commission members made the change. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out last week's agenda packet included a tutorial for changing your name on Zoom and email signature on City accounts and those are available for distribution to boards and commissions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 14 Councilmember Olson said she loves the idea of doing the education and outreach and making the tutorial and package from the Youth Commission available to boards and commissions and sharing the value of using pronouns. She did not think it was appropriate to proceed with the exact wording of the Youth Commission's recommendation to request that they include pronouns in their email signature. She was not comfortable with forcing conformity for a couple different reasons, one is that the vulnerable party may not be ready to claim and disclose their preferred pronoun and may prefer no pronoun. She felt it was better to share the information on how it could be done and not recommend it be used. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Olson as it matched some of the grumblings she has heard and she feared it may make some volunteer board and commission members uncomfortable. She agreed with Council and staff using personal pronouns. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if volunteers were uncomfortable, they could identify with whatever they felt most comfortable with. She serves on a number of boards and commissions outside the City and almost all use pronouns. If someone does not want to identify themselves, they can identify as close as they are. The issue was simply how someone wanted to be addressed, whether it was he/him, she/her or they/them. She did not envision someone would be prevented from serving on a board or commission if they refused to include their preferred pronoun. Councilmember Olson commented if Edmonds wants to be an inclusive city, that should also allow those who do not want to claim or participate to do that as well. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO STATE "SHARE THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VALUE AND THE TUTORIAL ON THE HOW-TO FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO PROCEED." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the amendment because it does not take the issue into hand and allows people an out. She did not have a problem with requesting board and commissioners identify their pronoun but if they did not want to, they did not have to. She suggested the amendment was washing down the request which was not what the Youth Commission wanted. She encouraged Councilmembers to vote against the amendment. Councilmember Distelhorst said the Youth Commission's recommendation was a request to commission and board members, not a requirement and he was very comfortable having that request sent. If someone preferred not to, they did not have to, but lie wanted to honor and support the Youth Commission's work. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT 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. Council President Paine restated the motion: THE YOUTH COMMISSION REQUESTS THE COUNCIL RECOMMEND THE USE OF PRONOUNS. Councilmember Distelhorst read the Youth Commission recommendation: The Youth Commission recommendation to the City Council is to request that all commission and board members include their pronouns in their email signature, Zoom titles as well as in their biography on any webpage belonging to the City of Edmonds. He noted the Mayor has already agreed to make the same request of all City staff. Councilmember Olson asked if there would be any consequence for staff or commissioners who do not choose to comply with the request. Mayor Nelson advised this pertains City boards and commissions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 15 Council President Paine said she did not know who would do the enforcement and she would be troubled if there was a consequence. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. 3. CLARIFICATION REGARDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 4217 Councilmember Buckshnis explained the ordinance regarding landmark trees relates to private property. Section 2. Applicability and states, "The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040 shall have no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply..." She explained subdivisions and short plats are exempt from the ordinance; in other words, homeowners are penalized more than developers and developers can remove landmark trees as long as they comply with the new tree code. Many citizens have expressed concern with penalizing private homeowners and allowing developers to cut down landmark trees. She asked Mr. Taraday to clarify. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this was a Council initiated ordinance not a City Attorney initiated ordinance. As an interim ordinance, it expressly recognizes that the City has not completed all the work it might want to complete with regard to the tree code. One of the areas that is still under consideration, especially after the adoption of Ordinance No. 4217, is what does the City want to do with landmark trees on improved single family lots. There are a lot of options, one would be to go back to the way things were before Ordinance 4217 where there was little that prevented them from being cut down. He agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' assertion that at least for the next six months, there is a discrepancy between how the owner of an improved single family lot is treated and how a developer would be treated with respect to their ability to remove a landmark tree. Although there may be significant cost, a developer could remove a landmark tree via the permit process, the tree replacement process, etc. as set forth in the tree code. At least for the next six months, the owner of a single family lot would not be able to remove a landmark tree. His understanding of the Council's intent in adopting Ordinance 4217 was to say until the City determines what to do on single family lots, they want to keep those trees standing for six months and have more time to deliberate about what to do with those trees and come up with a permanent code. Councilmember Buckshnis commented for anyone who followed the March 2"d meeting, she definitely would not have supported this. She read from the ordinance, "this ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. She thanked Mr. Taraday for his explanation and hoped in the future the Council had more time to digest the information, recalling the Council got the ordinance at 3:15 and that evening was very confusing to many. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW OF HOUSING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed that the Housing Commission's recommendation are on the City's website and have been provided in numerous ways. Tonight will be an introductory overview of the Housing Commission's recommendation, knowing the idea is to return with more details on each of the recommendation in the future. Prior to tonight's meeting, a housing news memo was sent Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 16 to all email subscribers, a postcard was mailed to every household, and there were press releases and an agenda memo prepared. Ms. Hope reviewed: • Background o Council established Citizens' Housing Commission in 2019 o Housing Commission's Mission Is "Develop for Council consideration diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds — irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation." 0 15 members and 8 alternates were appointed from a pool of 135 citywide applications o Housing Commission recommendations originally planned to be provided by December 31, 2020 ■ In November, Council approve a one month extension to January 31, 2021 o Commission's public meetings begin in September 2019 o Policy recommendations submitted January 29, 2021 Ms. Hope introduced retired Housing Commissioners Bob Throndsen and Karen Haase Herrick. Mr. Throndsen thanked Mayors Earling and Nelson and Council liaisons Luke Distelhorst and Vivian Olson. They also appreciated the help of Director Hope, her staff and the consultants. He honored the memory of Commissioner John Reed who passed away a year ago from COVID; John devoted much of his free time to the community and brought passion and wisdom to the commission and will be forever in their hearts. Each commissioner came to the process as committed residents with diverse backgrounds who cared deeply about Edmonds' past, present and future. They respected each other, had frank and sometimes passionate debates, researched, compromised and brainstormed and built what the commission felt were strong proposals. No community exists without change; Edmonds has changed radically even in the last five years. The commission believes Edmonds can accommodate well -planned change, maintain its unique character and environment, and offer affordable housing options. Mr. Throndsen explained the proposals in the commission's final report are theirs alone, not staff s, the consultant's, not the Council's and not the Mayor's. Commissioners voted on and passed proposals that they believed fulfill the mission to develop diverse housing policy options. One of the key words in the mission is diverse. The commission believes Edmonds must provide for the diverse needs of seniors, veterans, those with disabilities, people who are part of the so-called missing middle and may not be able to continue to afford to live in Edmonds. Edmonds must find diverse ways to create more affordable housing for all residents in the future. Another key word is options; the commission developed options, possibilities and proposals for more affordable housing which the Council will study in-depth in the future. To achieve that, the Housing Commission sought public feedback including four open houses, the last three unfortunately online only due to COVID. More than 2000 residents participated in the four citywide surveys and open houses. Mr. Throndsen explained the commission listened to and read the feedback and incorporated some of it into the proposals. The commission's task was to balance public input with their research and the mission the Council gave them. The commission hopes the Council will consider all the proposals and tailor them to the City's future housing needs. It will require political and moral courage to keep Edmonds a vibrant and diverse community. Ms. Herrick described the process used to develop the policy ideas. Commissioners broke into working committees formed at the February 2020 meeting where commissioners identified their top five policy ideas via a sticky note exercise using a list developed during a brainstorming process at an earlier meeting. Commissioners and alternates self-selected onto five committees and committee lead roles. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 17 Committee sizes varied from five to two people and met via Zoom as well as some walk -and -talks. The committees used an iterative process to identify and refine potential ideas. City Staff served as ad hoc consultants for clarity and resource sharing. Early in June it was discovered that several committees overlapped on potential policy ideas, but due to varied approaches, the committees continued worked on their individual policy ideas using their own framework approach and final decisions were made at the January 28"' meeting. Ms. Herrick explained in November and December commission members engaging in a deep dive for round 1 and 2 policy ideas as well as individual policy ideas brought forward by individual commissioners that did not fall into the committee topic structure and ended up being additions to the final product. The committee's discussion was very robust and included a cross-check to look for major holes in the policy ideas. Selection of the ideas in the final report occurred at the January 28"' meeting and the final vote considered discussion from deep dives as well as input from the public from surveys and webinars. Not all policy ideas received a unanimous vote for inclusion as a final policy recommendation; however, many did. Anyone interested in knowing exact vote details can find those in the January 28"' meeting notes that are posted online. Ms. Herrick identified key takeaways, first, commissioners generated the original topic areas from which the committees were formed. Commissioners generated ideas within their committee work, but did connect with City staff for information, clarification and resources. After each public input session, whether the in -person session in February 2020 or the online surveys and webinars, commissioners carefully considered the public's input and within their committee work, revised as warranted the policy ideas based on that public input. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their time and looked forward to watching the progress as the Council and the community mutually consider these proposals. Ms. Hope explained 9 of the 15 policy recommendations relate to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations and 6 do not. She provided an overview of the nine policy recommendations related to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations: • Missing middle housing in single family neighborhoods o Develop design requirements and zoning changes that allow for home -ownership of two attached single family homes (duplex or two -unit townhouses) in single family residential areas and are compatible with those neighborhoods ■ Equity housing incentives o Develop incentives that apply to "missing middle" housing types city-wide that allow home- ownership for those at or below average median family income. ■ Medium -density single family housing (sr -mod) o Establish a new zoning type of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot line duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes of only 1- or 2-story height located in specified areas of Edmonds that are: ■ Contiguous to or along high -volume transit routes, or ■ Sited next to Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning districts, or ■ Close to schools or medical complexes • Neighborhood village subarea planning o Develop subarea plans to rethink areas zoned "Business Neighborhood" such as 5 Corners, Perrinville, etc. The subarea plans should create unique, thriving neighborhoods and social gathering points with the surrounding properties to integrate community values including missing middle housing, business opportunity and environmental stewardship in these areas. Additional areas that could be intentionally rethought are Westgate area and Downtown Business (BD) areas. • Cluster/cottage housing o Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 18 • Detached accessory dwelling units o Allow either one attached or detached accessory unit on a property in the SFR area, with clear and definitive development requirements such as size, ownership, and parking, under the standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit. ■ Inclusionary zoning o Require new developments (above a certain size) in Edmonds to provide a percentage of affordable housing units or require in lieu of fees that will go towards funding affordable housing elsewhere in the city. • Multi -family design standards o Enhance current design standards of new multi -family dwellings to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multi -family buildings and larger multi -family buildings. • Update Comprehensive Plan to include "parking solutions" as a goal in transportation element section o Adopt language that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element under the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope provided on overview of the nine policies that are not specific to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning regulations, less related to Planning Board review and more oriented to Council decision with public input and other research as needed: • Multi -family tax exemption (MFTE) o Make significant changes to the MFTE as it currently exists to: ■ Create a third low income eligible category for tenants whose income is 60% of MFI or less ■ Mandate that developers set aside 25% of all units in a project for MFTE (currently it is 20%) ■ Construction incentives for additional units/floors, if builders reserve 25% of units for MFTE tenants ■ Require MFTE eligible projects to include some two -bedroom and larger units ■ Increase the number of `residential target/urban center areas' for MFTE developments • Create incentives for developers to renovate exi_ sting multi -family apartments to become MFTE eligible ■ Ask the Legislature to extend the current MFTE limits beyond 12 years, to preserve affordable housing Use of existing sales tax revenue for affordable and supportive housing o Per RCW 82.14.540, use the City of Edmonds' share of the existing state sales tax that is reserved for affordable housing: a. In the short term, to provide rental assistance to low-income households in Edmonds that have been impacted by the coronavirus b. In the longer term, to contribute to a regional organization, which could be the County, the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), or a partnership of cities in southwest Snohomish County with the goal of the revenue going toward affordable housing in the sub -region • County implementation of sales and use tax for housing and related services o Advocate for Snohomish County Council to adopt the optional 0.1% sales tax as allowed by state law to provide affordable and supportive housing for low-income households. ■ Edmonds-HASCO interlocal agreement o Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. • Develop community housing partners o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 19 • Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI.) • Special needs residents • Seniors • Veterans o Construction and land costs make building low income housing economically challenging. o This policy establishes community partnerships with for-profit/non-profits to build affordable housing: • Public agencies ■ Neighboring communities ■ Housing/for-profit/non-profit groups • Community care providers (transitional housing for patients with `no safe place to go' while recovering from hospitalization) o Edmonds would establish regulations for these partnerships o The city contract would contract with those partners to manage this housing • Eliminate discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds o Prior to the sale or transfer of any property in Edmonds, all discriminatory language in any associated covenants and/or deeds must be legally removed from said documents. Ms. Hope identified seven supplemental policy proposal that the Housing Commission found worthy of the City Council's consideration but did not necessarily fit with in the commission's specific mission, as identified in Resolution No. 1427: • Improved tenant protections • Childcare voucher program • Renter's choice security deposit ■ Low-income emergency repair program • Property tax exemption for low-income households • Simplify zoning code language • Streamline permitting process Ms. Hope expected that the commission's recommendation would be considered via a deliberate process. None of the policies will be automatically implemented or approved. The recommended approach is for the Council to review each policy recommendations in more detail in a process over the next year or more and decide how to proceed. The policies may still need work, conditions, and qualifications because they are not code, but rather general ideas to explore. The process could start with simple 1-2 items unrelated to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning changes. She anticipated there would be more public input and information would be sought on the individual policy recommendations and options as more research either at the Council level or if the Council refers them to the Planning Board. Information about the Housing Commission's work is available on the City's website via searching Housing Commission and/or googling Edmonds Housing Commission. Council President Paine commented this was a wonderful presentation and it was nice to know the community will have additional time to review nine of the policies via the Planning Board as well as the items that can come to Council and additional opportunity for public feedback. There have been concerns expressed that there has not been enough public input regarding some of the recommendations. The Housing Commission's mission was to develop ideas and they produced 15, some will have more traction than others. She requested a broader background, commenting two Councilmembers attended Housing Commission meetings as Council liaisons. She was interested in additional data including high level regional focused. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Throndsen and Ms. Herrick for their reports, recognizing they and the other commissioners spent a considerable amount of time working through the process. She was interested in looking at these issues in the future and in having more public input. There have been a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 20 number of public open houses and other ways for people to provide input. She served on the previous Housing Commission and recalled hearing the same concerns about public input. She understood that the Housing Commission had done their due diligence in reaching out to the community, but sometimes people miss the information the City provides. She looked forward to further discussion on the individual ideas and additional public input. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the packet was very complete. She was also interested in data, specifically the supplemental information as it was important for the Council to have data. She asked whether the Council would determine priorities and identify items to send to the Planning Board. For example, she is very interested in low impact development because it assists with the missing middle as well as helps save trees. She asked about next steps. Ms. Hope answered staff would come back to determine if the Council was interested in having the Planning Board add any of the policy ideas to their work program during the next year. She suspected there may be one or two the Council was interested I pursuing and there may be a bunch that need to wait. There are a lot of things going on such as the Climate Action Plan, climate inequity assessment, heritage tree program, etc. so she did not envision all the recommendations would go to the Planning Board. It is up to the Council to decide if there are 1-2 that they want the Planning Board to give some thought to. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received a barrage of emails with comments all over the board. Citizens are interested in the raw data to support the policy recommendations and the supplemental recommendation. Ms. Hope answered there are two kinds of raw data, the basic data for the surveys which should be available on the website and some of the data staff will present as the Council considers the issues. The Housing Commission worked in smaller committees much of the time and did not prepare fancy reports and data documents. They did a lot of research, some of which was shared during public meetings, and it was too voluminous to be included with the recommendations. Councilmember Buckshnis said some of recommendations generate more questions. Ms. Hope said that's exactly what was hoped; this is the start, identifying concepts, and then each will have more data, some that the Housing Commission created and some from other sources for Council consideration along with more public input. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope, her department and the Housing Commission members. Councilmember Olson thanked the Housing Commission, recognizing the long hours they devoted to give the Council a lot of possibilities to vet further. She also thanked the public, recognizing this was a topic many were very interested in and she assured the Council will be engaging and working with the public as these come to Council 1-2 at a time. Councilmember L. Johnson said via the hard work and dedication of the members of the Citizens' Housing Commission, the Council has been provided with a number of well researched and carefully considered policy proposals. The Council has its work cut out for them, taking in the information, data and emailed comments. She referred to a comment made earlier, fail to plan is a plan to fail. Right now the Council has the opportunity to create a thoughtful plan that is Edmonds specific and she looked forward to being part of that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked former Commissioners Throndsen and Herrick for their presentations. He echoed Councilmember Olson and Director Hope's comments, expressing his appreciation for the time, energy and effort that commissioners and alternates put into this process. The commission ended up doubling up meetings toward the end because of the amount of work they wanted to do, not including all the subcommittees that Council liaisons did not partake in. He recognized a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 21 tremendous amount of volunteer time went into this work over 18 months. He appreciated all the commission's efforts and research in bringing the policies forward to Council. He looked forward to having the Council and other appropriate boards and /commissions starting work on these. Councilmember K. Johnson commented she had the pleasure of meeting many commissioners during the appointment process as well as the pleasure of appointing Karen Herrick and others. She thanked Mr. Throndsen and Ms. Herrick far their presentations, finding the commission went through a good, complete although rapid process, completing their work ill slightly over a year. She commended everyone who participated in this process. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON TREE CODE Comments included in agenda packet 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson announced his reappointment of Carrie Hulbert to position 9 on the Economic Development Commission. He reported COV1D cases in Snoliomish County continue to drop, low 70s1100,000 although the decrease is beginning to slow. He urged residents to continue to watch distances, wear masks and wash their hands, Approximately 22% of Washington state residents now have gotten at least one shot, but only 12.8% have been fully vaccinated so the overwhelming majority have not been vaccinated. There is a lot of excitement about the vaccine and the federal government is promising to have more vaccines available to the county which allows advance planning. Until the overwhelming majority of residents are vaccinated, people need to continue wearing masks, washing their hands and watching their distance. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember K. Johnson expressed concern about the record high flows in Perrinville Creek and water over the roadway. Mayor Nelson has established a task force and she expressed interest in observing and discussing those issues. She was particularly interested in obstructions of fish passages that occur at the Talbot Road entrance. It is a very important issue and is related to tree code as it relates to infiltration and drainage on site. Councilmember Distelhorst was excited to report that this Thursday at 12:30 p.m. Washington Kids in Transition will be honored with a resolution from the Washington Senate to mark the great work they have done in Edmonds and the communities, especially during COVID-19 distributing CARES Funds far Edmonds, securing an OSPI grant and supporting the Edmonds hub. Children and families in Edmonds and in the Edmonds School District have been well served and have benefitted greatly from their dedication and it is nice to see them receive that recognition. Sunday is the second film in the Diversity Commission's film series at 4 p.m. on Zoom, "Teach Us All, Elevating Equity in Education for Every Student. He encouraged residents to continue wearing masks and keeping their distance. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was also willing to help with regard to the Perrinville issue. There are efforts to get legislative assistance as some of the culverts need to be replaced. She agreed everyone should continue to wear masks. A lot of people have not yet been vaccinated and although many want to return to meetings, it is necessary to wait a couple more months. With the subject of housing and the tree code being front and center at the same time, Councilmember Olson said it was worth mentioning the value of looking at both with a holistic approach. There is overlay Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 22 on many of the issues that citizens are concerned about and she hoped those could be moved toward the back of the list, not because of their importance, but so that citizens have more opportunity to be engaged. Councilmember Olson commented there is a place, a space and a home for everybody in Edmonds. She hoped the Youth Commission's recommendation that shared the value of doing something and how to do it was not off-putting to anyone. Everyone's individuality can and should be respected and she wanted to see personal choice and respected upheld. She was concerned about pressure for conformity and what that does to increasing division in the community instead of bringing residents together. Being the inclusive community that Edmonds wants to be rneans the individual can do what they feel comfortable doing. Council President Paine thanked the entire Housing Commission and the all the City's boards and commissions, commenting Edmonds gets a lot done with work by volunteers. Volunteer boards and commissions allow constructive discussions on many topics. Most Councilmembers started in a volunteer capacity and value the relationships they have built, The Housing Commission did a lot of work for the City; she is eager to look at their recommendations, some that will go through the Planning Board and others to the City Council. She also thanked Councilmembers Olson and Distelhorst for their participation on the Housing Commission as well as Director Hope. Councilmember L. Johnson said a heartfelt thank you to the Citizens' Housing Commission for their dedication of time; their commitment shows in the work they brought forward. She also thanked all the citizens who spoke as well as those who have been ernailing Councilmembers. She wished all a Happy St. Patrick's Day, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Throndsen for bringing up her appointee to the Housing Commission, John Reed, who brought a lot of good information to the Housing Commission. She thanked Mayor Nelson for mentioning the COV1D statistics. The state is moving into Phase 3 next week, but will return to Phase 2 if hospitalizations, deaths or cases increase. She encouraged people to get vaccinated, noting she has gotten one shot so far, and to wear masks and to maintain social distancing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas displayed St. Patrick's Day items she received on her doorstep to celebrate St. Patrick's Day at the Edmonds School District Foundation breakfast tomorrow. She encouraged the public to donate to the foundation which assists students in need. Student Representative Roberts said a huge thank you to the entire Housing Commission for their hard work, time and dedication in making these recommendations. He was excited to see the outcome of the presentations, discussions and public input as someone who hopes to live in Edmonds throughout his life. He thanked the Council and Mayor for their ongoing support on the pronouns request proiect by the Youth Commission. IIe clarified the Youth Commission specified it as a request; the use of pronouns is optional but the ultimate goal is to make Edmonds a more inclusive place for all and to allow people to express how they want to be addressed. He is thrilled to be getting his second and final dose of the Pfizer vaccine tomorrow. He remind that the vaccine is not a save -all solution; wearing masks, remaining socially distanced from others and limiting contact with those outside one's household are still crucial and are the only way we will get back to a normal life again. He wished al I a Happy St. Patrick's Day, 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. MI AEL NELSON, MAYOR S PASSEY, CITY CLERIk Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March f 6, 2021 Page 2_ Public Comment for the 3/16/21 Council Meeting: Submitted by Dawna Lahti, 3/16/21 To the City Council and the Mayor, Say no to the changes which would phase out single-family dwellings in Edmonds; with current city policies, they are already an endangered species. Do not succumb to the charms of a policy that in the guise of some kind of equity actually profits predatory realtors and loses us the charm and beauty of the greater Edmonds' lifestyle. Thank you, The Lahtis From: Feras Rabi Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:30 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: More affordable housing! To whom it may concern, I strongly support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. This would be a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does NOT need more condos. Thank you, Feras Rabi From: Luiza Tosi Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 9:12 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 24 From: otto goettel Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Transparency I'm concerned about the lack of transparency with the housing commission, I have lived here in Edmonds for the past 30 years same house, I have only received one notice this last one about the potential change to the SFR code that in my view will turn Edmonds into a Ballard or even now Shoreline, I didn't buy here because it was a cheap place to live , No our first house wasn't in Edmonds, We were told to work harder if you want to live in a nicer location, and we did work hard to get here, I'm in total disagreement with all there findings, and angry they posted ads in the Everett Herald stateing the citenzens of Edmonds should support there efforts to over build our city!!! It's a money grab period, anyone with half a brain knows how our city is supported, yes yes by people with money! Not by low income housing, or putting sheds in your backyard and renting for 150 dollars per square foot, that's doesn't work period, The council needs to focus on Revitalizing Edmonds, using what we already have to raise money, figuring away to drive visitors to downtown so they spend money and the City gets more tax dollars, Also I'm not sure the majority of residence want any of the recommendations, If your going to be honest with us , put everything on a ballot and allow the residents to vote, I'm also not so sure the courts will allow the city that sold us one thing to change the rules just to fit their tax needs. Sell the event center and build housing there, it already has cost us millions since inception, bring in investors for the waterfront and develop that, or the old Safeway, also just wondering when the multimodal or the path over or under the tracks will be done? Might we get a Chief of Police someday soon? We the people will be heard one way or another. If any of these commission folks were running for a council seat we sure would have gotten notices, and notices, but not with this issue of changing the zone of neighborhoods we bought into years ago for a reason. Hmmmmm. Respectfully Otto Goettel From: Alexandra Clouse Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:11 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit lot subdivision: MORE AFFODABLE HOUSING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 25 Hi! I'm here to say I support Buko and the unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds to bring lower cost, high quality housing to the downtown area! Hoping the city council will consider the unit lot subdivision amendment Buko is looking for! Thank you, Alexandra Clouse From: lnda fenton Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; linda.r.fenton@comcast.net Subject: Please listen tp the input and concerns of ACE Dear Edmonds City Counsel Members and Mayor Nelson, I am a long time resident of the downtown core and newly associated with the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds. I have little old house built in 1902. So small living is near and dear to my heart. I strongly encourage you to listen carefully to the input and concerns of ACE. Please continue to promote preservation of the natural environment of the City of Edmonds — its streams, trees, beaches, parks and open space. Respectfully, Linda Fenton From: Briana Nasman Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:53 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds unit lot subdivision I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Affordable housing is extremely needed and construction is so expensive. Briana Nasman Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 26 From: Daenerys T Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:05 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please help to save this beautiful Heritage tree! Hello City Council Members, I reached out via email to members of the City Council yesterday about the Heritage tree (Western Red Cedar) that is currently approved by the City Planning office for removal. The Development reference # is PLN 20190051 @ 8717 240th St SW. I take full accountability that I became an advocate for this tree late in the game and did not take advantage of the opportunity the city allows for public feedback when it was an option. However, I feel I must persist in being the best advocate that I can be for this mighty and soulful tree because it deserves it. And, because I told it that I would. I have spoken to Kernen Lien and emailed with Jeanie McConnell in the City Planning offices to get more information as to why this tree must be removed. I also spoke with the Civic Engineer from RAM, who was contracted by Adamant Homes, the Developer. I spoke with Lorrie Quade at Adamant as well. I had the opportunity to speak with CM Luke Distelhorst and with CM Laura Johnson yesterday regarding this tree, and I thank them for their time and concern. Currently, this is what I know: • The tree is over 100 years old, perhaps much more. It is close to 100 inches in diameter at 5 feet from the ground and has beautiful and unique branch structure, it is about 53'tall and an integral part of the ecosystem. This tree is 1 of 10 trees approved to be to be removed. e The reason this tree is being removed is not fully confirmed — it is looking like it's because of City codes that limit the height of new houses (I have learned this is primarily in place for the Bowl purposes), and as such, are driving the need for the Developer to grade the property lower to comply. Since there is grading happening, the tree, which sits in the SE corner of the lot next to 240th St SW, no where near the Easement or a planned structure, has been approved by the City to be removed. The Civic Engineer for Adamant Homes says he thinks removing the tree could be avoided based on his review of the reports and his expertise. • The Civil Review has not yet been approved yet, and I am waiting to hear back from Jeanie McConnell in the Engineering Planning office — she said she would keep me updated on the status of this tree's future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 27 The tree is not covered by the recent Tree Code updates as this permit was initiated in late 2019. It seems to be in the hands of the City Planners now. Will they decide that this tree should be saved? if there is ANYTHING the Council can do to help save this Heritage tree, I implore you to do so. I understand there are limitations, but if we can save this tree, and if it is still in the ground, I feel that we must try! Thank you for your time, Beth Fleming P.S: the pictures below and the one with the red arrow is the tree I am fighting for. I would like to add that the tree to the left is a Heritage Douglas Fir being removed. Three of the trees to it's left are also being removed. I am so grateful for the work the City Council has done to implement a Tree Code that will help drive more innovative approaches to development projects and protect our Heritage trees. Of the 10 trees in total are approved for removal from this 1 acre of land 2 are Heritage trees. In addition, the lot adjacent to this one is also being developed, sits right on the 104, and a significant # of those trees were recently removed. I fear that this micro -ecosystem will be forever impacted and that the neighborhood will hear a lot more of the whirring traffic speeding by as a result of the decisions made. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 28 From: Elena Suciu Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:00 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Vote No on Citizens' Housing Commission Good evening, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 29 I am writing to formally request the Edmonds City Council to vote NO on the Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations. While I appreciate the desire to create an affordable Edmonds, the plan to modify single family houses into allowing two housing units will not serve that end. It is short sighted. Ballard is a lovely place to live, though I've chosen to live in Edmonds (not Ballard) for its character and charm. As Ballard increased its density, it did not become more affordable. If the Council approves this plan, it will be impossible to go back to additional green space and open yards. Conversely, the opportunity to increase density will always be present. Please vote "no" and do not open the door to urban density at this time. Sincerely, Elena Suciu From: Greg Brewer Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:57 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The Citizens' Housing Commission's Policy Proposals To the Edmonds Council, I'm writing as a concerned citizen about upzoning Edmonds. I don't support radical changes to the existing zoning and building codes. These measures would change the face of Edmonds forever. I don't believe these changes would provide affordable housing. It's already been proven in other communities that housing prices will rise. The open space that remains would be developed and density would increase dramatically. Is that really what you want for this quaint, charming town? It's a sell out to developers who would surely pounce on the opportunity at the expense of our town and citizens. The pace at which our community would change would be mind boggling. Build it in your mind. It isn't pretty! Do the right thing and stop the up zone. Greg Brewer From: Tyler Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:37 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 30 <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Amendment for Unit Lot Subdivision To whom it may concern, I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From what I have read, this will make housing cheaper. Thank you, Tyler From: william hetland Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:26 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Code amendment to allow unit lot subdivision I fully support this update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. There is no difference in what can be built. This just makes more sense because it makes costs cheaper because it will allow homeowners to opt out of HOA dues- thus making cost of living more affordable. Thank you, Will From: michelle dotsch Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Your packet of ECHC process/presentation leaves out actual Community INPUT To our Edmonds City Councilmembers: In reviewing Agenda Item 9.1, the presentation for the Edmonds' Citizens' Housing Policy Proposals, a very important piece has been glaringly omitted: the actual INPUT received from the community from the numerous public outreach events the CHC provided. Some of the final policy recommendations have been included despite strong public input to the contrary. At a minimum, this should have been given its place in tonight's presentation, to honor that critical promise made in the Resolution to your citizens. It said that from the outset, this Council -led process would be different from the previous failed Administrative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 31 attempts. How can you honestly evaluate these 15 policy proposals tonight without that community input in front of you? Please ask the Director, where is the input from the greater Edmonds' community, beyond the small majority of 15 voting members of the commission, that requested the entire city be upzoned and eliminate single-family neighborhoods? There is none. In fact, one of the highest responses from any survey, was 78% of respondents asked to not change single-family zoning. Comments and outreach events told the same story. Beyond that, there is also no majority of public support for an increase in our local taxes and only 34% support an interlocal agreement with HASCO. Feedback from the survey which put forward these final policy proposals to the community, showed 59% of respondents opposed the proposal to establish a new zoning type of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot line duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes of only 1- or 2-story height located in specified areas of Edmonds. Only 35% supported extending the MFTE. 57% opposed increasing the number of areas for using the MFTE. Other policy proposals had great support, 59% of respondents reported they support the idea to adopt language making Parking Solutions a goal in the Transportation Element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Other input collated from hundreds of survey comments and public comments given by the community since September of 2019, are not included here either. Some Housing Commissioners even believed the citizens that they ASKED to participate via surveys, open houses, etc. did not deserve a voice as they had "privilege" or were "loud voices". So how is that welcoming input from your citizens? You can't just cherry pick what you want to hear and fits your own viewpoint, whether you are a commissioner or a Director. That is just not realistic. All voices and input this process asked for and received, should not just now be ignored. My hope is there is much more willingness to hear from your citizens and not be afraid to listen and hear input you had promised would be prioritized. You asked for this process to be citizen - driven, trying to reverse the previous Administration's inability to do so. Your fellow citizens are speaking... please listen to them. Michelle Dotsch From: babatunde badru Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: CODE AMENDMENT FOR EDMONDS I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seems like there are no difference in what can be built and it makes cost cheaper because I won't have to pay condo fees. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 32 Thanks Baba From: Marc Erickson Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Allow Unit lot subdivisions and support common sense land use Hello I support the update for unit lot subdivision in the downtown business district. It seems like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes it cheaper because buyers won't have to pay HOA dues. Our entire region needs better land use rules and regulations, this is an easy and effective step in the right direction In appreciation From: Augustus Bukowski Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:59 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Downtown Edmonds - Unit Lot Subdivion Hi All, I own a business that I am moving to downtown Edmonds, I am strongly in favor of unit lot subdivision. If I were able to purchase a tow home that had commercial space on the bottom floor and residential on the top floor, it would be great for me. I am sure many residents would be excited for the same, and paying HOA dues associated with another condominium would be prohibitive to ownership. Thank You From: bao-phung Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 33 Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:58 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Request for Amendment to Downtown Edmonds Hi, I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. This makes for more affordable housing. Thanks, Bao Phung B5 Real Estate, LLC From: Rosemary Bee Oudanonh-Phung Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:56 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Code amendment Hello, I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Regards, Rosemary Oudanonh-Phung From: Biciok Kiir Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Down town Edmonds Code Amendment I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. Thanks, Biciok B. Kiir Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 34 From: Karl Krauskopf Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:32 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Karl Krauskopf Managing Partner, Summer Sault Properties Real Estate Broker, Keller Williams North Seattle From: Adrian Chu Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:17 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivisions in Downtown Edmonds Hi Edmonds City Council - I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in Downtown Edmonds. Unit lot subdivisions provide for more flexibility for buyers and sellers. The way the mortgage lending system works right now, lenders charge higher rates/fees to buyers and homeowners of condos, but not for unit lot subdivisions, which makes unit lot subdivision homes more desirable and retain value better. Having a diversity in housing type classifications help make the city more vibrant. Regards, Adrian From: martin dorr Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20214:23 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Code amendment downtown Redmond wa I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. -Martin Dorr Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 35 From: Jane Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:54 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Report We are opposed to a number of the Citizens' Housing Commission's proposals —particularly the proposal to change the zoning for single family dwellings. Don and Jane Simpson From: Jeanne Petty Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Recommendations Hello, I am writing to express my gratitude for the work done by the Citizens' Housing Commission and my support for the recommendations they are making. I appreciate all of the opportunities that were provided to learn about this work and the challenges Edmonds is facing. I attended two events where I heard information presented regarding the demographics of our population and the breakdown of our housing options and how they are out of step with one another. I think it's important that our city has housing options for everyone and that people who live and work here now do not feel unable to pursue owning a home or continue to afford renting in their own community. I also think it's important that Edmonds be accessible to new residents of all income levels. Things have changed so much over the past decade and I know it would be impossible for our family to afford our home at its current value. While I'm grateful that we purchased our home when we did, I want others to have the same opportunity and for Edmonds to grow as a diverse and welcoming community. The greater Seattle area is going to continue to grow and change and the only thing we can avoid is planning for that growth. It's going to happen whether we accept it and move with it or not, by putting off these changes, we're only setting ourselves up for problems. The best way to preserve the positive aspects of Edmonds we love is to continue to adjust and grow together. Thank you, Jeanne Petty Edmonds Resident Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 36 From: Gary Kindness Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:36 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Report As an Edmonds resident and homeowner for over 45 years, I was extremely surprised by the policy recommendations contained in the Housing Commission Report. Many are clearly at odds with my understanding of the results of the three surveys conducted by the commission. It might be better to say that many of the policy recommendations are diametrically opposed to the survey results, to the extent that I understand the results. Frankly, don't understand why there were 3 surveys. While I answered all three, the questions all seemed to cover much of the same ground using slightly different wording. It appeared to me that the first survey was drafted with an agenda in mind. When the results did not support that agenda, a second survey was conducted, followed by a third, all at Edmonds taxpayers expense. I was a bit surprised to see that the third survey did not ask those who answered if they resided in or owned property in Edmonds, as the first two surveys did. On the outside looking in so to speak, it appears to me from the surveys and the report, rather than provide a report that reflects the input of the Edmonds community, the report reflects an agenda that differs from the will of the Edmonds community as a whole. Regardless, I oppose most if not all of the recommendations in the report. I don't believe the citizens of Edmonds want duplexes in place of single family homes or other of the recommendations directed toward increasing the density of Edmonds. Increasing density will lead to more traffic congestion as well as other problems. I, like many others who live in Edmonds, live here because we like the current Edmonds environment. We don't want it to change. Hence my opposition to the policy recommendations in the report. Because the report policy recommendations do not jibe with the survey results, it seems to me that the Edmonds City Council should look into the development of the report, including why it was necessary to conduct three surveys when one should have been sufficient. Who ordered the surveys? Was it the Commission, or the Director of Edmonds Development Services, whom I understand ran the Commission? Obtaining and reviewing all email and other correspondence as well as notes of telephone conversations between the Commissioners and the Director, and the company that conducted the surveys might be a good place to start. Just a suggestion. Gary Kindness From: Sue Hoekstra Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 37 Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Clarification of commissioners support of Herald letter To members of the Edmonds City Council: It may help all citizens to have a clarification from the council tonight as to whether or not the entire 21 members of the Housing Commission are in agreement with all the proposals. The letter in today's Everett Herald, signed by only eight members, misleads the public into thinking that all members are in agreement. I would like to know how the other 13 commissioners feel. This is described further in my attached letter. I will be at tonight's meeting. Thank you for your hard work. Susan Hoekstra From: Sue Hoekstra Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:27 PM To: counciil@edmondswa.gov Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission letter to Everett Herald 3-16-2021 To the esteemed Edmonds City Council members: Your work is indeed cut out for you these days. Could you please clarify at tonight's meeting whether or not all 21 members and alternates of the Citizens' Housing Commission support all 15 proposals? The Edmonds' Citizens' Housing Commission commentary letter to the Everett Herald implies that all members are together in their support. My attachment details my thoughts I'll be at the meeting tonight. Thanks for all you do. Susan Hoekstra Letter: To: Members of Edmonds City Council CC: publiccomment edmondswa. ov Re: Citizens' Housing Commission final Policy Proposals As a citizen of Edmonds I have read the above mentioned Citizen's Housing Commission final Proposals. There were a total of 21 commissioners and alternate commissioners listed as being on the commission. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 38 Today, March 16, 2021 a guest commentary titled "Citizen panel charts Edmonds' housing future" was published in the Everett Herald promoting these policy proposals and was signed by only eight of those commissioners and alternates, leading the public to believe that all of the proposals are fully endorsed by all members of the commission. I want to hear the opinions of the other 13 members of the commission on each of the 15 proposals and have it clarified at tonight's meeting that the commentary does or does not represent the entirety of the commission. This is just another misleading example of misrepresentation which is being presented to the citizens of Edmonds as we and the council try to navigate this and other complex issues being thrust at us. I am asking the city council to please clarify just what is the point of view of the commissioners. Are they collective, or individual? Thank you so much, Susan Hoekstra From: Nisma Gabobe Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:26 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Recommendations Comment Letter Good Afternoon, My name is Nisma Gabobe and I'm a Senior Research Associate at Sightline Institute, a regional policy think tank. I'm submitting the attached public comment on the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission's recommendations on expanding middle housing options in Edmonds. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Nisma Gabobe Letter: March 16, 2021 RE: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Recommendations Dear City Councilmembers: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 39 We are writing to strongly urge you to explore the proposals recommended by the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission to expand "missing" middle housing options in more neighborhoods. Over the past few years Sightline has conducted extensive research on missing middle housing. Missing middle homes can offer more affordable home choices in more neighborhoods, help multigenerational families to live together, reduce sprawl, and provide workforce housing near jobs, schools, transit, and parks. A survey of Edmonds' housing stock demonstrates that missing middle homes are in fact largely missing, even though they are home types that would meet the needs of many residents. Census data from the 2019 ACS 5-Year estimates show that only two percent of homes in Edmonds are duplexes while 60 percent are single -detached houses ---typically the most expensive type of housing units. Only seven percent of Edmonds' housing stock is made up of single -attached units, triplexes, and fourplexes. Furthermore, nearly 70 percent of households in Edmonds include only one to two people, but studios, one bedroom, and two bedroom homes only make up 42 percent of the housing stock. Meanwhile home prices have skyrocketed in the past decade, making homeownership increasingly unattainable in Edmonds. According to 2illow home sale data for January 2021, the typical home in Edmonds sells for $714,000 and home sale prices have more than doubled from $331,000 in early 2011. The lack of small-scale multifamily homes excludes middle and low income earners from neighborhoods of opportunity and maintains economic and racial segregation. Sightline strongly supports the following proposed code changes to remove barriers to missing middle housing in Edmonds: • Allow duplexes in single-family neighborhoods • Establish a new medium density zone that allows duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes near transit, business districts, schools, and hospitals • Allow detached ADUs as a permitted use in single-family zones, rather than as a conditional use • Develop subarea plans to allow middle housing in "business neighborhood" zones • Allow cluster and cottage housing in single-family and multifamily neighborhoods In conclusion, we strongly support the Commission's recommendations for legalizing missing middle housing types in Edmonds and encourage the City Council to pursue these changes this year. Thank you for your consideration. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 40 Nisma Gabobe Senior Research Associate Sightline Institute From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:18 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Agenda item 9. 1. Introductory Overview of Housing Commission's Recommendations Council, Please don't buy the fantasy Director Shane Hope is selling that upzoning all single family zones will result in "affordable housing" for all. Nine of the fifteen policy recommendations require major changes in our code. With the exception of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, these changes will NOT result in lower cost housing. And the DADU code must be modeled after the current ECDC 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units, in order to maintain the single family ownership criteria as outlined in this link: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds20/Edmonds2O21.html#20.21 It's ironic that up -zoning is being touted as a way to provide housing for the "missing middle." The majority of seniors who own property want to continue to live on their property, not "downsize" to a smaller, newer, more expensive townhouse or condo. These are the same seniors who could be displaced by increased property taxes that significantly cut into their fixed incomes and make it less affordable to live in their modest, older Edmonds home. It may be tempting to join a minority of CHC Commissioners who label SEPA guidelines as "weaponized" and "nimby bullshit," and who reject 26 homeowners' objection to up -zoning their single family neighborhood because of their "sense of privilege." It may also be fun to mobilize your moral outrage and view your constituents as elitists who object to up -zoning their neighborhoods to keep out those less elite than they. However, the truth is that the real elitists are the developers, real estate agents, architectural firms, and engineering firms that will be the beneficiaries of the profits made from up -zoning our town. And, EXPAND the Multi Family Tax Exemption? Council should REPEAL the MFTE. The only possible reason that the CHC voted unanimously in support of the MFTE is that they didn't receive accurate information about the fact that the 19 units provided by Henbart at Westgate, in exchange for 12 years tax free on ALL residential, are NOT "affordable" according to the RCW definitions of affordable housing. More on that another time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 41 Joan Bloom From: Shirley Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:03 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission City Council and Mayor Nelson: I wish to ask for complete restraint in expanding the range of housing in Edmonds except for the two mile Hwy 99 corridor. Multiplexes belong only along that corridor and not in single- family zoned areas where no zoning changes are needed! For the citizens of Edmonds to have restored faith in our governance, you need to "get this right". Sincerely, Shirley Oczkewicz From: Bill Phipps Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:46 PM To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Fw: Tree Code amendments To any one really paying attention to my diatribe.. I think I mixed up my TC draft changes concerning who pays for the developers' replacement trees. Under "Tree Fund" , "Funding Purposes" Section 3.95.040.B. : It should read, "Monies from the tree fund must NOT be used to purchase trees required for replacement..., NOR used to purchase trees ... for a replacement of a violation... and NOT be used to profit the grantee. Kernen, can you verify that reading? Thank you. Sorry for that mix up ... there might be others! Bill Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 42 From: Robin Blahous Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:18 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission decision Good evening, I apologize for the late response to the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission proposal being voted upon tomorrow, March 16th. Although I have followed this issue carefully, I have not previously expressed my opinion and am unable to vote because I am a resident of Woodway. I do, however, consider myself a life-long resident of Edmonds. My parents bought a house on 10th Avenue in September 1962, and I was born several months later in December. My dad still owns that house, where one of my brothers now resides. My husband and I moved our family back to Edmonds in 2002 to be close to my parents. My three siblings moved back to Edmonds when our mother battled cancer. Our kids attended Sherwood Elementary, College Place Middle School and Edmonds-Woodway High School. Our middle and youngest sons currently attend the University of Washington, and our eldest son, also a UW grad, is living with us in hopes of saving enough money to purchase a house in Edmonds. My concern with commission's proposal is that it does not appear to meet the goal of ensuring housing for middle income individuals or families. Changing the zoning so single-family homes can be replaced by more expensive multiplexes does not provide more affordable housing, but it would achieve the goal of increasing the tax base for the City of Edmonds. I am concerned about the transparency of the commission's objectives, as well as the timing of this vote. The future of Edmonds is dependent upon careful planning and support and choosing to make this decision during an unprecedented pandemic seems rushed and irresponsible. If the council considers the demographics of those they represent, they would understand there are many who would like to voice their opinion but either do not or cannot do so though internet zoom -type forums. These concerned residents have been following pandemic protocol, so it seems honoring their commitment to safety by delaying the vote until they are able to attend meetings in person would be responsible and respectful. I hope you will consider postponing this decision until everyone can be equally represented once it is safe to do so. The future of Edmonds depends on this. Thank you, Robin Brock Blahous Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 43 From: Eileen Niven Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:10 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: zoning policies Please delay your process and do not make any final decisions behind closed doors before listening to public comments on the 15 zoning policies. Sincerely, Eileen Niven From: Anne -Marie LaPorte Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:59 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Vote NO on Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations Good evening, I am writing to formally request the Edmonds City Council to vote NO on the Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission recommendations. While I appreciate the desire to create an affordable Edmonds, the plan to modify single family houses into allowing two housing units will not serve that end. It is short sighted. Ballard is a lovely place to live, though I've chosen to live in Edmonds (not Ballard) for its character and charm. As Ballard increased its density, it did not become more affordable. If the Council approves this plan, it will be impossible to go back to additional green space and open yards. Conversely, the opportunity to increase density will always be present. Please vote "no" and do not open the door to urban density at this time. Sincerely, Anne -Marie La Porte From: L. La Porte Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:44 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 44 <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please oppose changes to zoning Hello, I am an Edmonds resident, writing to express my opposition to the Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission proposed policies, which would result in a change in the zoning of Edmonds. I plead with you to hear the many voices of your residents who are asking you to vote "no." Unquestionably, Edmonds is unique. It is a desirable place for visitors and residents of all ages, because of its beautiful gardens, green spaces, waterfront access, and calmness. If Edmonds were to be rezoned, this would change. High-priced condos and apartments benefit developers and landlords over residents. We have seen this with Bellevue, Ballard, the Central District, and Kirkland where poor and senior residents were driven out of their homes. Please let us not repeat this cycle. There is not another Edmonds. Sincerely, L. La Porte From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:33 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: The Citizens' Housing Commission's Proposals Please Vote NO to upzoning, rezoning, and over -developing Edmonds! Don't turn Edmonds into Ballard, Kirkland and the like. Leave Edmonds alone! Don't give it away to the developers and exploit it for property taxes. Keep Edmonds beautiful, quaint, affordable and desirable. Do not destroy it with complexes and multiple homes in single family zones. These policies will not make Edmonds more affordable. It will make it less so when all the small starter homes are torn down and the land gets developed into expensive apartment or condominium complexes and townhouses or subdivided into multiple lots for large homes packed next to each other. Most people can't afford these homes much less a working class individual, couple or family that these policy proposals are supposedly designed to help. People that work in Edmonds won't be able to own a home in Edmonds. It will be a town of apartment rentals, condo rentals and back yard cottage rentals and large houses right next to each other that only the well to do can afford. All the modest homes throughout Edmonds is what makes Edmonds possible for many. That's how my husband and I were able to move to Edmonds twenty-five years ago with a small 850 square foot fixer upper and good size yard. With lots of hard work, we turned it into a lovely place to live and a place to be proud to own. Do the right thing for Edmonds and for us, the citizens who live here and love it for what it is -- a wonderful, special place! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 45 Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Kim Bayer Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:59 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: CHC Policies being presented at 3/16 Council Meeting Dear Edmonds City Council Members, On behalf of the many Edmonds residents I've been in contact with these past two months, please slow down any decision -making on the CHC policies being presented to you and take the time to actually reach out for true citizen input. The 15 citizens on the housing commission do not represent the majority of citizen input on these proposed policies. In fact, in regards to single family residences, 78% of citizens surveyed (including myself) multiple times stated they did not approve of this policy change yet the plan that is bring presented by Shane Hope and others, reflect otherwise. Please keep in mind, only 8 citizens on the CHC voted to approve the policies to move forward with 7 voting NO. Ask yourself, why did this pass by only 1 vote? Were these "citizens" coerced and influenced with omission of facts? We believe they were. I just reviewed the "fairness doctrine" guidelines in conducting government business, and in researching how the CHC policy outcomes and decisions were made, the process would not pass those legal requirements. This was not a fair process and it DOES NOT represent the citizens of Edmonds point of view on managing growth. We all moved to Edmonds to get away from Seattle and other areas of the Puget sound that are overgrown with high density and all the issues that follow. Edmonds is unique and needs to be preserved. Growth is inevitable; however, it needs to be managed strategically, not by taking a cookie cutter approach from the state that will change our city forever. These policy changes are the biggest issue facing Edmonds today. Majority of Edmonds residents are not happy about this process, about the outcome of the process and they are not happy with our current city leadership. The four of you who continue to vote in a block are now being watched and scrutinized, along with the mayor for making decisions that were not in the best interest of the citizens you serve. Please begin to build the trust and transparency back by holding town halls (not online surveys) to find solutions that will fiat change the overall landscape, look and feel of this precious community we call home. I look forward to joining your city council meeting tomorrow. All the Best, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 46 Kim Kim Bayer-Augustavo From: Sharon Shebly Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:51 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Zoning decision Please delay any final decisions on zoning changes and not make any final decisions behind closed doors. As elected officials you must listen to public engagement ideas Before pushing through new regulations. Mark and Sharon Shebly From: Bill Phipps Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:51 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code amendments Greetings; Thank you Mayor Nelson and City Council for authorizing the funds for aerial imaging of our forest canopy. It will be valuable information going forward. Here are a few comments on the tree code, so far. Under "Definitions", 23.10.020; What did you land on the "Nuisance Tree" definition? It seems like such a subjective term that could be manipulated. Any tree could be considered a nuisance l l We have a big Cedar next to our driveway that is buckling the driveway. We would never think of cutting down that healthy tree. But the next owner moving in could call that a nuisance tree. And have it removed. Without it being accounted for under any tree code regulation. A quick search shows the complicated and tricky legal definitions of what is a "nuisance" tree. You need to tighten up that definition or get rid of it altogether. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 47 A "Hazard Tree" is a more objective definition. A hazard tree would include trees that buckle the pavement , for example, because that would be a "hazard". All trees that are lost in Edmonds should be accounted for and replaced, no matter why they were cut down. A public "tree notification" system. Under "Exemptions", 23.10.040.A; we are going to have to rely on the Citys' good faith that they will soon begin the Tree Code section for : Removal of trees on "improved single-family lots." Under "Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity", 23.10.060.B: There was a good suggestion to include a Tree Replacement Plan as well as a Tree Retention Plan ...where exactly is the applicant going to plant their replacement trees and does the new owner acknowledge and/or support such tree placements ?! Especially since those trees will now be considered" Protected Trees" ! This issue is addressed in : 060.B.2.b.vii : "Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080. (Tree Replacement section.) But, the point is, let's be sure that the developer and the new owner are in acknowledgement and agreement as to where those new replacement trees are going to be placed. Under Tree Retention ... Arborist Report; 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv. That sentence makes me nervous. That sentence can be broken down to, "For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reasons for removal ... must be given." Seems like a developer could get out of the 30% retention requirement. Is that what we want? And how does that sentence jibe with the new amendment of " minimum tree canopy requirements" . Namely, the minimum 3 trees per 8000 sq ft.?! That sentence needs less loopholes or get rid of it altogether. Under "Tree Replacement," 23.10.080.A : the question was four replacement trees, or a tree appraisal, for the really big trees, over 24 inches DBH. This requires more information before a decision can be made. Such as, what is the value of a healthy doug fir that has a 30 inch diameter? Do we have examples of what a tree appraisal of such tree would be? We need to consider the amount and cost of staff, or hired arborist, to appraise trees? Might be easier to just ask for 4 replacement trees for the big ones? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 48 Under "Conservation Designs", 20.75.XXX; The Low Impact Development section; Are the proposed setback changes significant in scope? Will they have any impact and will they be used? There were changes made in this section between the first Tree Code draft (10/08/20) and the current one. Were those changes significant? Has anyone checked on this ? How will this "clustering" of homes in subdivisions be implemented and enforced? Will homeowners want their homes clustered in order to save groves? i encourage this LID idea and have seen it used elsewhere with nice results. Under the "Tree Fund", 3.95.040, Funding Purposes, there is a question. Who pays for the replacement trees that developers are going to plant on the new developed lots? I think it's the tree fund? Right? Shouldn't it be added under 3.95.040.A ? Also I would add : Paying for latest technology tree canopy analysis once every 5 years. This 5 year aerial analysis requirement should be written into the code. And: paying for a partnership with a local Tree Bank/carbon offsets/conservation group. Edmonds may find that we will have to plant replacement trees outside of the city boundaries, but still do it in our name! And last, but not least : Under" Tree Replacement", 23.10.080.D Replacement Specifications: The Bowl Exemption H The City may want to put off the idea of "Districting" to Phase Two, but there may be a situation where it comes up under the proposed Development Section. What if a lot is re -developed (a tear down) in the bowl and it has significant conifers on it . And the trees get cut down for the big new house. Are you going to require "alike" replacements trees then and there?! No. Out of respect for your upland neighbors you are going to re -plant smaller scale trees. But ! I do feel the developer should pay an additional 1000 dollars for each significant conifer that is cut down that is not replaced with "alike" conifer(s). Thus, a win -win Bowl Exemption , under the tree replacement section. Jeez Louise! That's a lot! I think there is more work to be done on this Development Tree Code Let's take the time and get it right! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 49 Thanks for your service, on behalf of the trees! Bill Phipps From: Janet Henry Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:43 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission Proposals I object to the proposals and don't feel they reflect the wishes of the majority of Edmonds' citizens. This matter is an enormous one that has not received the, "Publicity" needed to reach all citizens and will change their quality of life. We can already see what happens when developers decimate the land in our neighborhoods. They are now chopping down a 70 ft tall, 100 yr-old specimen oak tree that is home to Bald Eagles and destroying the nests in this tree as well. I invited one council member to come to my dead-end street and personally observe this tree but instead was told to take a picture and send to her. Another council member who did personally view it told me, "This tree should not have been planted there in the first place." Please consider this an invitation to view it for yourselves at the end of 900 block Cedar St. And, please don't vote on this matter or any others, unless or until you have a well informed understanding of them. We need whatever time it takes to contemplate the severity of these actions and have a serious exchange of ideas on why or why not it should be allowed to move forward. It cannot be undone. Sincerely, Janet Henry From: Carol Hardan Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 5:31 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Comments To City Council, I strongly disagree with all of the proposed changes to Edmonds zoning for significant additional housing, there already has been an excess of that. It would completely destroy the port town charm that has been the unique quality of life and success of this community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 50 Heaven forbid we emulate Seattle. Please slow down and think longterm. Carol Hardan (88 year resident of Edmonds WA.) From: Anne & Rich Klein Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 4:17 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: zoning comments Mayor Nelson and City Council, We understand the city is moving forward with a new policy related to housing availability and are hoping the final decision will make sure that the "sense of community" that has made Edmonds so special will remain. This means neighborhoods with similar housing & yards, ample parking per household, green spaces, etc. Please do not allow this city to become like so many others in our region - looking like a "hodgepodge" of high density structures mixed in with neighborhood homes... cars packed along streets due to a lack of parking. We would not want one of those structures next to us or across the street from our home. We drove through a part of Shoreline today where higher density building was taking place along side of individual homes. Tight buildings, looking out of place, no yards, no additional parking except on the streets. Very sad. At some point the growth within the city might need to stop. The land, infrastructure, police, fire, schools, etc. can't handle any more. There is no need to reply to this note. We will join the March 16th meeting to hear what the commission, mayor, and council has to say. Thankyou Richard & Anne Klein From: David Johnson Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 4:11 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Proposal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 51 These policy proposals have not been designed with our Edmonds community in mind. Please let's not make Edmonds like Seattle. David and Marlene Johnson From: terry.peterson Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 3:05 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for 3/16/2021 Meeting I'm unable to attend the 3/16/2021 Edmonds City Council meeting and would appreciate my comments being part of the record. I have watched and participated in the Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) process including filling out the surveys. I believe it is time to make Edmonds more affordable and open to people at all income levels. I stand behind many of the policy recommendations developed and voted on by the CHC. Part of what makes Edmonds beautiful, are the residents who keep up their homes and gardens. I do worry about zero lot line policies that essentially eliminate the "green space" that each home has. Allowing these types of policies only near mass transportation corridors and shopping centers makes sense and is an appropriate balance between keeping the area beautiful and keeping affordable access to the local amenities. I don't agree however, with the policy recommendation titled "COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION OF SALES AND USE TAX FOR HOUSING AND RELATED SERVICES". First off, I don't think it is appropriate for the housing commission to make any statements, for or against, any sort of sales tax proposal. Second, sales tax is regressive in nature and would only increase costs for lower income populations that many of these policies are aimed to assist. If we are going to assist low income households and need to raise taxes to do so, then find an alternate taxation strategy that is not regressive in nature. With this one exception, I support the work of the Citizens' Housing Commission and ask the Council to do the same. Respectfully Submitted, Terry Peterson From: ann eno Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 52 Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:22 PM Subject: Citizens' Housing @Recommendations To: <council_@edmondswa.gov It is my understanding that there will be a vote on March 16, 2021 on recommendations proposed by the Citizens' Housing Commission that will have a significant impact on zoning regulations in the city of Edmond.s. As a concerned citizen I am requesting that NO DECISION ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS be made without open discussion by residents and homeowners of Edmonds. I have been a property owner in Edmonds for many years, since 1974 in the Lake Ballinger area and currently in North Edmonds since 1996. 1 have read the recommended policies and have concerns about many items being proposed. No one was available to take my call at the City Council phone number today and I have not received a call back. I would like to share my concerns. I left my number. Thank you for your response. Ann Eno From: Kristie Simard Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:35 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: A vote against the Citizens' Housing Commission's proposals on Urban Density Please accept and acknowledge this email as a vote in opposition to the final housing proposal by the Citizens' Housing Commision.. Edmonds is unique, beautiful, charming, desirable and has been my home since 1978. It has all of those attributes because it has not succumbed to high density/urban density proposals such as those to be presented at tomorrow night's council meeting. The proposals do not reflect the character of our town, nor do they reflect the wishes of the majority of its citizens. Growth is inevitable but it needs to properly managed. There are multiple infrastructure and environmental issues associated with development that are not addressed in these proposals to say nothing of the detriment they would bring to peaceful neighborhoods and the reduction in property values. Please do not vote or make any decisions on these proposals until open town hall/council meetings can be safely held. All citizens of Edmonds need to have an opportunity to express their opinions and give their input into this process. I have read many letters and comments on this issue in My Edmonds News. Please do not ignore concerned citizens. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 53 Thank you, Kristie Simard Edmonds 98026 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 6:33 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comments for the March 16, 2021 Council Meeting. Resending with Dave Gebert email attached. The Hearing Examiner Annual Report is scheduled for Tuesday night, March 16, 2021. Please ask ALL the following questions during this Presentation: 1. What should a former Hearing Examiner do if the City of Edmonds contacts a former Hearing Examiner months after the Hearing Examiner contract has expired and asks the former Hearing Examiner to conduct a Hearing? The City of Edmonds has done this in the past, even when the City had a new Hearing Examiner under contract. On June 6, 2007, City employee Diane Cunningham contacted and informed former Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell that the City Attorney would like him to conduct a Hearing. 2. Does the City Attorney have the authority to determine who will conduct a Hearing, the current Hearing Examiner under contract or a former Hearing Examiner? 3. What should happen if City Staff ACT in front of a Hearing Examiner decision? Please see the attached Dave Gebert email dated June 8, 2007 (two days after Diane Cunningham's June 6, 2007 email to Ron McConnell) which proves City Staff acted in front of a Hearing Examiner decision that would not be decided upon until June 11, 2007. 4. Can a Hearing Examiner violate a Court Order by accepting a Court required letter from somebody other than the party specifically identified in the Court Order? 5. What should happen if City Staff violate a Hearing Examiner's Order, such as 2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell's clear decision that "Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved."? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 54 6. Can the City and its Insurance Pool (WCIA) could go "well beyond" a Hearing Examiner's Order? 7. What should happen if City Staff and City Attorney knowingly choose to not provide a Hearing Examiner all relevant code sections in front of a Hearing? 8. What should happen if a City Attorney represents to the Hearing Examiner that a code section does not apply when City Staff knew that the specific code section did apply and had discussed applying it in the attached notes. City Staff and City Attorney knew that Setbacks will be grandfathered but that was not shared with the Hearing Examiner. They also did not provide the Hearing Examiner with the attached notes. 9. Can a Hearing Examiner speculate about what would have happened had a citizen applied for a permit in a Hearing Examiner decision? Thank you for asking ALL the above questions during the Hearing Examiner Annual Report presentation scheduled for Tuesday night, March 16, 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 55 Attachment: Passev, Scott From: Gebert, David </O=CITY OF EDMONDS/OU=EDMONDS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GEBERT> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8.53 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Cc: Bowman, Duane; Fiene, Don; Chrisman, Lyle; Miller, Noel Subject: FW: Thuesen Civils Jeanie, Per Duane's e-mail below, please complete review of Thueson's civils by next Friday, June 15. So, that means move it to the top of the list. Before you review, please talk to Duane about the impact of the judges decisions and settlement, since that may effect our review comments and result if different comments than Lyle's previous comments. If Don or Blaine or Public Works need to review, please let them know right away, Thanks, Dave -----Original Message ----- From: Bowman, Duane Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:48 AM To: Gebert, David Subject:Thuesen Civils Dave, We would need to complete our review by next Friday. Duane Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 56 From: B Day Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:18 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Slow down the zoning process in Edmonds Slow down the process of zoning changes in Edmonds! Yes, review the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission's proposals and post them for all to see. Set up time lines for citizen input and review before voting to accept their recommendations. Yes Edmonds needs to up -date zoning laws, but a sweeping removal of single family housing zoning is too broad and too final. There are lots of options that need to be reviewed. What about approving Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny flats) with no size restrictions, for all single family homes instead? What about taking lots of over 10,000 sq feet and making them duplex lots, with restrictions to make them look like single family homes from the street? What about some tax or other perks for developers to take existing under -developed multi -zoned properties and develop them to their fullest? That's just three ideas from two people - how many more ideas can the community generate? There are too many options to consider and so a vote to remove all single-family zoning laws must be delayed so the process can be more transparent, with more citizen feedback. Sincerely, Barbara Day and Del Cross (homeowners) Edmonds 98020 From: Mona Carter Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 11:53 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Recommedstions City Council Members, I would like to go on record with my comments regarding the Housing Commission's recommendation to modify building codes for the city of Edmonds. I believe most of Edmonds is built out. Trying to squeeze new housing into existing single family zones will create more density and traffic in these areas throughout the city. As a result this would change the ambiance and charm of our town. I do not support allowing multi -unit housing in single family zones. I do not support allowing cluster/cottage housing in single family zones and lastly, I do not support allowing detached dwelling units in single family zones. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 57 Mona Carter From: ROBERT A LINDER Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 10:36 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Final Policy Recommendations I am writing this email to voice my emphatic disagreement with the Final Policy Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission in regards to MEDIUM - DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING (SR -MD) policy as outlined in the Commission's 2/1/2021 report. As a long-time resident of the Edmonds Bowl area, I believe the zoning change to allow for zero -lot -line construction of duplexes, triplexes and even quadruplexes will destroy the neighborhood character that has defined Edmonds and specifically "The Bowl" area for generations. I don't believe we can solve the affordable housing issues by allowing the development of more housing on such small lots. The effect of more housing will indeed crash the value of existing homeowners' homes and will make Edmonds a collection of ugly two-story vertical structures with no green space or ambiance to the core area of Edmonds. I believe the only benefit of this rezoning structure is to add more wealth to developers. Furthermore, I am not sure if the Edmonds core area can sustain more buildings from an environmental perspective. There are water and drainage issues that have been perplexing City of Edmonds engineers for years. Adding more housing and paving our land will only exacerbate the environmental concerns. I have read that the Commission's report mentioned that 82% of survey respondents said they did not want to see any zoning changes to single-family zones. Yet the Commission ignored the voice of the residents and taxpayers of Edmonds. As in the past, issues that have opposed the voice of the people ultimately fail. I would recommend that the Edmonds Council listen early on to the voice of the Edmonds Residents and remove any changes to the single-family zone as recommended in the 2/1/2021 report. Respectfully, Robert Linder Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 58 From: Maurine Jeude Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:29 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) proposed policies Mayor and Council, fully concur with the Letter to the Editor written by Kim Bayer-Augustavo and Ed Agustavo, published on March 9th in My Edmonds News and included below. Lest you forget, you were voted in to REPRESENT your constituents, not pursue your own agendas. When 78% of those constituents do not want any changes to single-family zoning, it is your duty to abide by their wishes whether you agree with them or not. This mayor and council's knee-jerk reactions to the craziness in the world has overstepped its representative bounds numerous times already. We have a right to preserve what we have worked so hard to earn, retain and sustain. As the Augustavos noted, "This proposed policy change will not resolve the issue of affordability, and will actually create more costly housing. Additionally, by removing the protection for single family housing, it will open the door for more policy changes in the name of "affordability," and "missing middle" housing that will further erode our Edmonds community." Please show some integrity, do your duty and represent your constituents. Solutions exist, but not at the expense of single-family neighborhoods and the community we all have built and want to retain. Listen, do the work, represent and be transparent about it. Sincerely, Maurine Jeude Charles Castellow Letter to the Editor: Citizens of Edmonds, this letter asks you to speak up against the Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) proposed policies: citizenshousingcommission.org/final-policy- recommendations that will be presented to the mayor and city council on March 16. Their proposal states it is based on citizen input; however, the feedback from the housing commission survey showed strong opposition to many of their policy changes i.e., 78% of residents surveyed were against any changes to single family zoning. We know growth is inevitable. It is how you strategically manage growth that matters, to protect the beauty and charm of Edmonds. Do you want single family parcels to vanish and be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 59 taken over by multiplexes? The commission wants these new multi -family zoning codes to be the same throughout all of Edmonds, not by district or neighborhoods. The commission states we are lacking "middle housing' but their re -zoning efforts would actually decrease middle housing single family residences. With very few empty parcels left, developers would be required to purchase single-family one house parcels. They would demolish less expensive houses and replace them with more expensive housing units that will increase density in every neighborhood. Developers will look to buy smaller and less expensive houses to redevelop into multi -unit housing which will actually create less affordable homes. How? They are not required to price their units or smaller homes at an "affordable price." This is already happening where smaller, less expensive homes on a single parcel are being purchased and the developer builds 4 townhomes and prices them each at a higher price than what they paid for the single house. The result of this policy change will be increased traffic, increased sales tax making Edmonds the highest in the state, more vehicles parked on the streets, more noise, more pollution, less trees, open spaces and vegetation, more storm water issues, and a city that will resemble Seattle, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. It will promote increased density and the elimination of single-family neighborhoods in Edmonds in the name of "affordable" or "missing middle" housing. This proposed policy change will not resolve the issue of affordability, and will actually create more costly housing. Additionally, by removing the protection for single family housing, it will open the door for more policy changes in the name of "affordability," and "missing middle" housing that will further erode our Edmonds community. On behalf of the many residents who are against many of these zoning policies, we urge you to please speak up with emails, calls or letters to the City Council and Mayor Nelson: council@edmondswa.gov AND includepubliccomment@edmondswa.gov on same email before the March 16th Edmonds City Council meeting. Ask them to slow down this process, be more transparent and seek true citizen feedback through online town halls before making any decisions on the most important issue facing Edmonds today. Kim Bayer-Augustavo Ed Augustavo Edmonds From: John Zipper Sent: Friday, March 12, 20214:08 PM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 60 To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Support for some Housing Commission Recommendations Greetings, I have been an Edmonds resident since 1987. 1 presently live redacted (off Maplewood Drive) and I own a home I am renovating at redacted (Interurban Trail). I support three of the housing commission recommendations, and believe they should be implemented city-wide. The three that I support are: • Change zoning in single family zones to allow "Missing Middle Housing (duplexes)"; • Change zoning in single family zones for "Cluster/Cottage Housing"; a Allow "Detached Accessory Dwelling Units" in single family zones. Dispersal of small infill development throughout town (with all other zoning rules intact such as setbacks, height, lot coverage) will allow for smaller rental units to be built slowly, lot by lot, as the market allows. I believe that dispersed growth is preferable to allowing the Highway 99 corridor, 212th, Edmonds Way to become more congested. There are a few issues that I would like the Council to consider at the hearing. These are: 1. The "easy way" to increase affordable housing is to encourage multi -unit apartments on major arterials. I urge the Council to reject this approach. By overbuilding along arterials, our City will inevitably become less user friendly from a walking, biking and traffic standpoint. (Think Ballard). 2. By dispersing growth throughout the City via the three favored options above, we will end up with (a) smaller scale development, built gradually on a lot by lot basis; (b) dispersal of traffic impacts, stress on our drainage infrastructure, etc., and (c) equity: the lower property value neighborhoods closer to HWY 99 will not be forced to absorb all the growth. Personally, I would like the opportunity to build a DADU in my side yard. I expect some of my neighbors will too. 3. There is a strong NIMBY faction in the City, who intend for "affordable housing" to be kept out of the bowl and/or "fobbed off" on the HWY 99 corridor where they will not have to see it or drive past it. There are good reasons to oppose these NIMBY attitudes, equity being only one good reason. The HWY 99 corridor should be allowed to improve via market rate development, and should not be the "dumping ground" for Edmonds affordable housing. Thank you, John Zipper From: phmalat@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 1:09 PM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 61 To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Commission Proposals I strongly oppose any changes to single family zoning regulations that would increase population density in Edmonds residential neighborhoods. When I moved to Edmonds 31 years ago I knowingly paid a premium to purchase my home in an area zoned for single family residences. I will be outraged if the City Council and Mayor collaborate with the greedy, corrupt real estate developers to degrade our community. Say NO to the Housing Commission proposals! Sincerely yours, Paul Malatesta 915 Sea Vista Place From: shawn.springer@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:52 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: 'sonja.springer' Subject: We support the Housing Commission recommendations Dear Council, I read about the new recommendations being put forth to rezone areas in Edmonds to allow for more affordable housing. As a long time Edmonds resident and home owner, I support the goals of the commission to allow modern, higher density affordable housing to be created in Edmonds. There always seems to be a "Not in my neighborhood" attitude amongst a vocal minority of our residents regarding any new development, but I believe we need to provide more housing options, especially for our lower income residents. I provide very affordable rental housing in Edmonds and would like to expand that and offer more affordable housing in Edmonds. I would be willing to provide more information or testify, if that is needed to support the new proposals. Thank you, Shawn Springer Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 62 From: Bob Adelman Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:35 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comment Re: Citizens' Housing Commission Final Policy Recommendations Greetings! As a long time Edmonds resident, I'd like to comment on the Citizens' Housing Commission Final Policy Recommendations. Researching the history leading up to the Final Policy, I could see that the city government and city council have an agenda which is contrary to the wishes of the populace. The 2015/17 Comprehensive Plan advocates "Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing" (p90) without any stated justification for this strategy and no cited community or homeowner input. Its "Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs." (p96) Subsequently the city council resolved (1427): "WHEREAS, the Council has heard numerous comments and concerns from our constituents that the process for establishing policies around an expanded range of housing options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation." After the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission was chosen an online survey was done (2/2019). In response to the survey statement (Q13): "It is important to me that single family neighborhoods remain zoned as single family." 82% of 684 homeowners agreed (61% strongly). Yet the Final Policy Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission include three policy proposals that will allow multiple family dwellings on single lots in single family zones: Change zoning in single family zones to allow "Missing Middle Housing (duplexes)";Change zoning in single family zones for "Cluster/Cottage Housing"; Allow "Detached Accessory Dwelling Units" in single family zones. Please pay attention to the wishes of the property owners in Edmonds and remove these 3 policies from your Final Policy Recommendations! Robert Adelman Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 63 From: Jenifer Schauwecker To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizens' Housing Commissions's Policy Proposal I do NOT support the 15 policy proposals. These proposed policies will destroy the quality of our Edmonds communities. You're enacting a "tree policy" to retain the "canopy" that will be destroyed to build multi -family housing. Seems pretty counterproductive. I live in the Seaview area where developers have purchased large lots, received approval to remove ALL the trees and have built 3 or 4 homes single family residences. More people, more kids in each classroom, increased traffic on our already crowded streets. Cost of housing will NOT go down with multi -family units. Seattle is dying......... don't let Edmonds become like ugly Seattle and North Seattle. Edmonds First and America First.............Keep Edmonds a great place to live. Jenifer Schauwecker From: Jonathan Milkey Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:41 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Jonathan Milkey Subject: Against Proposed CHC Housing Policies to Upzone Edmonds Good morning, I sent the information below to our housing commission reps after the 1/7 Webinar and just wanted to make sure you also had a copy. Thanks! I've reviewed the online information, have taken the surveys and listened in on the webinar last night so I hope I am at least minimally informed and in a position to provide useful information. I am going to minimize the phrase "as you know" since you have much more experience than I but I do not want to offend by not stating it as often as required below... I am in the construction industry and am very closely witnessing single family homes being purchased, demolished and being replaced with as many units as are permitted by code. As you know, a very simple equation - more units, more profit. So, I reviewed the proposals after the webinar (playing devil's advocate), with the goal of maximizing my profit (max units/min space). Many of the proposals increase housing density with limited incentives for providing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 64 affordable housing for the developer. As a result, it appears the proposals are focused on increasing housing density while having minimal impact on affordable housing. This sounds like a lose -lose unless the goal is to increase housing density (and associated negative impacts) and maximize developer profits. I was reviewing the Edmonds zoning map and have to ask if the City of Edmonds has completely run out of real estate to increase housing density in areas that are appropriately zoned? A Detached Dwelling Unit is another opportunity to maximize profit. I suspect ADU's for the most part are used for friends/family as intended due to proximity. A DDU is just another way to max profit with minimal/limited impact on the owner since it is now not attached. A DDU is simply a rental home which again, increases housing density. I do not anticipate that Edmonds has the staff to enforce any DDU occupancy requirements. I am not sure who on the Commission is a military veteran. I retired a few years ago and volunteered for the Commission but was not selected. I worked with military housing while active duty. Local housing analysis is conducted in an attempt to identify the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) based on the results of the analysis (how much housing $ soldiers and sailors receive). The study takes into account all areas within a certain radius of the base. As you would suspect, the BAH rates increase if you are married and as you become more senior. Yes, our Junior personnel often commuted a long way and often needed a few promotions to reside in some of the more costly neighborhoods of the Puget Sound Area. Highly recommend you obtain a copy of the most recent study. Regret that there are some areas in the PugetSound where I or my fellow service members cannot afford to live. Parking was mentioned last night but a Commissioner stated that parking was an issue no longer being considered. Increasing housing density in SFH areas without parking will immediately impact the neighborhoods. We are working on apartments in the UW area with no parking requirements and 1st floor retail - cars are parked everywhere and it really degrades the character of a neighborhood. These apartments are also on transit routes, in walkable neighborhoods, and accessible to grocery stores. If not, the parking situation would be exponentially worse. I've heard mention that Edmonds is growing on its own without intervention and also that Edmonds is not "required" to intervene to increase growth. I have not personally validated this. I do believe that growth must be responsibly managed - see Ballard as an example of what I would view as possible mismanagement. New houses are being built in the bowl and at what I assume maximum density - between 7th and 8th and Spruce is an example. Renter's Choice Security Deposit: Please do NOT pursue installment payment security deposits or reduced security deposits. There are so many good landlords who provide a service to the community by providing housing. Exposing landlords to more RISK, especially now when landlords are possibly paying rental costs out of their own pocket, is not in partnership. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 65 Streamline permitting process: As you know, one of the purposes of a Conditional Use Permit is to ensure consistent and compatible uses with the zone. Streamlining this process could result in a number of impacts to the neighborhoods. The CUP process was created for a very valid reason. Childcare Voucher: This appears to be an additional tax that has nothing to do with housing.. am a big advocate for opportunity but this may not be the correct forum to address a much bigger issue... Thank you for listening and hope I provided at least a bit of useful information. Jon Milkey From: Manager Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:30 AM To: council@emondswa.gov Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission proposals Thanks for your work for Edmonds and its citizens. But I'm alarmed at the Housing Commission's proposed policy shifts, especially as it affects single-family zoning. This would likely of the most pleasant, inviting aspects of Edmonds far a large majority of its citizens ... all on behalf of a questionable pursuit of diversity at every level and in every neighborhood. Let us create and keep the niceties of our neighborhoods without forcing changes that will erode them! From: R. London Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Proposals -- NO! Dear Council: I am a 30 year + resident and homeowner in Edmonds. I moved here -- and remain here -- for the unique small-town charm and feel -- particularly of the downtown core. I have reviewed the Citizen's Housing Commission's policy proposals and am extremely disappointed and concerned about many of them which I believe will destroy the unique ambience of Edmonds. I am strongly opposed to anything that 1) creates more density, 2) creates a more crowded appearance of neighborhoods and 3) eases the current zoning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 66 restrictions -- particularly anything regarding height restrictions -- and especially in downtown Edmonds. To those ends -- I am specifically opposed to zoning for more duplexes, triplexes etc. -- and zero offset lots. Please don't open the door to let Edmonds take on the look of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace or Kirkland. I don't know how the "Citizens" Housing Commission was chosen, but I find it hard to believe that these recommendations reflect the wishes of most Edmonds citizens. I implore you to reject any recommendation that will alter the appearance of Edmonds. It's great the MAy it is. I would like to see it preserved 'ust as it is -- and not ...... improved" -- which to me is just double -speak for -- "diminished" in service of special interests and developers. Thank you for your consideration. Robert London From: Edmonds Librarian Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Recommendations Dear Council and Mayor, The CHC recommended actions are NOT in the interests of Edmonds residents. It will not make housing more affordable. For those who already own a home might be happy about the increased value of the home due to regulatory interference. But their children, my children, would likely not be able to afford a single family home. Multi units for all the Grandkids. On every corner! No thanks. Slow down. This CHC isn't what is best for Edmonds. Richard B From: DAVID GROUT Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:04 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re -Zoning Don't do it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 67 From: C Stay Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:50 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmond's Citizens' Housing Commission (CHC) proposed policies I am opposed to the proposed changes to Edmonds single family zoning. I ask you to slow down this process, be more transparent and seek true citizen feedback through online town halls before making any decisions. Chris Stay Edmonds resident Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 16, 2021 Page 68