Loading...
Cmd050421EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES May 4, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir, Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Ryan Hague, Project Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page I Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments_ Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, provided comments on technical studies and public outreach she felt was necessary to undertake thoughtful deliberations for the upcoming tree regulations. First a technical study to quantify the costs of private tree maintenance as well as context costs for the different types of damage caused to private property by trees is required. The City spent public funds to quantify in dollar value the benefits of trees in both the Urban Forest Management Plan and the tree canopy assessment. It is only fair that the City spend public funds to explore both sides of the issue before undertaking this process. Those costs are necessary in creating effective incentives which the City has identified in Action B of the UFMP Goal 3. Second, a technical study to evaluate the City's public investment versus private priorities in relation to environmental justice and specifically the Washington State Environmental Health Disparities Mapping is required. A review of the 2017 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment as well as the UFMP found no consideration of environmental justice. Had that consideration be given, it would have found overburdened communities are located around the SR 99 corridor and focusing public dollar investment in street trees, parks in the areas identified in the tree canopy assessment, concentrates public funds away from the areas that need them the most while simultaneously creating private requirement to maintain trees in these overburden communities. Finally, the City needs to undertake public outreach. The City undertook significant outreach including surveys to develop the UFMP which found the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property and prefers the City only provide guidance and education as opposed to regulation when it comes to stewardship of trees on private property. For private land, the UFMP guides education and incentives toward tree management. It is clear from the emergency ordinance that the City will be evaluating actions that deviate from the UFMP. Conducting outreach to gauge community support and interest in this effort is absolutely needed. All these studies and efforts would have the added benefit of properly supporting the finding of the State Environment Policy Act assessment. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, a resident, veteran and local business owner, commented on the Walkable Main Street concept. It has been the hard work of the downtown businesses and their associations and organizations in promoting the charm of Edmonds and encouraging shoppers and diners to come to this lovely City, not necessarily the Mayor and the Administration. The Save our Saturday's effort was an outcry by the retailers to firmly indicate they do not want unsolicited help and in fact the Walkable Main Street help is harmful to them. Many businesses have suffered tremendous loss in revenue due to the pandemic and instead of letting businesses take a breather to recuperate, the Walkable Main Street concept is like force-feeding them an ineffective antidote. Citizens deserve leadership that uses a fair and systematic process for making decisions, one that starts by identifying the problem to be solved and then answering basic questions. For example, citizens have yet to hear the cost of Walkable Main Street to taxpayers for staffing and logistics. Citizens expect honest and impartial analysis when citizens and stakeholders provide input and want it considered. Despite the slanted and biased nature of the surveys, the data from the second survey clearly indicates the majority (52% of participants) prefer Walkable Main Street for one day or less while only 48% requested more than one day per week. This policy must be reconsidered and a compromise struck with the retailers to ensure true equity in this decision -making process. Alan Mearns, Edmonds, a long time Edmonds resident, recently retired marine ecologist and member of Save Our Marsh, spoke regarding one aspect of the Marina Park grant that are being discussed later on the agenda, the marsh outlet. The key to restoring salmon and wildlife in the Edmonds Marsh estuary is a comprehensive, holistic plan, one that provides salmon access to the entrance, tidally carved and meandering channels within the marsh and fish access to health urban creeks. The grants the Council will be voting on are components of an overall marsh estuary restoration vision or project, however, an overall vision does not exist and remains stalled due to the Unocal property issues. He was eager to see this project move forward and supported beginning some aspects of the park work, but leaving maximum flexibility for stream outlet design as what happens at the mouth is critically important to the rest of the system. The final outlet design should wait until there is resolution to the Unocal property so the whole marsh system Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 2 can be considered holistically. The Council should ask, can the landscaping and structure placements move ahead under these two grants without knowing the final specification of the entire tidal channel? There are big picture benefits if holistically restored; the education and tourist benefits the salmon bearing estuary would bring to Edmonds could be incredibly significant if it is done right and now is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do so. Willie Russell commented none of what he had to say had anything to do with Student Representative Roberts. He warned Councilmembers that actions have consequences. This past weekend he was notified by some dangerous people who have his address thanks to the Council and the Police Department because he was listed as a gang member by Council President Paine and the Edmonds Police Department in case number 19-22704. He contacted Captain Greg Wineberry yesterday to inform him what he was told; there is now a contract on a Snohomish County police officer because gang members do not like to be listed in a police document that they know nothing about. His family went through some very dangerous moments due to the Edmonds Police Department document and he encouraged the Council to look at it. As an elected official in the 2Is' LDPCO of the Cascade Precinct, he presents 987 people; 215 signed a document and have talked to a lawyer about suing the City for putting their lives in jeopardy due to gang activity for no reason. At this point they have no choice but to protect themselves by contacting a lawyer. They have attempted to contact the City's attorneys but they do not want to talk and neither does the district attorney or the sheriff. The Edmonds Police Department was at their residence illegally at 10:30 p.m. and lied in their patrol log, committing a felony. He summarized the Council's actions very important and urged them to be careful in what they say and write because it puts peoples' lives in jeopardy. He requested the Police Chief contact them and urged the Council to be safe because what has been said and done is dangerous. John Hoag, Edmonds, a member of the Economic Development Commission but speaking as a private citizen, said as a member of the EDC subcommittee on neighborhood districts of which Firdale Village is one, the recent unit lot subdivision expansion plan got his attention. He was opposed to the unit lot subdivision expansion to the BD, OR and the Firdale Village mixed use zones. This expansion will further erode existing commercial space set aside for businesses, business expansion or new business for the City of Edmonds, thus stifling job creation and business recruitment. If there is a truly a desire for live/work in Edmonds, the City should stop prioritizing housing at the expensive of commercial space. At the March 24"' Planning Board meeting, Mike Clugston stated that unit lot subdivision has worked out very well in the Westgate mixed use area. This is highly debatable as the two commercial spaces are still vacant two years after Westgate Village opened. The housing above restricts the type of businesses that can use the commercial space below and because the housing is maximized while the commercial is minimized, it further restricts the footprint of potential business. The commercial spaces at Westgate Village are small; the lack of tenants is not due to COVID, it is due to incentivizing housing. In his opinion Westgate Village mixed use has not worked out well and he feared the same would happen in the BD zone and Firdale Village mixed use area if housing is de facto incentivized by making it easier in these zones with disastrous results. Housing is allowed in the business zoning and the Council will hear this is not a big change, but the change is housing is a small H and commercial is a big C in these zones and turning that on its head will result in much more housing than commercial space and any commercial space will not fit an expanding business or enable a business to move into the space. Kate Guthrie, Edmonds, owner of Glazed and Amazed, voiced her strong opposition to the Walkable Main Street program that will close off Main Street right in front of her studio all summer from June 19"' to September 5, a 12 week period. Although she did not support any program that closed Main Street, a good compromise would have been to close the streets on Sunday only. She heard at previous Council meetings that having data from retailers would be helpful to assess the effects on retailers of closing the streets. Data from her studio shows that the 12 weekends of road closure in front of her store will cause significant revenue loss. As a retail business she depends on a large volume of sales to occur on weekends make up for slow sales during the week while most people are working. She depends on Main Street to be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 3 open to customers who drive by and find parking close to her store. In comparing the weekend sales for the weekends that Edmonds closed Main Street last summer compared to the same weekends in 2019, sales at her studio were 40-80% lower in 2020 compared to 2019. She realized this was probably due to COVID business restrictions placed on her business, but the closure of the street does not allow customers to shop at her store. Having Walkable Main Streets and tables in front of her studio, her customers are not painting outside or coming inside to buy pottery while the streets are closed. Her customers are staying away from her studio on the weekends because there is no parking close to her store. She asked that Walkable Main Street only be allowed on Saturdays as a way to support retailers like her who are struggling to stay open. In 2020 Glazed and Amazed lost over $5000 and was only able to stay open due to PPP loans and the grants and help provided. She hoped the City would give retail some support and only have Main Street closed on Sundays. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, spoke regarding the tree ordinance. The City is taking property value away from owners of undeveloped property just because there are large trees on the property. The same has been done to many indigenous tribes across the USA. Halting development on Edmonds property to honor the land in the name of the Snohomish people, the City will be pushing urban sprawl close to tribal lands allotted to them in the Treaty of 1855. Those actions will ultimately have a negative effect on the Snohomish Tribes. Edmonds citizens and property owners will lose millions of dollars, the City will lose property tax revenue due to the Council's decisions. Most if not all of the undeveloped land in Edmonds has challenges such as dense trees, steep terrain, difficult access, all liabilities and expensive to overcome. It takes determined and driven people willing to take on these challenges and build homes on the properties, homes that are needed and allowed in a city zoned for high density. At least three people who are now in the process of development are immigrants; she was unsure if that was a coincidence or maybe it was because they are more determined and willing to take on challenges. The trees are not the challenge when they bought the property; they were a bonus because they like trees and wanted to build around them. Laying the financial burden to achieve the goal of funding the tree fund only on undeveloped property owners is discriminatory. Owners of undeveloped property cannot be expected to fund the entire tree fund. To build three homes on their property, they will retain more than 55% of the trees, but will be required to pay $250,000 in fees. Not only does that take away any profit they hoped to make, it makes building almost impossible. Potential buyers will factor the City fines into their purchase price. She suggested if the trees that are being cut are valued, also valuing the trees that remain on the property and subtracting the trees that are being cut from the value of the trees that remain. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to the agenda item regarding bicycle improvements, expressing her appreciation for the work put into this project. At the listening session on February 24"', citizens asked for another public meeting via Zoom to review any new plans since the original rough designs have now been altered and new information is being presented to Council tonight. She was hopeful the team will allow for an update directly to interested citizens to gather new input to better assimilate the concerns and opportunities offered by the public. One important piece missing in tonight's presentation is the location of critical turn lanes from 9t" and Bowdoin at heavily traveled cross streets allowing for ease of traffic and bike flow. Heading north on 9", the recommended locations to consider would be left turns at 15t" Street SW north of the cemetery as well as a left turn at Pine Street. Heading west on Bowdoin, she recommended including a left turn lane at 92nd Ave W. She requested the design not squeeze parking and driveways on Bowdoin to fit a dedicated bike lane downhill that is not necessary and would be more dangerous as bikes could easily travel faster than cars causing potential accidents when cars turn right into driveways. Sharrows are the perfect solution on the downhill side of Bowdoin and Walnut as they travel with the traffic and the same speeds and allows for normal parking and drive lanes. If 76"', 220"' and 212"' are all examples of great results, then there is no need to add the unnecessary 3-4 foot buffers that will only squeeze out the Community Transit buses, trucks and delivery and work vehicles. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 4 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. EPOA LAW SUPPORT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 1/1/20-12/31/22 NEW BUSINESS MARINA BEACH PARK RENOVATION GRANT MATCH CERTIFICATION Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser said this agenda item is related to the certification of grant match funding for the Marina Beach Park project. She requested Council's consideration to authorize the Mayor to sign documentation that identifies the funding source for two $500,000 grants that are eligible to match each other therefore, not requiring any City funding to match the grants totally $1M. If Council chooses not to authorize the match certifications, the City will not be eligible to accept the grant funds once they are available from the state. This is simply a requirement of the grant program used to commit jurisdictions to supply the grant match. Edmonds is in the fortunate position to having qualified for both grants and they can and will be used to match each other. This is not the step of accepting grant money, only identifying the sources of match for the two grants. Ms. Feser explained the Marina Beach Park improvements have been identified in the Parks CIP and CFP since 2014 and this $5M project provides improved parking, vehicular circulation, two new permanent restrooms, a playground, renovation of the dog park area, ADA accessibility throughout the site including a handful of view areas and many educational opportunities. Part of the project is a new tidal channel which daylights Willow Creek, currently in an 1100 linear foot pipe underneath the park. This provides access for salmon into the Edmonds Marsh estuary area at the only access point where this channel can currently cross the railroad, an existing bridge. This crossing is a fixed point for both the park project and the marsh restoration project on the other side of the tracks. In March 2020 , the Council approved the grant applications for RCO. This project has had public process in a Master Plan adopted in 2015 and this project was added to the 2016 PROS Plan as an addendum in order to qualify for grant applications. The Council adopted the 2021 Parks CIP which identifies current funding allocation and timing of this project using REET funds for $750,000 and the Parks Capital Budget Fund for the balance of the $4.25M. This project is scheduled for design and development from 2022 to 2025. Traditionally the Council likes to look at agenda items twice before voting, but unfortunately documents are due to the State RCO next Monday. This agenda item was on last week's agenda but was bumped. Staff respectfully requests Council approval of this item tonight in order to submit by Monday's deadline. Council President Paine commented there had been lively emails earlier today about this funding. She clarified this item was only authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant and the Council could address accepting it later. Ms. Feser agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Feser for the answers she provided via email. He clarified this did not tie the City into any design or channelization, that is all still open and part of the larger, holistic Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 5 approach. Ms. Feser answered absolutely, this is a step in the grant process where jurisdictions identify their match source. Most cities and counties have to put up their own money as match. Edmonds is in the great position that both grants can match each other. This step does not commit the City to the grants; the Council will accept that during another process. The current design, the adopted Master Plan, is at the 30% design level which identifies the location of the tidal channel and general footprint, but the details of that channel along with every other component of the renovation will be developed and refined over the next couple of years as the project approaches 100% design and construction documents. The key point where the channel ties into and crosses the railroad is an existing bridge and is a definite and hard point in the design, but the details associated with the channel shape and form, cut on the sides, etc. will be worked out through the design process and refinement of the project. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was unsure the emails were lively, the goal was factual information. She recalled when former Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite left, the Marina Beach project was separated and marsh restoration was put into the storm utility paid by utility ratepayers. It is not a holistic approach, she has seen many grants; if this was approached from a salmon recovery standpoint, a 100% match would not be required. She said 100% is not often seen, a 10-15% match is more typical, as evidenced by WRIA 8 grants she has seen. If the grants offset each other, she questioned what happened if the City got one grant and not the other. She expressed concern with the lack of information in the proposal. Citizen do not realize the City is committing to pay for the Marina Beach renovation when in fact there are plenty of state and federal funds available via salmon recovery which begins at Puget Sound. If Marina Beach were treated as a nearshore estuary which it is, just like Meadowdale Beach Park is part of the Meadowdale nearshore estuary, all the grant funds could be consolidate and realized as a holistic approach for salmon recovery. The City also needs to change its Comprehensive Plan; this is incongruent with the Comprehensive Plan. She did not support the requested action. These grants are always available and there are plenty of them. She preferred to step back and look at the CIP/CFP and take a holistic approach. Councilmember L. Johnson congratulated staff for qualifying for two grants totaling $1M. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT MATCH FORMS FOR TWO GRANTS OF $500,000 EACH FOR THE MARINA BEACH RENOVATION PROJECT. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification what this commits the City to. In the past, there have been instances where certain steps were taken and it looks bad or it's a political gaffe to walk away and she wanted assurance that the Council was not going down that path. She understood the grants offset each other; her concern was the obligation to the other $4M which the City could be on the hook for as other grants are not lined up. Ms. Feser explained this authorization is only saying the City is identifying what would be used for the match for the grants. It is not signing a contract to accept the grants; that will come later this year and will require Council approval. The Mayor can sign this document, submit it to RCO, and when it comes time to sign the contract for the grant, the Council can turn that down if they wish. This does not commit the City to the grants or the project, it only identifies the matching source of the grants. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification from the Public Works Director regarding funding from stormwater. Mr. Williams said there has been a great deal of discussion about the park project, the channel through the park, the work on the open channel and the marsh itself, how all that can be/should be coordinated. He acknowledged it is a very complex space to operate in. Like any good capital project, all the grants will not come in at the same time and there is always the question of getting across the goal line. This is a good thing to be able to start funding the park project. The one known is where it goes through the Sound Transit bridge on the BNSF railroad tracks. From there to the beach will be designed as part of the open channel when the time comes to do that. He believed Ecology would come forth in 2021 with an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 6 interim action plan and a draft final consent decree and what happens with the Unocal property will be known sometime this year. Ecology has been in the process of writing that for several months; it will go out for public comment and he expected clarity regarding the property transfer by the third quarter. This may then turn into one large project. Both sides of the railroad tracks have to match up to that one point, all the hydrologics have to work, etc. The issues mentioned by the public such as tidally cut channels, appropriate natural geometry of the channels, etc. will be addressed in design when the project reaches that point. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard it said that WRIA 8 has grants for salmon recovery. She asked how much money Edmonds as gotten from WRIA 8 for salmon recovery. Mr. Williams said he did not have the exact number, but they have provided a significant amount of funding to get the concept of marsh restoration to this point. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is a very brief agenda memo, only one page with three pages of attachments. She had to read it six times to comprehend the nuances and is still confused. If staff wanted the Council to move through an agenda in ten days' time, she recommended providing a complete packet with all information for the Council to make an important value judgment. She expressed concern that the individual grants were listed in different amounts, Prism 20-1296 listed the project as $5,203,000 and Prism project 20-1320 listed it as $4,615,549. That raises the question whether these are two projects that would be added together for over $9M or whether the project amounts listed are incongruous to each other. She asked the total cost of the project. Ms. Feser answered there are two applications for same project estimated to cost $5M to complete. The first grant application was for WWRP local parks category with a grant request for $500,000 which is the maximum. The $4.5M remaining was the City's contribution regardless of whether those are City funds or other grant funding. That is the total amount of the project. Ms. Feser explained in the second grant application to Aquatics Land Enhancement Account (ALEA), the project cost was submitted for $4.6M because the balance of the $5M were elements that are not eligible in that program. ALEA is an aquatic's land program tailored toward salmon habitat and supporting it and things like playgrounds are not eligible costs. Therefore any elements that were not eligible to be covered by the grant program were removed which left $4.6M In that category, the project was listed for eligible expenses for $4.6M minus the $500,000 grant ask for the City's match for $4.1M. She explained this would be like going to RCO for a grant for $500,000 for a $5M project and then requesting $1M from the Hazel Miller Foundation. It is wo different grant applications for the same project, using different grants as different sources of funding. The fact that they are side -by -side in the Prism account is confusing but that is how they are submitted. They are two different grants, two different programs, and two different eligibility costs related to those programs. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the Council accepts the grants now, do the funds have to be spent within a specific amount of time. She asked the City's obligation in the future. Ms. Feser clarified tonight's request is not to accept the grants. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was a step toward accepting the grants so she was interested in the City's liability. Ms. Feser said she wanted to be clear, the Council was not committing to the grants tonight. If the Council decides to accept the grants at a later date, there is usually a two or four year window for the grants to be used and applied toward the project. This project is identified in the CIP to go through 2025. This is a stepping stone into the project to move into design development as well. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to proceed to 30% design with these grants or wait until more is known about the entire project. Ms. Feser answered the Master Plan is 30% design and that design was used to apply for the grants. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to figure out what the grants obligate the City to perform, construct, build, design, etc. and what that timeframe was. Ms. Feser said if the Council decides to accept the grants at a later date, they are committing to building the project Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 7 which would require finishing the design process and construction. The RCO grants allow 20-25% of the grant funding to be used for architecture and engineering so a portion of the grant funds could be used for those design services before the project gets to construction. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that the grant funds will be finalized next month on June 29". Her concern, as was raised earlier, was there was not a comprehensive approach to restoring the Edmonds Marsh and doing it piecemeal like this, she wanted to know what kind of stranglehold that would place on the overall design. The overall design for Willow Creek is unknown because it depends on the land ownership. If the City is constrained by the land it owns, it will be a very narrow passage way along the existing pipe. However, if the City can attain ownership of all the land, there could be a braided channel that it is hoped will go into the underpass that Sound Transit built. It is very hard to construct Marina Beach without knowing what will happen in the marsh. She feared by allowing the Mayor to sign the grants by May 10t" will lead to accepting the grants by June 29"' and not knowing emactly what that means. If the Council was expected to accept the grants on June 29"', the City's obligations need to be laid out, both financially and construction, otherwise she would not be able to accept the grants on June 29"'. Ms. Feser clarified the June 29' deadline was for the RCO funding board recommendation to fund all the grant programs. That goes to the state legislature and when the budget passes in July, the grant funds are eligible and notification is provided to the City that the grants have been funded and asking for authorization to accept the grants. It would be after July before she was before Council again. Councilmember K. Johnson commented that was not clear in the memo; the memo was abbreviated with almost too little information to make a decision. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that one grant will match the other and the City has no immediate responsibility. However, if the City accepts the grant in July, the City does have a responsibility for over $4M. Ms. Feser agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the timeframe for spending that $4M. Ms. Feser answered RCO usually funds 2-4 years out and extensions can be provided if progress is being made on the project. That will be presented to Council later this year during consideration to accept the grants. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if any consideration had been given to going to the Salmon Recovery Council to request a large grant for the whole project rather than a small one for Marina Beach and then another for the marsh. Ms. Feser answered the entire suite of grants available from RCO run the gamut. That process was done before she hired and Marina Beach fit into two categories, local park and ALEA. Staff applied for this project in those categories and was successful. She has not studied how this project would fare in the other programs. This a park project with a daylighted tidal channel in it, a lot of park and some salmon recovery. Not every piece of the project was eligible for ALEA. A limiting factor for this piece of the entire marsh estuary restoration is that Marina Beach is a park. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested it was possible to do just the salmon component and keep Marina Beach as is. Ms. Feser answered that would cut off dog park. Councilmember K. Johnson said the dog park and Willow Creek daylighting could be done and still have the remainder of the existing Marina Beach Park. Ms. Feser said there are a lot of options, but this is what the community approved in the Master Plan in 2015. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was on that committee and there were many vocal groups, and everyone wanted as much as possible. To Ms. Feser's comment that it is a park with a salmon beach, Councilmember K. Johnson said it could be just the salmon recovery portion and not the park. Councilmember K. Johnson commented RCO awards grants every two years. She asked if the City was eligible for additional grants for Civic Park in this cycle. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers' questions stick to the topic. This agenda item was scheduled for five minutes and has turned into a 30 minute debate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis offered to send Ms. Feser information on Meadowdale Beach which is also a park, commenting that is being worked on now and includes WRIA 8 grant funding. She recalled the City applied for and received NOAA grant funding for further design and NOAA ended up pulling the grant due to the property issue. She asked if the ALEA grant could be pulled due to the Unocal property being in flux and not knowing the salmon recovery portion. Ms. Feser answered for the ALEA grant, the project was the Marina Beach Park footprint and has nothing to do with what is on the other side of the tracks. This project ranked 41 in the ALEA program and has been used as an example because it is both restoration and education due to its location in a park setting. It was a very strong application and went in under both categories in ALEA and fared very well. It is not tied to the Unocal property whatsoever. Councilmember Buckshnis said ALEA is for salmon recovery and the grant is #1 because it has a 100% match. Salmon recovery starts at Puget Sound and goes into the marsh restoration. Last year NOAA pulled their grant due to salmon recovery standards. The complete channel under the railroad tracks into the nearshore estuary restoration has not been designed. She asked for clarification, that ALEA does not care that the design not continuous. Ms. Feser answered that was correct. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the statement that the City will be committed to providing the remaining funds for the project cost of $4M. She referred to examples she has provided in the past, Wayne Golf Course received $14.5M via grants, Rainbow Bridge and several other projects. Meadowdale is another example of a project that received a lot of grant funds. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the steps to get to this point including an amendment to the PROS Plan and stakeholder outreach. She asked about stakeholder support for the grant applications. Ms. Feser answered one of the big requirements of RCO is community support and showing that community support. For this project, support is shown via the Master Plan, identification of the project in the CIP and PROS Plan, and letters of support and funding match. Seven letters of support were provided by community organizations including Students Saving Salmon, Sound Salmon Solutions, the South County Marine Resources Committee, Port of Edmonds. Off Leash Area Edmonds, and Save Our Marsh. Those letter were submitted with the grant application showing community support for the project. There is a tremendous amount of community engagement and support for this project. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Council President Paine requested Item 5 be moved up as the previous 5 minute item had taken 30 minutes and there were consultants waiting to present regarding Item 5. 5. PROJECT UPDATE ON CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Mr. Williams introduced Ken Lauzen and Grace Garwin, Blueline. He commented there has been a great deal of public outreach and a lot of input into the design. The alternatives that were presented previously have been modified as a result of comments. Ken Lauzen, Blueline, reviewed: Project Overview: Project Summary o Citywide project to add bike facilities on both sides of multiple area streets o Funded by a $1.85 million Sound Transit Access grant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 9 o Adds over 6 miles of bike facilities, bringing Citywide total to 17 miles — an increase 0 of approximately 50% o Project corridors: 100th Ave W/9th Ave S: 244th St SW to Walnut St Walnut St/Bowdoin Way: 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W 228th St SW: 78th Ave W to 80th Ave W 80th Ave W: 229th St SW tc) 2?0th Rt RW Project Overview Map (green only used for identification on map) Project Overview: Timeline o Efforts to Date * 2009-2019 Citywide Bike Plan/TIP/Sound Transit Grant Pursuit * July 2020 Public hearing with City Council * August 2020 City Council approved accepting funds * Oct/Nov 2020 Blueline selected to assist City with outreach and design ■ Nov/Dec 2020 Survey, parking study, traffic analysis completed ■ Dec 2020 Listening sessions held with the community ■ Jan 2021 Preliminary design alternatives submitted to City for review ■ Feb 2021 Public outreach — website, survey, Zoom meeting ■ May 2021 Project update to Council Project Overview: Design Timeline o October 2020 Notice to Proceed o Dec 2020 Community listening sessions o Jan 2021 Preliminary design submittal and public meeting o May 2021 60% design submittal o July 2021 90% design submittal o Aug 2021 Public meeting o Oct 2021 Final design submittal o Mar 2022 Construction begins Project Overview: Data Collection o Efforts to Date: ■ Mapping/Field Survey ■ Parking Analysis ■ Traffic Analysis ■ Methodology for Alternatives ■ Preliminary Design ■ Public Involvement — Listening sessions — Public open house — Public survey • Alternatives Analysis Grace Garwin, Blueline, reviewed: ■ Data Analysis: Parking o Data Collection Data was collected over 3 days in Nov 2020 — Wednesday — Friday — Sunday ■ Number of cars parked was recorded every hour from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM o What does data show? ■ Total of 518 spaces along project Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 10 - 310 on Bowdoin Way/Walnut St - 208 on 9th Ave S t Average of 7% of stalls are used at any time throughout project - 481 parking stalls available ■ COVID correction factor - Use rate is similar to results collected in 2018, pre-COVID - No correction factor applied Data Analysis: Traffic o Data Collection Road tube counts were collected - Nov 17th, 2020 -Nov 23rd, 2020 (1 week) Turning movement counts were collected - Wednesday Nov 18th, 2020 - Turning movements counts indicate how traffic volumes are split at the intersection COVID-19 correction factor applied - Based on change in volumes at 238th St SW and Hwy 99 between Aug 2019 and Aug 2020 - Morning:l.7x - Afternoon:l.3x Dedicated Left Turn Lanes o Northbound and southbound left turn lanes will be added at 9th Ave S and Pine St o Data collected in April 2021 during afternoon peak hours meet WSDOT Design Manual requirements to add lanes Public Outreach o Efforts to Date: ■ Listening sessions - 12/10/2020 - 90 residents who previously showed interest in project were contacted by email to attend, 21 attended ■ Public open house - 2/24/2021 - 90 residents contacted by email to attend - 150 door hangers distributed - Message board announcing meeting placed along project - Postings in Edmonds Beacon, My Edmonds New and City Facebook page - 60 attendees • Public survey - Closed on 3/1/2021 Public Outreach Results o Key Issues ■ Parking at Yost Park ■ Improved pedestrian crossings throughout project areas ■ Speeding vehicles o Survey results ■ 91 responses 100th Ave W/9th Ave S - Alternative 2A • Bowdoin Way/Walnut St - Alternative 3 Mr. Lauzen reviewed: • Public Outreach: Parking at Yost (Bowdoin Way & 96t" Ave W) o Schematic diagram of ideas • Public Outreach: Pedestrian improvements o Bowdoin Way & Pioneer Way/90th Ave W • Flashing beacons Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 11 on 220"' to a proposed bike lane extension on 228"'. That north -south route was in the Transportation Plan Councilmember K. Johnson referred to north of 80"'. Mr. Hauss answered the intent is a bike lane corridor that connects bike lanes. Wayfinding signs were added on that route 3-4 years ago as part of the Bike2Health project. Councilmember K. Johnson said what is lacking is the segment north along 80"'. Although there are bike route signs, the two segments are not connected.. Mr. Hauss commented the 84"' Avenue overlay done last year included bike lanes on the north end as well as sharrows. Sharrows would be simple to add in the future but not as part of this project as the project boundaries have already been established in the Sound Transit grant. Mr. Hague assured there are sharrows on 80"' from Five Corners to 220"' and 80"' to 228"'. Council President Paine thanked the team for including input from the community and from the Council during the previous presentation. As a bike rider who dreads crossing SR 104 at 100"', she was pleased to see the recommended configuration and safety improvements. She hoped there would be a lot of signage so people understand there are bike lanes for bicyclists and hopefully it would slow vehicles. Once an alternative is chosen, she recommended reviewing it to ensure the right level of safety. There are a lot of accidents at that intersection, people get careless while driving, making bicyclists even more vulnerable. She supported the concept of slowing traffic with bulb outs. She recalled two years ago a neighborhood on Pine Street requested speed mitigation on Pine Street due to the hill off 9' and drivers using that street as a shortcut to the ferry lanes. She wanted to ensure that was addressed with the proposed left turn lane on 9"'. She summarized this was nice work and she looked forward to the next round. With regard to the option for a southbound sharrow at the Westgate intersection, Mr. Williams said consideration is also being given to adding bike off ramps to provide bicyclists the option of taking the off ramp, getting off their bike, walking through the intersection like a pedestrian and then getting back on their bicycle. He noted the serious bicyclists won't make that choice and will remain in the sharrow or the dedicated bike lane. The off ramps offer additional safety to cross the street as a pedestrian. Council President Paine commented she has done both and it is nice to have that as an option during rush hour traffic or during ferry offloading which tends to be a dangerous time for bicyclists. Councilmember L. Johnson requested the team keep in mind that Pine Street is a spur between SR 524 and SR 104 and residents have expressed their concerns regarding vehicle speeds. As someone who walks in that area frequently, she can attest to the issue of speeding. Councilmember Olson appreciated the amount of information in the packet since there is a lot of citizen interest in this project. She learned more today about bulb outs and why they are used. It had been her perception that more space was safer for everyone, but evidentially bulb outs slow the traffic somewhat and also provide less distance for pedestrians to traverse which makes it safer for them. She suggested the engineers to keep a balance in mind, instead of the bulb out being 7', maybe it could be 5' so it is the best of both worlds, more room for bicyclists to stay out of a vehicle's way as well as stay out of the way of the curb. Councilmember Olson said she had a different take than Councilmember Distelhorst on the SR 104 & 100"' intersection and suggested that may be an area for citizen input. Some windshield bias is appropriate and the solution that was developed may be the right balance for the community. However, she hoped before the project proceeds, there could be a one week pause to wait for citizen insight and input in terms of how the bike lanes will affect their residences and their life as well as from bicyclists. She recalled the indication in the presentation that the green color was only to identify the location of bike lanes. When/if there is a discussion about painting the bike lanes, she suggested that be brought to the Council and the public due to the effect on the beauty, vibe and feel of the street. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 16 Mr. Williams asked for clarification regarding how to proceed. In response to the request to wait a week, he asked if staff could wait a week for further input and then return for approval of the general concept for all the sections. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested putting it on the Consent Agenda in two weeks. Mr. Williams agreed it could be scheduled on the Consent Agenda in two weeks and if anything needed to be brought to Council in the meantime as a result of further input, that could be done. Councilmember Buckshnis said some citizens wanted to know if there would be a public hearing; she did not think a public hearing was needed and the public could contact staff. Citizens have told her that there were significant changes between this and the original proposal. She asked how citizens would contact staff or if staff preferred to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Williams did not see a need for a public hearing. The last slide in the presentation includes a number of ways to contact staff including emailing Mr. Hague, Mr. English, Mr. Hauss or him and citizens can include the Council if they wish. Councilmember K. Johnson requested the feedback received tonight be incorporated and any questions be answered because she did not want to see the same document on Consent. She recommended the team digest the comments from the public and the feedback from the Council and make the appropriate modifications. Mr. Williams acknowledged there were a lot of comments, but was uncertain any rose to the level of Council direction. Councilmember Olson suggested if the Council supported decreasing the size of the bulb outs on Bowdoin, that would be a good change. Mr. Hague assured the bulb outs on Bowdoin would not be exceptionally large. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented everybody has their own opinion and have been lobbied by various people, groups and organizations. She suggested the team come back with a project based on information and the background of employees and consultants. If some things can be added that make Councilmembers feel better, fine and if not, she was fine with the proposal. She was concerned with telling staff what they need to do when they are the professionals. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled she raised three safety concerns in her neighborhood along Bowdoin Way, 1) lighting, 2) proximity of parking to intersections where right turns occur, and 3) whether it would be better to have parking on the south side of the street instead of the north because bicyclists will be going faster downhill and may need more visual distance. She commented it was easier to stop if someone opens a car door on the uphill side than it is on the downhill side. She requested the team take a closer look at the three safety concerns she has noticed while walking and riding a bike in the neighborhood. Mr. Williams explained the north side is better for parking because Bowdoin is not all downhill westbound. The parking study showed higher parking usage on the north side which is why it was proposed to be retained on that side. Homes on the south take their access in different ways. Those three things added up to it made sense to leave the parking on the north side. Staff can look at the lighting and provide a response as well as consider the proximity of parking where right turns occur. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed there is an uphill section from Five Corners on Bowdoin Way on the north side and the multi -family properties rely on Bowdoin Way for parking. Once the top of the hill is reached, it is primarily downhill the rest of the way to 91h Avenue. Due to bicyclists' speed, she requested the team reevaluate whether to have parking on the south side. 2. INTRODUCTION REGARDING PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC SECTION 20.75.045.B, ENTITLE1) UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION - APPLICABILITY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 17 Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the intent is not to decide anything tonight, but to brief the Council on the basic idea. A public hearing will be held in the future as well as any other follow- up meetings that are necessary. Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained a private code amendment has been proposed to change where the unit lot subdivision (ULS) process would be allowed. ULS are currently only allowed in the General Commercial, Multiple Residential, and Westgate Mixed Use zones. This applicant would also like to allow it in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, and specifically at the site of their proposed 14-unit townhome project at 614/616 5th Avenue South, which is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He displayed a map of existing subdivision zoning, General Commercial primarily along Highway 99, Multi -Family zones primarily along arterials such as 212"i, 196"' and Edmonds Way and an area downtown. The applicant would like to use the process in the BD zones. When this application was submitted, staff felt it reasonable to add two more zones where ground floor multi -residential is an option, the Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone and a few parcels in the Office Residential (OR) zone on Sunset. The ULS process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. A ULS does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the subdivision is proposed. Each project where a unit lot subdivision is used is first reviewed and approved to verify compliance with all applicable building, fire, public works, and zoning codes. The ULS then follows and inserts property lines between dwelling units, typically along shared walls and enclosing a small private yard. Mr. Clugston identified five locations that have used the ULS process, one in a CG zone on 212"' east of the high school and four others in the multi -family zones (one in the bowl, two near the high school and one in the south end of the City). There have not been any applications in the WMU; multi -family is allowed on the ground floor in some subdistricts and some zones allow townhouse type development as proposed at 614/616 5"' Ave S. The project at 614/615 5"' Ave is currently under review by the ADB and could be approved without allowing the ULS process by creating condominiums but they would prefer to use the ULS process. The packet includes the current ULS code with brief markup in the applicability section that would identify the BD zone as an additional zone to allow use of the ULS process. Mr. Clugston relayed the Planning Board considered the BD, Firdale Village Mixed Use and OR zones and initially supported broadening the applicability but in the end recommended the BD zones. The owner of the site provided testimony last week during audience comments, but he was unsure if they were available on tonight's meeting. Ms. Hope advised there would be an opportunity at the public hearing for the applicant to speak to the code amendment they have applied for. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the applicant was Pine Park 614, File Number PLN2020-0053. Mr. Clugston answered that is the application for design review. This amendment is File Number AMD2020- 0003. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is one applicant, but the intent is to expand use of ULS into other zones. The applicant is only applying for 614 and 616 5"' Avenue South. Mr. Clugston said that is the applicant's design review project; the applicant would like to use it on their project at 614/616, but it apply throughout BD zones if approved. Ms. Hope reminded this type of zoning approach must be applied to an entire zone, not just one parcel. Councilmember Buckshnis commented unless it was a variance. Ms. Hope said it would be difficult to qualify for a variance. The ULS process does not change the building, it simply allows instead of a condo or rental units in one complex, it could be divided up for single ownership. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the developer of this one parcel wants to expand the applicability to Firdale and all the BD zones. Mr. Clugston explained the applicant's request was for the BD zones. During staffs review of their request, it seemed reasonable to extend it to other zones where ground floor Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 18 multifamily residential is allowed such as Firdale Village and OR. Ms. Hope pointed out the Planning Board only recommended the BD zones. Councilmember Buckshnis said with individual units rather than a condo, if a townhouse that used the ULS provision, it must be sold as a ULS with a business on the first floor. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has a lot of concerns, commenting she was unsure who has ever lived with the terrible neighbor next door and there are so many things that can go on downtown and although downtown is great now, she found it difficult to comprehend allowing ULS in all the BD zones. She said she would keep the rest of her questions for the public hearing. Councilmember Olson offered to provide her comments via email to Ms. Hope and Mr. Clugston so they could be addressed during the public hearing. Council President Paine said it sounds like the proposal is to add ULS to what can be allowed. Currently there could be building with condominium or apartments on the ground floor, but this would require commercial or office on the ground floor. These other ownership or rental properties are still allowed through the BD zones, but for a ULS, the ground floor use would be different. Mr. Clugston explained a commercial use is required on the ground floor in any event. Rather than an apartment or condo, this would be a fee simple where someone could buy one unit; in this developer's project, they are proposing 14 units, 3 in each of 2 buildings facing 5' and another 8-unit building behind. For example, in the 3 unit buildings on 5"', each would be required to have commercial on the ground floor as part of a live/work unit and 2 levels of residential above. If the ULS process is approved, they could put property lines on those walls between the units and the units could be purchased separately. That is all the ULS does. Without ULS they could still create a condominium. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding a fee simple arrangement provided vertical ownership. What is different about this proposal is commercial on the ground floor. If it were a condominium, the responsibility would be the developer's, but with a fee simple arrangement, each individual townhome facing 5"' Avenue would become a commercial landlord and have to find renters, etc. Mr. Clugston relayed the assumption by the developer is this live/work unit concept exists in other parts of the country and they see some demand for it here. They are proposing those units in the project that is undergoing design review and plan to build them regardless of whether they can do ULS. Without ULS, they have indicated they will do condominiums. Assuming the units are design reviewed and approved and they get building permits, they plan to construct them with the units facing 5"' each having ground level commercial space as part of the live/work concept and owners will live above, essentially commuting downstairs to the commercial use. The range of uses in the downtown area is vast; it could be a small shop, an office, etc. The intent of the live/work concept is to have people live above their business. Councilmember K. Johnson commented that would be a challenge in that area of 5"' Avenue because there are no live/work units to the south and none between there and the fountain. This a new concept and she wondered who would take the risk, whether it would be the developer or the homeowner. In the case of Westgate, there are still vacant spaces because some uses cannot be accommodated such as restaurants because of the fumes. She anticipated it would be a challenge to sell those units with the expectation someone living above will want to work downstairs or it will be the homeowner's responsibility to rent out the space. If it were a condominium, that would be the developer's responsibility, but with a ULS, it will be the homeowner's responsibility. That issue was not discussed by the Planning Board and is a key consideration. Mr. Clugston pointed out that is the risk this developer is taking on with this project; selling live/work units whether they are owned through a condominium or ULS. The developer believes they can sell these units. It is a unique setup for Edmonds, there are no other live/work units, but that is not to say it won't work. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 19 Providing the ULS process would be one more tool they would have to create ownership of these rather than a condominium ownership model. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled when the post office site was developed, a couple units were live/work because there was access from the street but in fact no shops have located there. Mr. Clugston agreed several units on the north end of the building were identified as live/work but were not required to be live/work units. Ms. Hope advised staff will provide more information and there will be opportunity for further discussion. Councilmember Distelhorst requested staff not use red lines and shading on maps. He requested Councilmember when talking about housing not to call these terrible things. There are ULS in the city; those are residents and neighbors and fellow Councilmembers who live in multifamily ULS. They are not terrible things, they are housing options where people live. He asked if there was a date planned for the public hearing. Ms. Hope said staff will work with the Council President Paine on a date in the next month. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, THAT DIRECTOR HOPE AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SET A DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT. Councilmember L. Johnson said in the interest of time, she will contact Ms. Hope with her questions. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether a motion was necessary. Ms. Hope said a motion is not needed. A public hearing is required because it is an application. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-0-3); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the art non-profit building was live/work. Ms. Hope recalled there was some discussion about that; she did not think it ever happened but offered to double check. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Firdale Village has one owner and there was some type of Master Plan done for Firdale Village in 2010. She asked if this would be an addition to the Firdale Master Plan. Ms. Hope explained this would simply allow, if the owner chose to use ULS, to sell units separately; it does not change the Master Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis apologized to Councilmember Distelhorst, stating comments are comments and she knew he did not like her vocabulary. The issue that many people have relayed to her is the fact that condominiums are a lot different than ULS and that is something to be concerned about. Council President Paine raised a point of order. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from making personal remarks about other Councilmembers. 3. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES This item was postponed to a future meeting. 4. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO) Ms. Hope recalled there were presentations regarding HASCO at the April 20"' Council meeting, one from HASCO's executive director and another presentation about a potential ILA with HASCO should an opportunity arise that would allow them to move forward with purchasing property consistent with all City zoning requirements for households that qualify as low income. HASCO currently owns three properties in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 20 the City and it is possible other properties may be suitable in the future. Having the ability to move forward with a purchase relatively quickly would be helpful if an opportunity arose. There would still be communication from HASCO if such an opportunity arose. The Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) recommended the City enter into an ILA with HASCO. The packet includes the ILA as well as a resolution; the resolution could be adopted tonight or on next week's Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email asking about the property HASCO owns where rents are not low income and requested staff respond to the questions in the email. She asked if the ILA is approved and HASCO becomes the City's housing authority, will they provide Edmonds -only data instead of comingling data with Snohomish County. Ms. Hope answered there would be data focused on Edmonds as well as some regional information. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled HASCO Director Duane Leonard saying they will bring information to the City Council and asked if that needed to be included in the ILA or was this a standard ILA. Ms. Hope answered it is a standard agreement; it is also very standard for HASCO to come to City Councils. She said Mr. Leonard was present and could answer questions. Councilmember Distelhorst said the ILAs that HASCO has with other cities were used as the basis for this ILA. Those were about 25 years old so this ILA is more robust and up-to-date than the ILAs HASCO has with other cities. He worked with Sharon Cates, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Leonard, Councilmember Olson and Ms. Hope to ensure the document was updated. Councilmember Olson worked with Ms. Cates on the resolution. It was a good group effort with a lot of input from the parties. Councilmember Olson referred to packet page 222, the slide in the earlier presentation about what the draft ILA does not do, there are no code or density changes, which basically means HASCO will comply with Edmonds code, zoning, density, etc. in any of their purchases. One citizen pointed out that express detail was not in the ILA. Ms. Hope said it is mentioned in the ILA and even if it was not that is the law. Councilmember Olson referred to a comment in an My Edmonds News thread about the ILA that Mr. Leonard would be happy to talk with citizens and to write to Councilmembers to get his contact information. She pointed out the word "market rate" is atitle HASCO will Iikely end up changing, it describes a funding source and way of buying; it is market rate at the time it is purchased, not that they are market rate rentals. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said when she has talked with citizens, there seems to be a lot of confusion between the CHC and the HASCO agreement. The only crossover between these is the CHC did not address low income housing beyond recommending the City reach out to a housing organization to provide that level of housing. People see this as coming out of the CHC, but it really has nothing to d❑ with the CHC who acknowledged they were not planning to address low income, disabled, veteran and senior housing. The agreement with HASCO is a win -win the funding for this comes from a tax rebate that has been in place since Dave Earling was Mayor, close to $ 1 00,000/year that can be used in combination with other cities or for Edmonds to use for housing purposes. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Point 5 in the ILA, Planning, Zoning and Building Ordinances, which clearly states all housing projects of HASCO shall be subject to all planning, zoning, sanitary and building laws, ordinances and regulations of the City unless otherwise waived in whole or part by resolution. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE HASCO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 21 personal information from one of the tabletop testing sites could be devastating. She wished a Happy Mother's Day to all. , Councilmember Distelhorst echoed all the sentiments that Councilmember L. Johnson voiced and expressed his appreciation for the quick action by residents, and quick response from Mayor Nelson, city staff, Snohomish County Councilmember Wright and Snohomish County Parks staff. Hate has no place in Edmonds and it will be addressed. Councilmember Distelhorst reported this month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; the Edmonds School District, Sno-Isle Library and many other organizations are marking that and he encouraged people to take time to learn more. It is also Mental Health Awareness Month, commenting the need for mental health support is just the same as an injury to a muscle, finger, etc. It is also Teacher Appreciation Week; he expressed appreciation to all the teachers who are adapting to the myriad issues they have experienced last year and this year through the pandemic. He encouraged everyone to get vaccinated and to wear masks and wished all a Happy Mother's Day. Student Rep Roberts reminded everyone to take time for themselves and check in with their loved ones. This and 2020 have been difficult years and we are all in this together and will not get out of it unless we work together. We need to come out of this stronger together and he was certain we will. Take time, even five minutes to talk to someone, get vaccinated when you can and wear a mask. People continue to die from this deadly virus; it's unacceptable that that continues to happen. He wished all a Happy Mother's Day, commenting moms are super heroes who do so much for us and he was very appreciative of his mom. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 24 personal information from one of the tabletop testing sites could be devastating. She wished a Happy Mother's Day to all. Council member Distelhorst echoed al the sentiments that Counci Imcmber L..loltnson voiced and expressed his appreciation for the quick action by residents, and quick response from Mayor Nelson, city staff, Snohomish County Councilmetnber Wright and Snohomish County Parks staff. Hate has no place in Edmonds and it will be addressed. Councilmember Distelhorst reported this month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; the Edmonds School District, Sno-Isle Library and many other organizations are marking that and he encouraged people. to take time to learn more. It is also Mental Health. Awareness Month, commenting the geed for mental health support is ,just the same as an injury to a muscle, finger, etc. It is also Teacher Apprcciation Week: he expressed appreciation to al] the teachers who are adapting to the myriad issues they have experienced last year and this year through the pandernic. He encouraged everyone to get vaccinated and to wear masks and wished all a Happy Mother's Day. Student Rep Roberts reminded everyone to take time for themselves and check in with their loved ones. This and 2020 have been difficult years and we are all in this together and will not get out of it unless we work together, We need to come out of this stronger together and he was certain we will. Take time, even five minutes to talk to someone, get vaccinated when you can and wear a mask. People continue to die from this deadly virus; it's unacceptable that that continues to happen. He wished all a Ham)y Mother's Day, commenting moms are super heroes who do so much for us and he was very appreciative of his atom. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. YCE 50N, MAYOR Cfl PA EY, C Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment for 5/4/21 City Council Meeting: From: ACE President Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 6:20 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: New Business Item 7.4: Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) Re: New Business Item 7.4: Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) There was an important post on My Edmonds News by an actual resident of the HASCO Edmonds Highlands Property that perfectly illustrates the concerns we had expressed in a previous email referenced below: Christine Koch posted May 3 2021 at 11:31 am "HASCO owns the Edmonds Highlands Apts on Edmonds Way (232nd-236th) and it is Section 8; HOWEVER, many seniors have been on Sec 8 waitlist for 5-6 yrs and no response. 2018 rents increased $100/mo = $1,200 yr 2019 rent increase $250/mo=$3,000 yr. There is no way that the taxes on a 720sq 1-bdrm increased $3,000/yr. HASCO and Coast Mgmt are being obscenely greedy and concern that 2022 rent increases will put many residents into Nomadland. Our elected representatives need to ACT IMMEDIATELY for a 5% rent increase cap!! I am 120% rent compromised." Who is looking out for these residents and how will HASCO be using our gift of public funds to its best use by enacting this agreement with no local oversight and no ending date? There is also no language in the ILA that clarifies what authority HASCO will have over future housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted. Another insightful piece of information is from the HART Funding Workgroup Memo from September 9, 2019. HART was a housing regional task force that had our Director Shane Hope as well as Duane Leonard of HASCO and Chris Collier of AHA as members. A section from that memo reads (can provide this document if desired): F07, Make Surplus and Under -Utilized Property Available for Affordable Housing Land typically accounts for 10 to 20 percent of the total cost of developing new affordable housing. Furthermore, affordable housing developers are often unable to move as quickly as the private market toidentify and close on the most desirable sites, such as sites near rapid transit or job centers. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 25 Does Edmonds, with some of the highest Snohomish County real estate prices, taxes and lack of light -rail rapid transit and job centers, even fit their own recommendations of the best use of public funds and local tax dollars for HASCO to achieve their goals? We urge you not to take action on the HASCO ILA this evening for the following reasons: • Not enough notice was given to citizens that might be interested in commenting on this issue. Director Hope's Housing News Update on April 14 referenced the ILA would be on Council agenda on April 20. • Citizens responding to the online CHC open house and survey strongly opposed an ILA with HASCO by a margin of almost 2 to 1. • Although public funds were spent on public engagement, NO data about public input to the CHC regarding the HASCO ILA was included in Council's packet when it was discussed on April 20. Insufficient notice for that discussion was given to the public on Friday, April 16 . • In Council's agenda for tonight, there is again no information about public comments regarding a HASCO ILA. Notice for this agenda for Council was again given just four days in advance of tonight's meeting, on Friday, April 30. ■ Despite no information about prior public input and insufficient notice to the public, Staff recommendation is to approve the Resolution authorizing execution of the HASCO Interlocal Agreement. We also have concerns about information that is being provided to Council about the affordability of HASCO properties. In a reply to email questions from an ACE board member, Duane Leonard said the following: "the affordability restrictions that apply [to the Edmonds Highlands property] come from the housing authorities law codified in Chapter 35.82, specifically RCW 35.82.070 (5). The requirement here is that 50% of the units be rented to persons below 80% of the area median income." • Please note that 80% of the AMI for Snohomish County is $66,700/1 person, $76,200/2 person, $85,000/3 persons, $95,250/4 person. (NOTE: taken from SnoCo Home rent and income information) • Given that there are 100 seniors on the Section 8 waiting list for the other two Edmonds HASCO properties, why is Edmonds Highlands not also ALL section 8 housing to accommodate demand? • The Edmonds Highlands property has been operated property tax free for 20 years and is currently valued at 19.716 Million dollars. For the amount of taxes that are thus being shifted to the un-exempt taxpayers, shouldn't we be getting more for our money? (see comment from Christine Koch above) Finally, we are concerned that approval of the HASCO ILA will lead directly to another recommendation by the CHC which is the 0.1% sales tax increase to go to "affordable and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 26 supportive housing for low-income households". Council member Luke Distelhorst has already demonstrated his support of this sales tax increase by lobbying the Citizens Housing Commission on January 14, 2021, just prior to their final votes on January 28. Here is an excerpt from the agenda for the 1-14-21 meeting: "Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January 14 meeting." Quote from the "letter he had supported": "AHA would like to draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need to support adoption of a 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing." Again, we urge you, do NOT take action on the HASCO ILA tonight. There are a number of non- profit organizations that provide supportive and affordable housing in Snohomish County. There is no language in the ILA that clarifies what authority HASCO will have over future housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted. Respectfully, Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President Joan Bloom, At -Large ACE Board Member and former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:09 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting The following Public Comments are taken directly from an email sent to the 2013 Mayor and the 2013 City Council on October 23, 2013: Please prioritize the Code Rewrite! Please make sure that the proper amount is budgeted to complete the Code rewrite, and I mean the entire City CODE! When discussing the City CODE, it is very important to distinguish between the two parts of the CODE, the Edmonds City Code (ECC) - (sometimes called Edmonds Municipal Code - EMC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The ECC consists of Titles 1 through 10 and addresses issues such as health, safety, finance, officials, boards and commissions. The ECDC consists of Titles 15 through 23 and addresses issues such as building, planning and land use, public works, design and natural resources. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 27 Both parts of the CODE require updating! The City of Edmonds 2007-08 Budget stated that "A complete rewrite of ECDC over a two year period is proposed for completion in 2007." The complete rewrite of the ECDC was never completed. Plus, we need to fix the ECC/EMC! City Attorney Taraday stated it well during his EXCELLENT Annual Report (Thank you Mr. Taraday!): There is no end to the tremendous backlog of code fixes needed. Please consider the challenges related to updating just Chapter 2.10. 1 believe I myself have well over 100 hours of research into just this section of Chapter 2. The CODE rewrite is a complicated, huge project. Please make sure it is properly budgeted for. Former City Attorney Snyder stated that: "The biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the code rewrite." As a citizen, I would argue that the Code Rewrite is still the "biggest issue" and that we need to resolve it. Establishing a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy to administer City CODE is critical to the City's efforts to provide a high level of government service which INVITES economic and other beneficial activities to our City. Thank you. Ken Reidy From: Eric Forney Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 20215:11 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree removal ordinance Good afternoon, I was wondering what the city policy is regarding large trees on private property that are causing damage to parking areas and structures on the property? Thank you. Eric Forney Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 4, 2021 Page 28