Cmd051121EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
May 11, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
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 L. Johnson 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, with the
exception of Councilmember Buckshnis whose absence was excused.
4. PRESENTATION
2020 PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT
Kathleen Kyle, Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) reviewed:
• "Of all the rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far the
most pervasive for it affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 1
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654 (1984)
Impacts of COVID
o Use of Snohomish County Jail (capacity of 1,025)
• Average Daily Population
— March 2020 — 800
— April 2020 — 290
— April 2021 - 400
• Jail took protective action by creating booking restrictions
• People housed in single occupancy cells so social distancing can occur
• Snohomish County Prosecutors Office developed new guidelines for booking and bail
• SCPDA developed a culture of release
• Current capacity about half of pre-COVID
— COVID efforts showed what is important and how to evaluate collective wellness and
individual wellness
o Social Media campaign for PPE for people in jail
• Jail was a fabulous partner, created a system that is still used to provide a daily email
regarding total population, number of people tested, number of people COVID positive,
vulnerable inmates at the jail, etc.
o Edmonds Municipal Court led local judicial efforts
• Effective May 13, 2020, the Edmonds Municipal Court will be using Zoom video
conferencing for all court hearing.
■ PUBLIC OBSERVE LIVESTREAM OF COURT HEARINGS:
littps://www.youtube.com/channe]/UCAB—B5adYD56g56AMnUxYzw
■ Photograph of video conferencing in Edmonds Municipal Court
0 2020 Public defenders
• Colin Patrick and Daniel Snyder
Data Review
o Cases assigned by year
= 2017: 621
• 2018: 634
• 2019; 660
In 2020: 557
o Graph of 2020 assignments by quarter
o Graph comparing 2019 cases to 2020
o Graph of top three case types
It Theft
• DWLS 3
• DV
o Graph of top six case types by quarter 2020
• DUI
• Theft
■ DWLS 3
• DV
• Court Order violation .
in PDP (Possession of drug paraphernalia)
o Graph Comparing 2019 to 2020 by case type by quarter
o Graph of investigation requests by quarter
Data trends related to COVID Operations — increased workloads
o Trial suspensions -April to July 2020, November 2020 to May 2021
o Fewer bench warrants
o Re -visiting cases in bench warrant status
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 2
o Operationalizing E-File and other process changes
o Ability to meet with client confidentially
• Impact of COVID and DWLS 3 Resolution 2019 compared to 2020
o Graph of DWLS 3 Cases by Year
OF Reduced number of DWLS 3 cases
• Other workload measures
o Comparing 2019 to 2020 probation compliance review hearings
■ 2019 318
■ 2020 285
- 237 dismissals
o Comparing 2019 to 2020 bench warrants
■ 2019 535
■ 2020 394
Photograph of Team: Investigator Ann Fossmark, Supervisor Christine Olson, and Attorneys Sonya
Daisley-Harrison, Maya Titova and Tamara Comeau
• 18 continuing legal education classes
• 16 SCPDA Coffee Breaks
• May is Mental Health Awareness Month
o Photograph of lawyers and legal assistants who work in civil commitment hearings
o Mental health crisis occurring in Snohomish County
o No mental health assessment available to public defender clientele
• Criminal Law Updates
o State v. Jackson - July 16, 2020
■ Mandatory shackling/restraints of people appearing in -custody during court proceedings
■ Right to appeal and defend in person includes the "right to use not only his mental but his
physical faculties unfettered, unless some impelling necessity demands restraint."
o State. Gelinas 15 Wn.App. 484 (2020)
■ "You must appear at all scheduled hearings or a warrant will be issued for your arrest."
■ Blanket mandate is inconsistent with state rules and therefore invalid
■ Zachor & Zachor and SCPDA reviewing all previously issued warrants to ensure they
comply with Gelinas
- Of 384 reviewed, 110 have been dismissed, 50 reopened
■ Revised clear direction about mandatory appearances:
- I understand that I cannot waive my client's appearance for:
Arraignments or plea hearings for the following charges (defendant must appear
in person): DUI/Physical Control, Minor Driving After Consuming Alcohol,
Stalking,
Domestic -Violence -related charges, and any charges with sexual motivation
Compliance review hearings
• Trial confirmations and trials
When otherwise ordered by the court
■ CrRLJ3.4: "If in any case the defendant is not present when his or her personal presence is
ilc%�Uaa..y..
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that based on the agreement of the parties, the
warrant is recalled and quashed.
The Court finds good cause to require the defendant's presence at a pretrial reset hearing
on May 26, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will send a summons to the defendant once the
City files an address certification. The defendant may appear in person, remotely, or
through counsel.
- Edmonds Municipal Court has determined when necessary to advance the progress of
the case...
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 3
State v. Blake — February 24, 2021 and April 20, 2021
o State Supreme Court found simple drug possession laws are unconstitutional
• DWLS 3
o Pierce et al. v. DOL, April 30, 2021: RCW 46.20.289 is unconstitutional as applied to
individuals who are indigent.
o ESSB 5226: "Failure to pay a traffic infraction will no longer result in the suspension or
revocation of a person's driver's license."
Councilmember Olson referred to State v. Blake, relaying an automatic concern that drug dealers are smart
enough to possess a small amount of drugs so they won't get convicted and won't that parlay into an
increase in the drug trade. Ms. Kyle answered these are complex systems, the people SCPDA represents
are not who Councilmember Olson is talking about; criminal enterprises, an organization making money is
not SCPDA's client. If one thinks of drug dealing as a pyramid scheme, SCPDA's clients are the expendable
first and second layer pawns, dealing to use and using to deal. It is implicit in the drug trade to share drugs
so people do not get sick; that is the level SCPDA sees most of the time. Anyone trafficking large amounts
is usually prosecuted at the federal level. From a public defense perspective, punishment does not intervene
in drug addiction. If it did, people would get themselves out of it because drug addiction itself is a
punishment. Relationships interrupt drug addiction; prosecution and law enforcement have a hard time
establishing those relationships in a way that is helpful. It takes skilled professionals and the person
themselves.
Ms. Kyle referred to quotes in the newspaper after State v. Blake about drug users appearing to thumb their
noses at law enforcement, if the laws are unconstitutional, they can shoot up in public. That is not the
dominant narrative of street level drug addiction. The dominant narrative of street level drug addiction is
that there is nowhere to go. When someone wants to go to detox, there are no beds available. People are
waiting in jail to go to in -patient treatment because there are no beds available. And the in -patient facilities
available to them are not places that someone with private insurance or funds to do otherwise would send
their family member; they are not offering the level of treatment and peer support that will intervene in drug
addiction the way that paid programs do. As a community, we need to rethink how we address this problem.
What has been seen in 40 years of drug prosecution is that turn and burn and book and release is not
working.
Ms. Kyle explained pre-COVID, the jail's average length of stay was 16 days. During COVID the average
length of stay was reduced to 9 days which is not enough time to intervene. The median stay is 24 hours so
it is really a book and release; from a public defender perspective, there is the humiliation, shame and
degradation of being arrested, chained, handcuffed, strip -searched, booked and then getting kicked out onto
the street the next day with no meaningful intervention occurring in that process.
Council President Paine asked Ms. Kyle what good diversion programs look like. She referenced the
reduction in jail costs due to shorter stays and the possibility that there may be an ability to work around a
system of funding. She expressed her appreciation for Ms. Kyle meeting with Councilmember Distelhorst
and her regarding the progress on DWLS 3 and her appreciation for the amount of time and care that
everyone on that project put in. She acknowledged there have been some transitions during that time
including a new judge and an acting chief of police, but was pleased with the progress that has occurred
since November.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the outside of the box methods that SCPDA uses,
particularly working on restorative justice. She asked how offerings such as city level human services,
community court or other things like that help or impact SCPDA's work. Ms. Kyle answered they believe
relationships are transformative so just having these conversations are helpful. Conversations around
community court and the belief that the more local a problem can become, the more robust and relevant the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 4
solutions will be. Edmonds' needs are different than other cities. It is important to get to know people going
through the system; for some in the community getting a ticket or going to jail is a routine part of life and
they feel laws are unfairly enforced. Drug addiction is the same across all socioeconomic categories, yet it
is enforced on indigent clients who, due to poverty, are exposed to the system. Community courts get into
the weeds of a person's strengths, true accountability, and taking ownership to be better, get better and be
more well. The problem with the court is it is so categorical based on the crime and punishment which
externalizes accountability. A community court can internalize accountability; despite all a person's issues,
strengths can be identified. Needs in the community include housing, access to education, opportunities
(treatment, jobs). Luckily, Edmonds has a lot of wonderful opportunities.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how cities offering human services and/or access to a social worker
impacts SCPDA's work. Ms. Kyle responded the more prevention a city can do, the less work she has. She
would like to put herself out of business and represent the felons which is why she became a public defender.
Public defense is working with marginalized populations that are caught up in the grist mill of the criminal
justice system. Studies in juvenile court have found that the more that people are exposed to the system and
the longer they are in it, the worse their outcome are. The more people can be kept out of the system and
the faster it can be resolved, the better the outcome. That is true for juveniles as well as adults.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for the data -driven presentations as well as her
anecdotal knowledge. He noted Ms. Kyle was a key member of the DWLS team, working with the
prosecutor, police department and municipal judge. He asked if the DWLS was headed in the right direction
for the next 18 months until the state law takes affected. Ms. Kyle answered yes, she is interested in the
next piece, payment plans set up by the courts so people can get relicensed. She was not totally sold on
outsourcing it to debt collection agencies; she planned to research how to provide equity in addressing
traffic infractions so people can be relicensed so they can drive to their jobs, drive family members around
and be good community members. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Kyle for the information she
shared in response to Councilmember L. Johnson's questions regarding social and human services and basic
living needs like housing and how vital those are to community safety and crime prevention.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she watched a number of court days and felt like Edmonds
was supporting people that live in Edmonds. Community court, bringing court to the people, was the best
decision and has served the City well, perhaps differently than envisioned during the pandemic. She was
thrilled the City was taking a different approach to what has been done in the last 30-40 years. Ms. Kyle
thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for attending the meetings regarding community court. She
agreed the vision was to see people flourish and determine how to drive engagement in a way that creates
good, positive energy which can happen court, law enforcement and prosecution; it does not have to be a
dark, scary place.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, asked the City Council to reconsider Edmonds' tree ordinance. She
understood the importance of trees to the environment and would like trees retained on a property given
consideration when assessing the tree fee charges. As a land owner, she was not asking for special treatment,
only equal treatment given to every landowner who built their homes before November 4, 2020. Before
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 5
paying for the removal of trees, landowners have to pay Edmonds charges of $3300 - $12,000 or more per
24" or larger tree cut even when the 30% retention requirement is met, placing undue hardship on those
wishing to build homes. Edmonds City Council plans to apply the charges to all homeowners before the
tree cutting moratorium ends on September 2"d. These charges were not required when they begin working
with City planning in 2017 or during their preapplication meeting in 2019 and will now cost them an extra
$250,000 to build three modest homes on over one acre. The new charges and the rising cost of materials
have made building without exceeding market value nearly impossible even with rising house prices.
Edmonds has assumed ownership of their trees. They have to pay the City the worth of their trees before
they can be removed to build homes. Edmonds is holding land division permits hostage until owners pay a
ransom equal to the worth of the trees. She asked if the City Attorney could explain how the takings clause
in the 5"' Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to Edmonds taking the value of their trees, their
property, for public use or agenda without compensation.
Ms. Ferkingstad suggested assigning value to both trees removed and tree retained would show that
Edmonds is truly interested in tree retention and not just the money it will receive from property owners
for the tree find. She suggested incentivizing larger trees with 50% retention for property owners trying to
build homes and save taxpayers the cost of a City arborist. Using detailed arborist reports already required
for every plot division, calculate the total DBH inches of all trees on the property, subtract the total inches
of the trees slated for removal; the remaining number equals the DBH inches retained. If the inches retained
are greater than the amount removed, this equals 50% or greater retention and no charges should be due the
City. If the inches removed are greater than the trees to be retained, the owner would pay the difference in
value, giving them an incentive to keep older and larger trees with higher DBH. The ordinance takes
property value and property rights away from Edmonds citizens. She requested the Council consider a plan
that values retained trees and property rights.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Edmonds, said she gladly served the City as a volunteer for 16 years
through projects in Parks & Recreation, the Architectural Design Board and recently the Planning Board.
She expected the City's Administration to be supportive and respectful of citizen involvement in projects,
commissions and boards. She reminded Mayor Nelson under the 40 practice, when he terminated her
involvement in the Planning Board, her replacement was already serving and ready to step into Position 5.
This established approach provided stability to the operation of the Planning Board. Now, a different
interpretation of the code has been established, an interpretation that will impact vacancies on the board
from that point forward; it is not a retroactive interpretation. Every city must follow its own rules; for
example, when an applicant submits an application for development, the date of the application vests the
regulations it is subject to. When she left her position at midnight on December 31, 2020, the administrative
rule and interpretation of EMC 10.40 was that the alternate stepped into the vacated position. Roger Pence
has been in Position 5 since January 1, 2020 and the only open position on the board is the alternate. She
expected Mayor Nelson to honor the 40 year process in which the Planning Board operated and affirm
Roger Pence to Position 5. Citizens should expect respect for their volunteer service; no board should be
subject to an avoidable 4'/2 month vacancy which has delayed the appointment of a new alternate and
tampered with the function of an 8 member board.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on the City's intent to regulate trees on private property. The
emergency ordinance 4217 and findings of fact use slightly different wording to describe what the City is
deliberating on in relation to private tree regulation; they uses the City Council is in the process of adopting
new tree regulations which is unqualified as to the size of the tree, protection of trees of a specially
significant size, and permanent landmark tree regulations. She asked the City to immediately clarify if it is
only considering regulating trees above 24" DBH as Council comments have indicated a desire to regulate
significant trees at lower DBH. She requested the City also immediately identify what goal and action from
the UFMP this action supports. For private lands, the UFMP states education and incentives to encourage
good tree management practices and contains no actions that would support the emergency ordinance or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 6
regulatory development process. She requested the City present evidence such as studies or peer reviewed
research that demonstrates increasing regulatory burdens as proposed would result in private property
owners maintaining trees to achieve significant size. There is evidence in both urban and old growth settings
that increased regulatory burdens result in the removal of trees by property owners. There is evidence that
survivorship of private tree planting programs is poor. There is also research showing that regulating
beneficial activities more generally associated with climate change actually results in increased emissions.
Ms. Seitz explained since the City is undertaking an action not identified in the UFMP, the City should
undertake extensive public outreach to demonstrate it is both equitable and effective. Simply stating that
other cities have tree ordinances is not enough. Cities routinely take actions that are not equitable or
effective such as criminalizing homelessness and other things discussed earlier tonight. Regulating the
property of less developed and over -burdened landowners and requiring those property owners to live under
increased hazards, maintenance costs and permanent encumbrance to the self-determination of the use and
enjoyment of their property by tree replacement clauses, creating no equivalent burden or requirement to
plant trees on unforested developed properties and centering public investment in those areas is deeply
inequitable. Creating an urban forest with the maximum growth of 23.5" is also not effective. Surface water
fees have a tremendous potential to provide an equitable burden in support of the UFMP.
Rick Nishino, Edmonds, commended the City Council for looking at trees because they are an important
aspect of the environment in the City. He suggested the Council also consider other aspects of the
environment which include missing middle housing. Looking at this holistically would get people out of
their cars, walking more, etc. He referred to the earlier guest speaker's comments about drug addiction,
relaying his younger brother died of drug complications two weeks ago after living with him for a time in
Edmonds because he had no place to live. A lot of people struggle with family members with drug addiction
and some form of housing would be an equitable solution so families can help them while living nearby.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LYNNWOOD
HONDA
5. APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DAYTON STREET PUMP STATION
PROJECT
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. UPDATE ON .DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
■ Customer Service
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 7
o Virtual intake appointments
■ COVID Impacts to Permitting
o Permitting activities are now primarily managed electronic
o My Building Permit (MBP)is the City's main portal for accepting and issuing building permits
o City Hall remains closed to the public
+ Majority of staff are telecommuting and/or rotating office shifts
■ Customer feedback on electronic processes is positive
+ DRC and Pre-App meetings continue over Zoom -Homeowners and their project team can
attend from their homes and/or offices
+ Customer assistance is provided over Zoom, phone and/or email
Virtual Meetings
■ Development Review Committee (DRC) Meetings Free Project Review Meetings with the
Public
■ Meetings offered every Thursday at 1:30 and 3pm36 meetings held in 2020
• COVID Impacts to Construction
o March 23' Governor declares shutdown of all non -essential business, including construction
projects
o April 24"' Phase 1 begins
o June 5"' Phase 2 begins which allows all construction to resume with the implementation of an
on -site safety plan.
o COVID Safety Plans required on all job sites
• Online Submittals
o MyBuildingPermit
o One -stop portal for development services applications, inspection scheduling, permit status
information, and tip sheets for government agencies
• Streateries
o In response to COVID, a Special Event Permit was issued in 2020 to allow for curbside dining
o Fall 2020, Special Event Permit extended while regulations are considered
o December 2020 Ord. 4209 went into effect
o Streatery standards and publications were developed
0 14 streatery permits approved to date
o Ordinance allows for up to 20 streateries
o Uniform streatery design presented by business owners and implemented by many
o The public is actively enjoying outdoor dining!
■ Permit Activity
o Permit History 1985-2020 comparison of total Development Services revenue to number of
building permits
o Permits reviewed bv Development Services 2019 vs_ 909.0
Type of Permit
2019
#Issued
2020
# Issued
2019
Valuation
2020
Valuation
NEW
Single Family
26
32
$11,692,071
$13,220,676
Duplex
1 2 units
0
$131 125
Apartment/Condo
4 26 units
2 202 units
$3,343,502
$27,298,995
Commercial
0
3
0
$2,456,999
Mixed Use office/condo
0
0
0
ADDITION S/ALTERATIONS
Single Family
154
148
$9,851,167
$8,678,810
Apartment/Condo
15
18
$1,674,247
$754 563
Commercial
53
42
$8,263,097
$6,124,564
OTHER
Mechanical/Plumbin
441/379
470/333
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 8
Demolition
17
21
Miscellaneous
456
256
$9,918,5050
$1,848,609
TOTAL
1546
1080
544,89712a,714
$f0,383,21G
Engineering Division
o Right-of-way, side sewer, street use, and encroachment activity 2017-2020
2017
2018
2019
2020
Permits Issued
415
460
447
391
Permit Revenue
$42,806
$58,221
$41,595
$55,433
Inspection & Review Revenue
$416 959
$249,427
$233,678
$248,499
Iin act Fees and General Facilities Char =es (GFC's) for 2020
Transportation
Impact Fees
$805,648
Parks Impact Fees
$553,934
Water GFC
$340,899
Sewer GFC
$75,154
Storm GFC
$42,573
* Solar Permits
Year
# of Permits
# of Permits Online
% Online
2012
3
0
0%
2013
6
5
83%
2014
39
35
90%
205
32
29
91%
2016
17
16
94%
2017
14
14
100%
2018
14
13
93%
2019
12
11
92%
2020
11
8
1 730/(
Total
148
131
189%
• Over 7,000 Inspections performed by Development Services staff
0 4,384 building inspections
0 2,775 engineering inspections
• Building Inspections — Avg/working day
0 2019 - 23.9
0 2020 — 17.4
• Number of building inspections per month 2020
Month
Number
Jan
447
Feb
357
March
269
April
86
May
300
June
462
July
492
Aug413
Set
418
Oct
413
Nov
38
Dec
349
Building Official Leif Bjorback reviewed:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 9
• New Development —Key Projects
o Map of projects
o Single Family Homes
■ 75"' Ave W
■ Olympic View Drive
* 72nd Ave W
■ 224"' St SW
* 82"d Pl W
* Currently 48 issued permits in active status for single family homes in City
o New Townhomes
82nd Place Townhomes
o Waterfront Center — Finalized
■ 220 Railroad Ave
* 26,00 sf of new commercial
o Kahlo' Cantina - Finalized
■ 102 Main Street
o Von's Bell St. Apartments — issued
* 650 Bell St
* 4 new residential units
o Nyland Apartments — Issued
■ 8509/8513 244th St SW
* 19 new residential units
o Graphite Studios — Issued
of 202 Main St
* 11,000 sf new commercial
o Main Street Commons — Issued
* 550/558 Main St
■ Retail, restaurant and event space
o GRE Apartments — Issued
* 23400 Highway 99
* 192 new residential units
o Paradise Heights — Issued (Building A)/Applied (Building B & C)
* 546/550 Paradise Lane
■ 12 new residential units
o Edmonds Crossing — Issued
* 23830 Edmonds Way
it 10 new residential units
o Kisan Townhomes — Applied
■ 22810 Edmonds Way
* 18 new residential units
o Edmonds Townhomes — Applied
* 8029 238t1' St SW
■ 4 unit townhomes
o Anthology of Edmonds - Applied
■ 21200 72"d Ave S
* 192 units Senior Living
o Civic Field — Applied
* 300 6"' Ave N
o Meadowdale Beach Park
* Snohomish County Parks
o Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery — Pre-app
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 10
■ 200 2nd Ave S
o Apollo Apartments - Applied
■ 23601 Highway 99
■ 251 new multi -family units
o Sunde Townhomes — Design Review
* 8629 238"' St SW
* 1 duplex, 1 triplex
o Ford Hunter Townhomes — apply for soon
■ 7528 215"' St SW
■ 4 unit twnhomes
o Brackett's Reserve — Pre-app
■ 9109 240t" St
■ 11 lot PRD
o Port Office Building — Pre-app
471 Admiral Way
■ 6,650 sf new commercial
o Port Boardwalk repairs — Pre-app
■ 300 Admiral Way
o Westgate Station — Design Review
* 9601 Edmonds Way
■ 20 multi -family units + 4,704 sf new commercial
o Woodway Station — Design Review
23726 100t" Ave W
* New commercial building
o Pine Park 614 — Design Review
* 6145"'Ave S
* 3 mixed use buildings
Council President Paine asked if any projects other than GRE had utilized MFTE. Ms. Hope offered to
research. Mr. Bjorback commented projects early in the process have inquired about applying under MFTE
which indicates there is interest. Council President Paine asked if that was in the Westgate neighborhood
as well. Ms. Hope answered major proposals have only been in the Highway 99 area.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed there were 26 single family units developed in 2019, 32 in 2020 and
48 so far in 2021. Mr. Bjorback clarified at the moment there are 48 issued permits for home construction
and that is likely to result in a similar number at year end. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the
permits issued for multi -family for 2019, 2020 and 2021. Mr. Bjorback answered the numbers for 2019 and
2020 were similar; he anticipated the numbers would spike in 2021 due to two major projects. There were
26 units and 4 permits in 2019 and 2 permits for a total of 202 units in 2020. He did not have year-to-date
numbers for 2021, however, once the permits for the Apollo Apartments on Highway 99 are issued, there
are 251 units in that project, it will increase the numbers for 2021. Councilmember K. Johnson asked
whether GRE would be approved in 2022. Mr. Bjorback answered that permit was issued in 2020 and the
project is underway. Ms. Hope advised that project comprised most of the units in 2020.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked the number of issued permits for 2021 for multi -family, commenting
that having the numbers for multi -family and single family help frame the housing discussion and whether
the market can take care of housing needs or whether the City needs to intervene and if so, how.
Councilmember Olson asked about the modular construction of the Apollo Apartments. Mr. Bjorback
answered it is a unique approach to that building type. The first two levels, the parking structure, will be
built of concrete with a concrete deck on top that is the floor for the apartment portion of the building. Each
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 11
of the modules are factory -assembled and will be assembled on site like a Lego project. Assembly will
occur very quickly compared to conventional construction. Those modules are inspected and certified in
the factory by the State Labor and Industries Department as meeting the City's current adopted code in
order to be placed into the project. Once they are assembled, there is some matching and connections
between the modules to make it a fully structural building.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERFORMANCE REVIEW - PRESENTATION
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 8:29 p.m.)
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained this review is done annually to show where the City
is with implementing the Comprehensive Plan, particularly key action strategies as well as performance
measures. She explained the Comprehensive Plan Contains:
• Four Implementation actions - steps that must be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high -priority goals
o Develop the following
■ Street Tree Plan by EOY2018;
- Street Tree Plan had last major update in 2016.
- Now that the Urban Forest Management Plan is complete, a more comprehensive
update of comprehensive Street Tree Plan is underway.
- Environmental consultant, The Watershed Company, is working on inventory and
helping draft the new plan.
■ Urban Forest Management Plan by EOY2018
- The Urban Forest Management Plan was adopted in July 2019
■ Development of level of service standards for key public facilities by EOY2019 & consider
including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan
- Completed Pavement Analysis Report in August 2017
■ Housing policy options by EOY2020
- Citizens' Housing Commission established
Resolution no. 1427 (April 2019) & amended via Resolution no. 1428 (May 2019).
- Housing Commission submitted their housing policy recommendations to Council in
January 2021.
• Six Performance measures - targeted information about the implementation & effectiveness of the
Comprehensive Plan
o Annually report:
■ City-wide and city government energy use
- Electric utility for city -owned property reduced by 18 percent from a decade ago
- Commercial energy use declined slightly in recent years from a decade ago.
- Residential energy use has dipped a little, even though more people live here.
■ Number of residential units permitted
- Target of 21,168 units by 2035 or adding 112 units on average annually
- 89.4 annual average since 2011
■ Average number of jobs within the city
- Goal of reaching 13,948 jobs by 2035 to meet growth targets.
- Requires adding approximately 95 jobs annually from 2011 to 2035.
- An average of 232 jobs have been added annually since 2011.
K Lineal feet of water, sewer, and stormwater mains replaced or rehabilitated
Year
Lineal Feet
Water
Sewer
Storm
2020
—Replaced
7,016
2,369
4,361
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 12
Rehabilitated
--
1,934
New
--
--
2019
Replaced
1,120
1,315
2,139
Rehabilitated
--
New
I --
I --
1 497
' Capital facilities plan project delivery results
Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or Development
Conceptual
Acquisition complete.
Develo ment In progress
Community Park/Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High
School
Conceptual
Complete
Main St. & 9th Ave S interim solution
Conceptual
Complete
76th Ave. W & 212th St. SW intersection improvements
Design/ROW
Complete
228th St SW Corridor Safety Improvements
Design/ROW
Complete
Residential Traffic Calming
Concept al
On -going annual proyram
Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @Dayton and
Main St.
Conceptual
Complete
Dayton St. and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements
Design
Complete
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr/Day-lighting
/Restoration
Study
Conceptual
Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/ Management
Project
Study
On -going capital program
Previously added CFP rwoiects that are active
Hi hway 99 Gateway/Revitalization
Conceptual
Design In Progress
238 St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to SR104
Complete
Da ton St. Walkway from 3rd Ave to 9th Ave
Conceptual
Selected Sections Completed
New CFP Rroiects. added in 2020-2025 CFP
Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave to 7th Ave
Completed in 2020
SR104 Walkway from HAWK Signal to Pine St/Pine St
from SR104 to 3rd Ave
Project does not have secured
funding
Citywide Bicycle Improvements
In -Pro ress/On- oin
Downtown Lighting Improvements
Project does not have secured
fundin
Waterfront Re -development
Completed in 2020
New CFP promects added in 2021-2026 CFP
SR-104 Adaptive System
Design to begin in 2022
236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave
Project does not have secured
funding
Lineal feet of sidewalk renovated or rehabilitated
Year
Lineal Feet
2020
Contractors
1,170'
Public Works
399'
Private Development
3,459'
2019
Contractors
1,300'
Public Works
275'
Private Development
3,177'
3. PROCESS FOR REVIEWING HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• Tonight's purpose
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 13
o The City Council is being asked to approve a process for reviewing the Housing Commission's
policy recommendations
o NOTE: The Council is not being asked tonight to take action on any specific policy
recommendation.
Background
o Previously, work toward developing a draft Housing Strategy was to be begin in 2018.
o Council chose a new direction in 2019: to create a special Housing Commission that would
have only Edmonds residents.
o Council gave the Commission a Mission:
■ "Develop diverse housing policy options for (City ) Council consideration designed to
expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options
that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual
orientation."
o Housing Commission worked about 1 '/z years to develop policy housing recommendations
o Recommendations were submitted on January 29, 2021.
• What is a policy?
o A policy is a statement that is intended to provide guidance for future actions about a topic. It
is typically a broad level statement and does not contain all the details. (Details may be worked
out at a later stage.)
• Are housing policy recommendations to be automatically adopted?
o No. They are to be considered, with more information & input; then some kind of follow up
action may occur.
• Must a policy recommendation be approved (or not) exactly as written
o No, the City Council may choose a variation to any recommendation.
o NOTE: If the Planning Board does any work on something, it may also recommend a variation
and/or more detail compared to the Housing Commission's broad recommendation.
• Council choices re recommendations include:
a) Take no action to move recommendation forward in any form
b) Send the recommendation to the Planning Board for more review, research, & development of
variations/options for Council consideration
c) Direct that a more detailed study and/or possible variations/options be developed for further
Council consideration (without Planning Board
d) Direct that a specific action be taken toward implementing the recommendation or variation of
it in some form
• Housing Commission Policies: Methods to use for any twe of implementation
Housing Commission
Consistency w/
Variations
CP
Other
Policy
Existing Comp
Possible
Amendment
Impl'mtn
Plan
Needed
Method
Missing middle housing
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
in single family
nei hborhoods
Equity housing incentives
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
Medium -density SF
Generally
Yes
Maybe
DC
housing
Neighborhood village
Generally
Yes
Depends
Budget, DC
subarea planning
Cluster/cottage housing
General!
Yes
NO
DC
Detached accessory
Generally
Yes
No
DC
dwelling units
Multi -family tax
Generally
Yes
No
MC
exemption MFTE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 14
Inclusionar. Zoning
Generally
Yes
Possibly
DC
Existing Sales Tax for
Generally
Yes
No
Budget
Affordable Housing
County Sales Tax for
Generally
Yes
No
Other
Affordable Housing.
HASCO ILA
Generally
Yes
No
Other
Development of Housing
Generally
Yes
No
Other
Partners
Multi -family design
Generally
Yes
No
DC
standards
Parking Solutions as
Generally
Yes
Yes
TBD
Comp Plangoal
Discriminatory
Generally
Yes
No
MC
Provisions in Covenants
& Deeds
Key: DC — Development Code
MC — Municipal Code
Other — some other action such as ILA
Budget — would need some budgetary amendment or direction from Council
• 2 Main Categories of Recommendations
o Planning Board Road Required
Nine policy recommendations are directly related to the Comp Plan or Development
Regulations.
■ These would require Planning Board involvement if they are to be explored much further.
i Reminder: Anything forwarded to the Planning Board for exploration would come back to
City Council for the next round of consideration & final decision
o General
■ Six policy recommendations are not directly related to the Comp Plan or Development
Regulations.
■ These would NOT require Planning Board involvement if they are to be explored further
a Housing Commission Policy As ects Table(shading indicates ossible groupin
Housing Commission
Subject to PB
Level of
Need for
Est. Min. Time
Policy
Review
Complexity
Outside
For PB
Consultant
consideration
Missing middle housing
Yes
High
Probably not
4-6 mo.
in single family
nei hborhoods
Equity housing incentives
Yes
Hi h
Probably not
4-6 mo.
Medium -density SF
Yes
High
Probably not
4-5 mo.
housing
Neighborhood village
Yes
High
Yes
8-9 mo.
subarea planniny,
Cluster/cotta e housing
Yes
Moderate
Probably not
4 mo.
Detached accessory
Yes
Low
No
3 mo.
dwelling units
Multi -family tax
No
Moderate
Probably not
exemption MFTE
Inclusionary Zonine,
Yes
High
Probably not
4-5 mo.
Existing Sales Tax for
No
Low
No
Affordable Housing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 15
County Sales Tax for
No
Low
No
Affordable Housing
FIASCO ILA
No
Low
No
Development of Housing
No
Low
No
Partners
Multi -family design
Yes
Moderate
Probably Yes
4-5 mo.
standards
Parking Solutions as
Yes
Moderate
No, not at this
2-4 mo.
CornPlan oal
stage
Diserimivatory
No
Low
No
Previsions in Covenants
& Deeds
Note: Est. time for PB consideration includes the PB process and simultaneous staff time. Some of the
policies, such as items 6 and 7 above, could be considered together
• What other factors will be considered in process?
o Consistency with existing Comprehensive Plan, for example:
■ Goals and policies in Comp Plan Housing Element
■ Goals and policies in Comp Plan Sustainability Element
o Relationship with environment and open space
o Relationship with neighborhoods, transportation and more
o Options for appearance of buildings, etc.
• What about overlapping or closely related recommendations?
o Some should be considered (at least partly) together, for example:
1. Missing Middle Housing in SF Neighborhoods" with "Equity
2. "Medium Density SF Housing" with "Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning"
3. "Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue" with "County Implementation of Sales & Use Tax"
• Option 1: "Divide the work first"
o For Comp Plan or zoning recommendations, Council would conduct brief initial review of all
9 items in 2 or more batches during 2021; then assign all or some (with any additional direction)
to Planning Board for more work;
■ Planning Board would provide City Council with more detailed recommendations and
options beginning in 2022.Council would then consider the more detailed info from
Planning Board, staff, et. al.
o For General recommendations, Council would consider at least 2 more in 2021; then any
remaining in 2022
• Option 2: "Start Simple"
o 2021: Council to start reviewing fairly simple recommendations (not highly technical or
needing significant research first). For example:
■ Late Spring - Start on 2 recommendations not needing PB review
Summer - Start on 2 recommendations (example: detached ADUs) that need PB review &
after discussion give to PB with some direction on key factors
■ Fall - Start on 2 recommendations not needing PB review
2022: Council to start reviewing remaining more complex recommendations in logical
order. For example:
— Q1 - Start on last of General Recommendations (not subject to PB review)
Start considering 2 or more related Planning/Zoning policies that are complex
& after discussion - give to Planning Board for more work (including any
direction)
2022 Q 2
— Start considering any recommendations that have come back from PB (after being
assigned the work)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May It, 2021
Page 16
— Start preliminary consideration of 2 or more HC policies that could be sent to Planning
Board for more work
2022 Q 3
— Start preliminary consideration of remaining policies that could be sent to PB for more
work
— Consider any additional recommendations that have come back from Planning Board
2023
— Begin considering any new recommendations or options have come back from PB
Next Steps
o Council to select Option 1 or 2 to start review process
o Staff to begin brining info to Council for more detailed discussion or specific Housing
Commission recommendations
— Exact timing to be subject to other council scheduling needs
o Public involvement would be sought for each step
Community engagement
o Needs to be part of process
■ At both City Council & Planning Board levels
o Should be inclusive, providing different types of options for info & input
o Anything that would amend the Comp Plan or a development regulations would require Public
Hearings & adequate public notice
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested it would be helpful to step back and see where the Housing
Commission recommendations fit into the general framework. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan sets
forth goals and policies for general guidance; these recommendations are more like implementation. She
questioned what the Council was trying to achieve with the 15 recommendations. She kept track of the
numbers during the previous presentation because her first question was whether the market was keeping
pace with the City's housing goal of 21,160 housing units by 2035. The answer to that is yes, particularly
during the past year when the average has been 144 units which is above the 112/year average requirement.
The City is doing a good job and providing almost four times as many multi -family as single family when
apartments, townhomes, attached dwelling units are counted.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the second global question was whether a range of housing options for the
community is being provided, which is related to the GMA requirement. There are a variety of housing
needs that the City is trying to meet that include first time home ownership, special housing needs and
below market housing needs. This frames the question before the Council decides how to divide up the
Housing Commission recommendations. She recognized this is part of the puzzle; the City has done a
vision, goals and policies and this is getting down to implementation. There is some confusion expressed
by the public about starting at the end, but the Council has followed a logical process and she appreciated
the work of everyone who has worked on the Housing Commission. She summarized she wanted to put this
in a framework she could understand before the Council began its discussion.
Council President Paine commented it was very helpful to have other presentations in advance so the
Council can see where it is with the GMA goals. The CHC did a solid year plus of work which included a
lot of team members from development services. She liked Option 2, Start Simple, commenting the Council
could refer 1-2 items to the Planning Board for their more expert review while the Council looks at things
in its wheelhouse in a comprehensive way. She liked the idea of batching some of the items that should be
considered together. In 2022 and 2023 after the Planning Board has done their work, those items could
come back to City Council for further consideration. She commented on the ability for the public to be
engaged at the Council and Planning Board level.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 17
Councilmember Distelhorst commented it was nice to see all the projects being constructed in the City as
well as how they track with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled Ms. Hope sent the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to the Council in preparation for this discussion. He appreciated
having the opportunity to be one of two Council liaisons to the CHIC for the last work of their work in
addition to being the representative on Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Alliance for Housing
Affordability, making it a very housing centric life for him the last 15 months. He also liked Option 2,
starting with the simpler recommendations. For example, DADUs, the City has a matrix and Mukilteo,
Lynnwood, Snohomish, Stanwood, Marysville, Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, Snohomish
County, Lake Stevens, and Arlington all allow DADUs, only Edmonds does not. The Council could begin
with some of the simpler items that are integral to housing elements in the region before digging into the
more complex ones that will require a lot of work at various levels.
Councilmember Olson believed this Council was ready to dig in and take on the recommendation related
to discriminatory provisions in covenants & deeds. She recalled something was occurring at the state level
so it may make sense to wait on this recommendation. Discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds
are not enforceable or legal, but they can be removed at the time transactions occur. Transactions are
happening every day so she wanted to consider this recommendation sooner rather than later to the extent
that it makes sense.
Councilmember Olson said she liked Option 1 "divide the work first" approach, looking at the Planning
Board and consultant items first in a block and figuring out how to prioritize them. She supported
prioritizing subarea plans first as that would provide anchors around the City and take into account
environmental issues such as stormwater, trees, environment, etc. Even though it is the most complicated,
it is the most big picture and smartest first step and it is good timing to include it in the 2022 budget. She
agreed that did not have to be exclusive, if others were excited by the DADUs, that could be done at the
same time when in general the approach would be to divide the work.
Councilmember Olson emphasized Councilmember K. Johnson's point that there is a lot of enthusiasm in
certain pockets to move forward on the Housing Commission recommendations because they address a
need. It is important to note that the City is moving forward on providing a variety of housing; there are
more multi -family, townhouses and condos in the current application process. Doing things more
strategically does not mean the Council is not addressing the need in the short term. She encouraged the
Council to be thoughtful about the process as it would be living with the results of the process for a long
time.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the earlier presentation regarding the amount of development and
the number of single family and multi -family developments where she also noted the amount. Thinking
back to the goals of the CHIC and numerous conversations that have occurred both inside and outside the
City, the missing middle is often discussed topic. She did not see that the missing middle was being met to
the degree that the Council would like. Ms. Hope answered it is a combination of things that
Councilmembers have brought up. The City has met some overall GMA goals but there are a lot of gaps
related to individuals who are low income, disabled, veterans, etc. and sheer numbers do not address that
question. Like many cities, there has been a tendency toward single family detached houses, many on fairly
large lots, or fairly large scale multi -family housing and not much missing middle housing. Townhomes
are generally considered missing middle but other types of middle housing should be considered that
currently may not be allowed by the code.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her support for Option 2. When thinking about the enormity of the
CHC's recommendations, the idea of starting simple would allow the Council to check off things that are
more straight forward and less time consuming to accomplish. The ability to dive into each of the
recommendations as offered in Option 2 appealed to her the most.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 18
Councilmember K. Johnson said her perspective was what can be done to be the most effective in meeting
the housing demand. She developed a combination of four items that appealed to her, a combination of the
low, moderate and high complexity, which fit best with Option 1:
• Send the Cluster/Cottage Housing concept to the Planning Board (moderately complex)
• Multifamily Design Standards (moderately complex)
• Discriminatory Provisions in Covenants and Deeds — assign City Attorney as the lead
• Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning. For example finish the Five Corners subarea plan
With regard to the missing middle, Councilmember K. Johnson explained the Historic Preservation
Commission has been tracking the number of demolitions per year. Most historic houses are small which
represents the missing middle. There used to be 2-6 demolitions/year and one year there were 100. With
land prices so high and the desire to build large single family homes, the missing middle is being bulldozed.
The missing middle does not need to be built, it needs to be preserved especially as it relates to historic
homes. She liked Option 1 and preferred rather than doing all the easy ones first, working on some low,
moderate and high complexity items and getting something underway.
Mayor Nelson commented all Councilmembers have expressed their preference regarding the options, and
suggested the Council needed to get input from the two Councilmembers who are not present. Ms. Hope
said she hoped to reach consensus on moving forward with a couple of the simpler items so she can prepare
information for Council while the more complex items are worked out.
Council President Paine said she was not opposed to sending two items to the Planning Board, the
Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning and DADUs. The estimated time for the DADUs is 3 months and
8-9 months for the Neighborhood Subarea Planning. The Council could also work on the simpler items
during the balance of this year.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked, once the Council selected the recommendations to work on, how will
they move through the Council, Planning Board and back. Ms. Hope said for general recommendations,
staff would provide information provided to the CHC as well as supplemental information, examples, key
facts, etc. The general recommendations do not represent a huge amount of work. They could come to the
Council starting early summer/late spring and the Council would have 2-3 meetings on each to make a
decision or identify any additional information that was needed. For the more complicated items that would
go to the Planning Board, there would first be Council review. In the divide the work approach, the
assumption is the Council provides some guidance, assigns the item to the Planning Board and then it comes
back to the Council. Such items could be grouped rather than individual. Those would require a couple
Council meetings and the Planning Board would take some months to work on them.
Ms. Hope said the subarea planning is the most complex because there are a number of possible
neighborhoods/subareas such as Five Corners, Perrinville or other areas and the Council would need to
select the area. Once the area is selected, a consultant would need to be hired. She recalled the Highway 99
subarea plan took about a year and included some work on development regulations. Once information is
developed, a number of Planning Board meetings would be required before it returned to the Council for
several meetings. The idea of Option 1, divide the work first, is there is less work upfront on the items that
need to go to the Planning Board. In Option 2, recommendations would come to Council 1-2 at a time and
the Council would have 2-3 meetings on each before they went to the Planning Board. Under Option 2,
some items would not be assigned this year.
With regard to delaying forwarding more complex proposals to the Planning Board, Councilmember L.
Johnson recalled when the Planning Board provided an update to the Council, they were eager to get going
on some of these and it would be a shame not to start that process. She was interested in proceeding as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 19
outlined in Option 2 to bring those to the Planning Board on a regular basis. Ms. Hope agreed the Planning
Board is eager to work on some things related to housing. She recalled the Planning Board raised the issue
of DADUs previously and the Council directed them to wait until the CHC made their recommendations.
Another item the Planning Board is interested in the multifamily design standards. The Planning Board is
interested in all the recommendations, but DADUs and multifamily design standards are low or moderate
complexity and it would be helpful to get started on them sooner rather than later.
Councilmember L. Johnson inquired about the process for the multifamily design standards, commenting
that seemed like more than just the Planning Board and Council. Ms. Hope anticipated there would be a lot
of public engagement because how buildings look, how the site is developed so there is appropriate open
space an amenities, etc. is important to people. Edmonds does not have design standards for multifamily
housing unless it occurs in mixed use. The process would be, once the Council decides which items to move
forward on, the Planning Board would review it, a consultant would be hired, and there would be
presentations to the public with visual preference surveys to gather information to help inform the design
standards. She anticipated it would be assigned to the Planning Board but in consultation with the ADB.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled cluster/cottage housing had broad support from the CHC as well as the
public as that is a key missing middle that is somewhat met through some zones such as RM 2.4 where
there is detached multifamily with slightly larger units. He suggested that would be a logical one to refer to
the Planning Board and does provides optionality for housing compared to a subarea plan which is a much
longer process and may not develop options for diverse housing. With regard to discriminatory provisions
in covenants & deeds, Councilmember Distelhorst was hopeful the City could tap into the Assessor's Office
existing program.
Council President Paine suggested waiting to hear from the two absent Councilmembers and bring this back
on next week's agenda. Ms. Hope agreed, relaying her hope that the Council would provide some direction
so work on the policies themselves could begin.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested Councilmembers prioritize their top projects, the ones that require
Planning Board review and the ones that do not to provide a sense of where Councilmembers are. Ms. Hope
said that could be part of the May 18"' meeting.
Council President Paine said both Councilmembers have had access to CHC report. She appreciated the
discussion that will be reflected in the minutes so a lengthy discussion will not be required next week.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson reminded citizens that the May 4"' bike lane presentation and minutes are available
on the City's website and the plan will be on next week's Consent Agenda. Staff is still taking input this
week. She expressed appreciation for spring in Edmonds and the efforts of Parks staff and volunteers from
Edmonds in Bloom and the Floretum Garden Club.
Councilmember K. Johnson reported she has been in her bubble, but went to downtown Edmonds last
Saturday. She was absolutely amazed by the amount of people out enjoying the weather, market, and kids
playing soccer but alarmed by the total lack of social distancing. She reminded there is still a pandemic and
while she appreciated everyone wearing masks and washing their hands, she encouraged them to also
socially distance. She wished Student Representative Brook Roberts a Happy Birthday.
Council President Paine relayed Councilmember Buckshnis' absence was excused for a family vacation
and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' early departure from the meeting was excused due to a family
emergency. She reported the topic of 5G will be on the agenda for four of the next five weeks, including a
public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 20
Council President Paine relayed her dismay at reading that opioid deatlis in Snohomish County are at the
highest levels seen in a very long time. It is attributed to COVID, stress, inability to maintain family
connections, job loss, housing instability, access to food, etc. It is as terrible as COVID because of the high
lethality from opioids. To anyone who knows someone in the cycle of addiction, she encouraged them to
call 211, the Snohomish County Human Services. Although COVID precautions make it hard to reach out,
she encouraged people to check on others so no one is lost to this terrible scourge.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his spouse and he were grateful to get their second Moderna COVID
vaccine yesterday at Edmonds College. Edmonds College has a great deal of capacity; appointments are
not necessary, simply show up during their open hours to get a vaccine. It is totally free, very fast, and
professional. Only 38% of Snohomish County residents are fully vaccinated, nowhere near enough. He
encouraged everyone to get vaccinated to keep themselves and their family, coworkers, and people they
socialize with safe which will mean that businesses and entertainment organizations can get back to normal
sooner than if people do not get vaccinated. Vaccinations for kids 124- will soon be approved, likely
tomorrow afternoon. He encouraged people with children to consider getting them on the list for a
vaccination as soon as possible so students can be back in school fulltime by September.
Student Representative Roberts hoped everyone had an enjoyable Mother's Day weekend He encouraged
the public to continue to wear masks, get vaccinated, practice social distancing and to stay safe. It doesn't
look like we are out of this pandemic yet or that we will be out of it soon.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported Snohomish County is currently at 227 cases/]00,000 population which, according
to Dr. Spitters, has stabilized. The hospitalization rate is up to 7.2/100,000. To avoid going back to Phase
2, the hospitalization rate needs to be 5/100,000 or less and the cases per 100,000 needs to be less than 200.
Snohomish County is currently in Phase 3, but if those numbers do not change, it will go back to Phase 2.
The most important thing is to get vaccinated. With the recent change that children 12+ years old can get
vaccinated, vaccinations appointments can be made at primary care providers now. He urged the public to
get vaccinated and to watch their distancing.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
"PASSEY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 21
Public Comment for 5/11/21 Council Meeting:
From: Erica Mercker Sugg
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 8:42 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nathan Sugg
Subject: Housing Commission Recommendations
Dear Councilmembers,
First we want to say thank you for approving the ILA with HASCO and therefore allowing the possibility
of increasing affordable housing options in Edmonds.
As you consider how to move forward with the remaining recommendations from the Citizens' Housing
Commission, we hope you will do so with a sense of urgency about the current housing situation in
Edmonds. We bought our first home here two and a half years ago, full of excitement and hope about
establishing roots and starting a family here. Already our home has increased in value so dramatically
that we would not have been able to afford it if we were just now looking. While we may financially
benefit from this gain, we are troubled by it. We fret for young folks like us who would like to call
Edmonds home, but are already being priced out. We fret for our older neighbors who are increasingly
worried about whether they'll be able to age in place. And we fret for what the character of Edmonds
will become if the cost of housing continues to exclude anyone without significant resources.
Doing nothing doesn't preserve the status quo. Doing nothing is a choice and a choice that will cause
Edmonds to change in an unsustainable direction. Alternatively, thinking about and planning for the
type of community we want Edmonds to be will preserve the best things about Edmonds. Those
recommendations from the Housing Commission that council needs more information for should be
quickly assigned to the Planning Commission for the necessary research. The remainder should bring a
rigorous public debate and quick action.
Your neighbors (just barely),
Erica and Nate Sugg
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 8:05 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope,
Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment
(Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Save Edmonds Beach becomes Save Edmonds from Overdevelopment!
To Council and Mayor Nelson,
Remember the fight to save Edmonds Beach? Remember the loud, packed council meeting when the
votes flipped against the ugly concrete overpass that would have ruined the beach? We do! (We were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 22
there!) and so do many others and we remember the council members that saved it. Candidate Laura
Johnson was passionate making signs and buttons. Council Members Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Mike
Nelson and Diane Buckshnis proudly voted no. We were overjoyed that the Council saved Edmonds
Beach.
Now we need the same common sense to protect Edmonds from ugly up -zoning. Just as the overpass
would have been detrimental to the charm of Edmonds and the environment, so would up -
zoning. Changing all or a lot of single-family zoning to multi will permanently ruin Edmonds. We will
have large, box -like structures where there were once single family homes with yards, trees and
vegetation. This is what makes the charm, desirability and quality of life of Edmonds which has been
lost in other communities like Kirkland, Ballard, Fremont and Wallingford.
Mike Nelson campaigned for up -zoning on Highway 99. If it must be done, then allow it there and the
periphery of Edmonds but let's protect the historic heart of Edmonds and surroundings. There is no
other place like it. It's special. Please protect it.
Sincerely,
Greg and Kathy Brewer
From: Greg Brewer Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 6:5S PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope,
Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael
< Michael. Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing commission policy
Hello to all concerned,
I am against the up -zone of single family zoning. I believe a majority of citizens of Edmonds are as well.
In addition there is a significant number of people on the Housing Commission that voted against this.
I sincerely hope these voices are being heard when policy recommendations turn into real zoning
changes. I'm not convinced they are. There seems to be an agenda being pushed through without a clear
vision of the outfall.
I hear a lot of talk about affordable housing. Up -zoning single family areas and allowing duplexes, etc. is
not going to create affordable housing. The land is too expensive and building costs are
skyrocketing. These parameters alone are going to dictate more square boxes maximizing the
living space and destroying the look of Edmonds forever. Build it in your mind... It's not pretty and it's
not Edmonds. Find pockets to increase density if need be, but don't sweep away a broad swath of single
family residences to achieve your current goals.
We need to get this right. We only have one chance.
Sincerely,
Greg Brewer
Edmonds Remodel Inc
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 23
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 6:21 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson,
Michael < Michael. Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Housing Commission Policies
To Council Members, Mayor Nelson, Shane Hope, Rob Chave and Planning Board Members,
Please do not upzone and eliminate single family zoning. This will destroy the charm and quality of life
of Edmonds forever. It is also in direct contradiction of other Edmonds' plans -- Tree Code and Climate
Action. If zoning changes, development will let loose. Trees will be cut down. Land will be paved
over. We will lose yards, open spaces, views and wildlife. This in turn impacts our environment and
climate.
We live in a beautiful, special place. Please protect it. Our future is in your hands. Please do the right
thing for Edmonds and our residents who love and appreciate it so.
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Theresa Hollis
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 2:34 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Processes to evaluate 2021 Housing Commission recommendations?
Dear Council, Mayor, and Director Hope,
You have a pretty sizeable advantage over other cities that took early action. Many local jurisdictions
began the process of evaluating housing types and changing single family zoning several years ago. They
were plowing new ground for modifying single family neighborhoods that had been in place over 60
years. Now you can review their work processes and determine best practices for managing such a
complex program.
Since any change in single family zoning in Edmonds will cause a perception of the Council creating
winners and losers among the current homeowners, it is all the more important to carry out the work in
the most professional manner possible and to put significant resources into the communication facet of
the program.
A few examples: 1) Kirkland allows two ADU's on certain lots, and they do not have to be owner
occupied. What was the criteria their planning department used to define the affected areas? What are
the design criteria for these new ADU's? 2) When Shoreline created a housing action plan, they
compiled data on their neighboring cities, their peer cities, and the next size larger cities. Will the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 24
Edmonds Council make decisions in a regional context? What cities do you consider to be our peers? 3)
When Oregon's legislature outlawed single family zoning in their 2019 session for cities with populations
over 10,000, they kicked off a planning and development process in many jurisdictions that you can
learn from. The Oregon implementation deadline has not arrived, but the processes defined by cities
who have about the same amount of resources as Edmonds have certainly been defined and the city
leaders have many'lessons learned' to share with you. Edmonds is not unique in being asked to consider
change yet having goals of maintaining high quality residential neighborhoods; allowing teachers, first
responders, and healthcare workers to live in the community they work in; and mandating builders
follow good design principles.
Getting to a definition of 'what' new housing types to consider was hard and took us several years. Now
the work to determine 'where' and 'when' will be even harder. The Edmonds Planning Board and
Planning Department will do a great job of managing the development of technical details of new
housing types and any possible rezones if they are given the best practices. This is brand new thinking
for the residential zoning in small cities in our region. And it will be several years after any zoning
changes are made that you can evaluate the impact of the changes by reviewing the projects that have
been constructed. So grab the advantage you have of looking at the processes used and the projects
already proposed/built in other jurisdictions.
I encourage you to ask staff to discover best practices for community engagement for this complex
program. Then regardless of the final decisions and regardless of how fast or slow they come, we will
know'why'the decisions were made.
regards,
Theresa Hollis
Member of Edmonds for an Inclusive Tomorrow
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 4:07 PM
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>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge,
Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the May 11, 2021 Council Meeting
As not a single answer was provided after my public comments were submitted for the April 6,
2021 Council Meeting, I am resubmitting the same comments for the May 11, 2021 Council
Meeting. My comments relate to the 10-ft street dedications along Puget Drive and 9th Ave N
adjacent to 1414 9th Ave N found on the PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE agenda for
May 11, 2021. Please respond this time. Thank you.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 25
From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 6:24 AM
To: PUBLICCOMMENTS EDMONDSWA.GOV <PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV>;
publiccomment@edmondswa.gov <publiccomment@edmondswa_gov>
Cc: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.g>; Phil Williams
<phil.wiIhams@edmondswa.gyv>; Jeff Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Michael
Nelson <michael.nelson edmondswa. ov>; Council@edmondswa.gov
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the April 6, 2021 Council Meeting
The original 1890 plat of Edmonds dedicated a 7 %' wide alleyway for public thoroughfare
(ingress/egress) north of Daley Street between 7th Ave. N. and 9th Ave. N. Part of this 7 %' wide
piece of property is located directly to the south of Holy Rosary Catholic Church.
Alleyway easements must be 15' wide. Has the City's Official Street Map ever indicated a
planned alley at that location? If not, why not? Why would the City's Official Street Map fail
to disclose a planned alley when 50% of the required dedication was made in 1890?
Why were applicants not made to dedicate a 7 %' wide alleyway for public thoroughfare
(ingress/egress) north of Daley Street between 7th Ave. N. and 9th Ave. N. when the related
property was developed?
The City is currently requiring the Sundstone Condominium Owner's Association to provide 10-
foot-wide right-of-way dedication to the City of Edmonds along two property frontages. Why
are they being treated differently than developers of property north of Daley Street between
7th Ave. N. and 9th Ave. N.?
City employee Lyle Chrisman informed one developer of property north of Daley Street
between 8th Ave. N. and 91h Ave. N. in a July 25, 2006 email that:
"Per our earlier conversations on the issue, the City does not want additional right-of-way in
that area, so dedication would not be an alternative."
Who has legal authority to do what related to the Official Street Map of
Edmonds? Specifically, when reviewing a proposed development project, does City Staff have
the authority to not require dedication so that a street or alley easement meets the minimum
required access width?
In the Sundstone Condominium Owner's Association situation, does City Staff have the
authority to simply tell Sundstone that the City does not want additional right-of-way in that
area, so dedication would not be an alternative?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 26
Or does that type of decision fall under the City Council's authority? Can City Staff decide to
not require right -or -way dedication without obtaining City Council's approval?
What happens if City Staff does so?
When property is being developed next to a street or alley that does not meet the City's
minimum access width requirements, does City Staff have the responsibility to require
dedication of the remaining width required?
Thank you for prompt answers to all these questions. Please inform Sundstone Condominium
Owner's Association that they are being treated differently than others have been treated in
the past.
I hope City Council uses this opportunity to build knowledge in this area, so our City Council and
our citizens have a clearer understanding of these laws and who has the authority to do
what. Thank you.
Ken Reidy
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 11, 2021
Page 27