Loading...
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