Cmd060121EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 1, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We
acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors
the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands.
We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual
connection with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming Friday, June 4, 2021, to be National Gun Violence
Awareness Day and encouraging all citizens to support their local communities' efforts to prevent the tragic
effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives. He recognized Heather Damron, Vanessa
Stedman, and Jane Weiss who were attending virtually.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the guests for being here and for the hard work they have done.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 1
The guests thanked the City for the proclamation. Ms. Weiss said this is the sixth Wear Orange that she has
participated in and she expressed her pride in Edmonds. .
2. 2021 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WRAP-UP REPORT
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced Legislative
Lobbyist/Strategist Debora Munguia. Ms. Munguia reviewed:
• Legislative Overview
0 105-day biennial budget legislative session
■ Operating, Capital and Transportation Biennial Budgets Adopted
■ Sine Die April 26, Governor has 20 days to sign bills (May 19)
o Democrats have a 28-21 majority in the Senate and a 57-41 majority in the House.
o Mostly remote session with major themes:
■ COVID Relief
+ Economic Recovery
■ Climate Action and Resiliency
■ Advance Racial Equity
o Big Issues:
■ Capital Gains Tax
■ Working Families Tax Exemption
■ Police Accountability
R Cap and Trade, Low Carbon Fuel Standard
R Changing penalties for drug possession (response to Blake decision)
R Banning open carrying of guns at protests and on state Capitol grounds
■ Wildfire prevention and forest health funding ($130.4 million)
R Fair Start for Kids Act - SB 5237
Ms. Munguia provided an overview of the 2021-23 Budget
• Operating Budget (ESSB 5092)
o $59.2 billion in state revenue
R $10.6 billion in federal stimulus funds
■ One-time allocations include:
- $1.1B - Stabilizing K-12 schools (reopening, learning loss, etc.)
- $ 1 B - Public health (vaccine deployment, contact tracing and testing, etc.)
$658M Extending the state's rental assistance program
$528M Childcare grants and provider rates
- $500M Unemployment Insurance benefit relief
$340M Grants to adults unable to access COVID 19 benefits due to citizenship status
- $187M Foreclosure prevention for individuals under 100% area median income
$170M Family leave during the pandemic
■ Capital Budget (SHB 1080)
o $6.3 billion appropriated, $82 million is reserved for a supplemental
■ $258,000 to the City of Edmonds for Edmonds Marsh restoration (LCP)
a $500,000 for Willow Creek at Marina Beach Park (ALEA)
R $500,000 for Marina Beach Park Redevelopment (WWRP Local Parks)
.R $250,000 for the Waterfront Center (LCP)
■ $200,000 for the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club planning and upgrades (LCP)
+ $258,000 for the Civic Park Mika's Playground (LCP)
+ $412,000 to the WA State Arts Commission for Creative Districts Capital Construction
Projects (Section 5169)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 2
■ $175 million for Housing Trust Fund, $174.9 million for other state programs that support
affordable housing and shelter capacity
■ $411 million for grants and loans to improve and expand broadband access
■ $327 million for infrastructure ($129 million for PW Board)
o WRIA 8 Priorities:
■ $52.8 million for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration
■ $80 million for Salmon Recovery Funding Board
$70 million for Floodplains by Design
■ $15.7 million for Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
■ $100 million for WWRP
■ $6.6 million for ALEA
■ $26.8 million for the Fish Barrier Removal Board
Transportation Budget (SSB 5165)
o $11.8 billion in appropriation authority to maintain current level
■ Transferred $6.5 million from Waterfront Connector project to SR 99 Project
■ Proviso giving City first right of purchase of Unocal Marsh property from State
■ $1 billion from federal ARPA funds, using $400 million for fish passage barrier removal
if allowable
■ $6.9 million for alternative fuel vehicle charging and refueling
■ $5 million for green transportation capital grants to help transit agencies
* $10 million new funding for Safe Routes to School and Ped/Bike safety programs
■ $4 million for a new cadet basic training class to graduate in June 2023
■ $1 million to WSP to address bills related to police tactics, use of force, etc.
o Both LCFS and Cap and Trade linked to a 5 cent gas tax increase for a transportation revenue
package by 2023. Special session for transportation revenue?
■ Senate "Forward Washington" is a 16-year, $17.8 billion investment plan
■ Includes $22.5 million for SR 99 Revitalization Project
■ House "Miles Ahead" is a 16-year, $22 billion investment plan
Ms. Munguia also reviewed:
• Climate Action & Resiliency
o SB 5126 -Adopting the Climate Commitment Act
o HB 1091 - Establishing a clean fuel standard, joining Oregon, California and BC
■ Referendums filed on both
o SB 5022 - Improving our recycling system and eliminating tons of Styrofoam from our waste
stream
o SB 5253 — If a public works project includes landscaping, at least 25% must be pollinator
habitat to the extent possible.
o HB 1050 - Establishing thresholds to reduce GHG emissions from fluorinated gases and
address refrigerant emissions
o HB 1287 - Preparing for a zero -emissions future by planning upgrades to electricity supply and
charging infrastructure
o SB 5000 — Creates an 8-year pilot sales/uses tax exemption program for hydrogen fuel cell
EVs.
• Police Accountability/Justice Reform
o HB 1267 — new Office of Independent Investigations, police use of deadly force
o SB 5051 — decertification of law enforcement officers
o HB 1054 —police tactics
o HB 1310 — new standards for police use of force
o SB 5066 — officer duty to intervene
o SB 5259 — data on use of deadly force
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 3
o $20M one-time finds distributed to cities related to police reform bills
Housing/Homelessness
o Over $1.7 billion in the state budgets for affordable housing and homelessness
o HB 1277 - New permanent fund source for eviction prevention and homelessness interventions
($100 document recording fee)
o SB 5160 - Right to counsel for low-income tenants facing evictions
o HB 1236 — Eviction reform, no more 20-day, no -cause eviction notices
o HB 1220 — Supports emergency shelters and housing through local planning and development
regulations.
o SB 5287 — Authorizes a 12-year extension of existing 8- and 12-year MFTEs that were set to
expire; qualified residents must be provided with relocation assistance. Establishes a new 20-
year exemption for permanent affordable homes.
o HB 1070 — Expands allowable uses of revenue from local sales and use tax for housing and
related services, adds acquisition of facilities or land.
State v. Blake Decision
o In a 5-4 decision, the state Supreme Court found the state's simple drug possession law
unconstitutional because it didn't require prosecutors to prove a person knowingly or
intentionally had drugs.
o SB 5476 makes possession of drugs such as LSD and heroin a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
It also funds and prepares for a transition to a more treatment -centered system for addressing
substance use disorder.
o The first and second time a person is caught with drugs, officers must refer the person for
assessment and services rather than arresting them.
o A committee of experts will study the issue and make recommendations to the Legislature for
a more permanent approach in 2023.
o $83.5 million in the budget to help state and counties manage the legal impacts of the Blake
decision, and another $88.4 million to help establish the new programs. Of the $88.4 million,
$4.5 million will go to the AOC to help enhance municipal and district therapeutic courts.
Edmonds Requests
o Move $6.5 million from Waterfront Connector project to Highway 99 transportation
improvement program - Accomplished
o Earmark up to $8.175 million to facilitate transfer of former UNOCAL site from WSDOT to
an agency - $258,000 earmarked for this project
Local Government Priorities
o Adopt a new transportation revenue package — stay tuned
o Provide cities with greater fiscal flexibility
HB 1069 signed May 13.
— Allows revenue from CJ Assistance Accounts to supplant existing funds
— Allows sales/use tax for chemical dependency or mental health treatment to be used
for modifications to existing facilities to address health/safety needs related to CH or
MH.
— Reduces restrictions on the allowed use of CJ sales taxes and REET taxes through
December 31, 2023.
— Increases the amount of time a water and electricity or sewage lien can be applied after
the declaration of an emergency by the Governor that prevents collection
■ HB 1189 authorizes local governments to designate tax increment financing areas and to
use increased local property tax collections to fund public improvements
Looking Ahead and Next Steps
o Special session later this year?
o Legislative Delegation Meetings
o Develop 2022 Legislative Agenda
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 4
Council President Paine commented the legislative session was very successful. She expressed interested
in analysis of MFTE. She asked if there was any talk about adding support for road from electric vehicles,
observing there were more and more electric vehicles and the gas tax was declining as a result. She clarified
she was not suggesting removing the gas tax as it was a stable funding source. Ms. Munguia said the gas
tax is not a stable source which is why existing transportation revenues need some help. The state does not
have a sustainable revenue sources to maintain the current projects. The proposals from both the House and
Senate included an increase in the gas tax as well as a road usage charge due to electric vehicles. There is
an emphasis in the budget on creating more infrastructure for electric vehicle such as requiring publicly
funded projects include more charging stations. There is also a pilot project with hydrogen fuel cells which
are already operating in California. A hydrogen fuel cell station is similar to a gas station and it only takes
a few minutes to charge an electric vehicle. That may be easier with the existing infrastructure. Senator
Hobbs and especially Representative Fey, who chair the House and Senate Transportation Committees, are
interested in doing things in an environmental manner.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for all the work Ms. Munguia did providing detailed
legislative updates. They were very helpful and allowed her to share information with citizens. She was
happy about WRIA 8 priorities. She inquired about Senator Salomon's bill regarding armoring and asked
if ports were exempt. Ms. Munguia offered to look into it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would
forward her a question regarding that issue.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about another bill related to salmon and changing the State
Comprehensive Plan. She asked what "yes" and "no" mean on the list of bills. Mr. Doherty advised that is
related to whether the City is in support or not and if it is a blank, it is not a priority. Councilmember
Buckshnis offered to forward her questions regarding bills to Ms. Munguia. Councilmember Buckshnis
relayed the Puget Sound Partnership, Salmon Recovery Council and WRIA 8 are interested in a few of the
bills and she would like to get more information. Ms. Munguia relayed Representative Lekanoff s bill 1177
did not pass but she believed something was included in the budget.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Ms. Munguia for her work on Highway 99 and moving the money
from the from waterfront connector to Highway 99. She asked Ms. Munguia to let her know if there was
any way she could assist such as contacting or meeting with legislators to talk about Highway 99.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA AS FOLLOWS: CHANGE COUNCIL BUSINESS #8 TO UNFINISHED
BUSINESS, WITH THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS: 8.1 PROCESS FOR REVIEWING
HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, 8.2 STATE 2 TREE ISSUES, AND 8.3
RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE; AND ADD AGENDA ITEM 9
NEW BUSINESS WITH THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS: 9.1 DISCUSS COUNCIL
APPROVAL FOR CLOSURE OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY, 9.2 AMENDMENT ECC 10.80 SALARY
COMMISSION, AND 9.3 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR" DINING" AND A
RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON FURTHER
MOVED THAT ITEM 10, MAYOR'S COMMENTS, PRECEDE ITEM 11, COUNCIL COMMENTS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested taking the proposed changes one at a time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 5
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested first determining if the Council agreed to change Council Business
to Unfinished Business and New Business.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she sent an email outlying the proposed changes to each Councilmember.
She explained under the draft Rules of Procedure, the City Clerk proposed the order of business for regular
meetings as follows:
1. Call to Order, Flag Salute
2. Land Acknowledgment
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of the Agenda
5. Presentations
6. Public Comment
7. Approval of the Consent Agenda
8. Unfinished Business
9. New Business
10. Mayor's Comments
11. Council Comments
12. Executive Session, if needed
13. Adjournment
Councilmember K. Johnson recommended the Council follow these long-established procedures that are
outlined in the Council Rules of Procedure.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred at this late date and since it had not been brought up in advance,
moving forward with the agenda as scheduled and to discuss this next week. She anticipated it could take
45 minutes to the approve the agenda and she preferred to get some work done instead of moving agenda
items around. She did not see the purpose of moving agenda items around tonight and encouraged
Councilmember not to support the motion.
Council President Paine pointed out there were a couple of time sensitive agenda items, 8.1 Amending ECC
10.80 Salary Commission, and 8.4 Planning Board recommendation to approve an amendment. Those two
items need to be considered earlier on the agenda due to the potential for items to be postponed to a future
meeting. She preferred to leave agenda as is because it was what Councilmembers prepared for and it was
the way the packet was ordered.
Councilmember L. Johnson concurred with Council President Paine. Though the information was sent to
Councilmembers ahead of time, it was sent just minutes before the meeting which required
Councilmembers to consider the change during meeting. She preferred to have time to consider the proposal
and to proceed with the meeting as scheduled, particularly as there are staff waiting to present agenda items.
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the agenda included a number of items that have been postponed
from previous agendas. The Council only has three hours per week to transact business and could use this
time to get through business that has been delayed. He preferred to work through the agenda and get some
work done.
Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated her position, stating this was a proper way to proceed and she has
given advance notice to Council President Paine. The reasons agenda items are being continuously
postponed is because the Council does not have enough time. The Council needs to address unfinished
business before new business and if the Council spent less time talking, that could be achieved. She also
wanted to add a new agenda item that was proposed by Councilmember Olson, Council Approval for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 6
Closure of Rights -of -Way. Even if the Council did not want to follow proper procedures, she wanted to add
that to the agenda.
Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers keep their remarks remain respectful and refrain from
inflammatory remarks regarding whether the Council was following proper procedures.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her support for moving forward. She did not have an
opportunity to read the email before meeting and doing it at the last minute did not make sense and just
took more time. She encouraged Councilnetnbers to vote against the motion and if an item needed to be
added to the agenda, that could be done via a separate motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD TO THE AGENDA COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR CLOSURES OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY.
Councilmember Olson said it was in the City's interest to have a robust conversation when rights -of -way
are closed and to have Council approval. This was something the Council needed to talk about and she
hoped it could be added to the agenda so that conversation could occur. This is a bigger issue than the
specific closure that was before the Council recently, it is related to all street closures.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed the Council probably needed to look at this long-term, but the fact
that the City received 3,000 comments regarding the street closure indicated there had been transparency
and there had been public input. She welcomed the discussion long term but was not interested in having a
debate tonight without any notice.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her total support. In the interest of transparency, she supported
putting it on the agenda so individual Councilmembers could express their opinions. Council has not been
given sufficient opportunity to speak about things such as rights -of -way and there have been questions
about the surveys. She supported putting it on the agenda to determine where each Councilmember stands
on this issue, noting it has caused a lot of tension, uncertainty and stress among many people.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was coming to the Council at the last minute and it seems fairer
to allow Councilmembers to prepare for such discussions. She agreed this had widely discussed but it was
not just about Walkable Main Street. She feared requiring Council approval to close rights -of -way was
opening an enormous door. Councilmembers deserve an opportunity to do their homework, thoroughly
consider what that may entail, and come to the meeting prepared and not just speak to opinion. For those
reasons, she did not support having that discussion tonight, but as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, it
is likely something the Council needs to discuss at an upcoming meeting.
Councilmember Olson clarified she planned to ask the City Attorney to bring back a resolution, assuming
there would be Council support for that, so there would be another 1-2 weeks to prepare. If the motion fails,
she will request the Council President put it on next week's agenda.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested there could be three points of contact for the Council, first having it
on the agenda for discussion followed by several other contacts. She was uncertain how the Council could
discuss something without first putting it on the agenda. She supported Councilmember Olson's request
100%, if not tonight, then next Tuesday.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 7
Councilmember L. Johnson commented if the Council were to have this discussion and direct the City
Attorney, she needed an opportunity to do her own research and come to the meeting prepared instead of a
free-for-all conversation and directing the City Attorney based on that discussion. That is not a good use of
limited meeting time and Councilmembers deserve the opportunity to come to the meeting prepared.
Council President Paine said she also would like this to be better organized. It can be scheduled on the
agenda at some point, but she was concerned with putting it on the agenda with an assumption for a means
to an end rather than deciding if there is a need. It will be necessary to have an assessment first to see if
there is a need; she was unsure there was a need.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he had been contacted a number of times regarding this and provided the
same answer, that there needs to be research of how rights -of -way are handled in other cities. There are a
lot of examples in surrounding and other Puget Sound cities regarding how this is handled and that research
needs to be done first so there can be informed decision making as part of the discussion. Once that research
is done, he was very supportive of looking at how the City's code may the same or different and how that
issue can be handled.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented three Councilmember seem to have known this was coming
up; she did not other than quickly reading through her email and seeing the subject lines. She preferred to
have more information before putting it on the agenda. She agreed it was good to look at this long term but
she assumed it had been raised due to the immediate issue. She expressed interest in the survey responses
which are an important component of this. She agreed with researching what other cities in the area are
doing. Making assumptions that the Council should control this feels like the Council is jumping into the
administrative role although she understood that this could potentially be legislative. She wanted further
information on the matter before discussing it. Although there was validity to the issue, it was not enough
to warrant discussion tonight. She pointed out it is now 7:51 p.m. and the Council has not yet approved the
agenda.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the proposed procedures states an item may be placed on the agenda
by majority vote or consensus of the Council. She did not want to debate the merits of the agenda item or
what information Councilmembers needed, she only wanted to have it placed on the agenda for discussion
when the Council reached that agenda item.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1); COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referenced the tree ordinance that the City Council approved that requires
landowners pay for an arborist assessment of each tree above 24" DBH that needs to be removed to build
a home and then pay the amount of the tree's worth to the City. The City's charges, takings or taxes begin
at $3300 for each 24" tree to $12,000+ for larger trees. The City is taxing Edmonds property owners 100%
for the worth of their trees before they are allowed to divide or build on property, trees that belong to the
property owner, not the City. The City soon plans to apply this tax to all Edmonds homeowners. The City
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 8
has violated property rights afforded by the U.S. Constitutions 5"' and 14"' amendments, illegal takings
clauses, facilitated an illegal governmental taking of the worth of property without compensation, taxation
without representation. They like trees and purchased over an acre filled with trees to build three modest
homes with views of Puget Sound. They planned to retain 50% of the trees on their property, 20% over
Edmonds' requirement, yet they are still subject to a 100% tax for the worth of every tree above 24"
removed, totaling $250,000. The only option to reduce this tax is to remove fewer trees, a tree tax of
$170,000 that requires the three homes be placed 10' apart, reducing privacy and the Puget Sound views,
decreasing their value more than the $80,000 it would save.
Ms. Ferkingstad explained the tree ordinance tax, delays in the permit process and moratoriums have
increased the cost of building their homes 20-30%. They have lost time and money and most importantly,
their dream of living next to her now 86 year old parents who were 82 when they first met with City
planning. For three homes, they have already spent $100,000 to comply with City requirements and now
have a tree tax of $250,000 and will probably pay an additional $100,000 for each home due to rising
material costs, making it nearly impossible to recoup their costs. Saving trees is a commendable goal that
most want to achieve. Edmonds City Council is using this goal to target property owners with an illegal
100% tax on their trees, expecting those filing the 10 land division applications in Edmonds per year to
entirely fund the tree fund. If not rescinded, this tree ordinance will cost Edmonds taxpayers to defend
illegal takings in court. With regard to Walkable Main Street, she anticipated most residents would change
their vote to no if they knew it would hurt the businesses. She urged the City Council to listen.
Greg Arnold, Edmonds, asked the goal of the tree ordinance. Mayor Nelson advised the purpose of
Audience Comments was for comments, not questions. Mr. Arnold said his research had not revealed any
reason for the tree ordinance and he assumed it was for environmental reasons. If that was the case,
outlawing cutting and fertilizing lawns would have a much bigger environmental impact. He agreed with
the previous speaker and questioned why the Council was targeting people with views. Many people who
live in the bowl bought their property due to views and want to be able to trim their trees. If the tree code
was an environmental idea, it was not based on science. He would like to hear the reason and the science
behind the tree ordinance.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on the City's intent to regulate trees on private property, specifically
a memorandum/information developed by the City to support the Stage 2 Tree Issues discussion. She did
not feel the information provided in support of this agenda item was clear, balanced or provided sufficient
detail about the potential impacts of the City's actions. Goal IA of the Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) which is quoted in two places implies that the City's current undertaking is supported by the
UFMP. It is not; the UFMP clearly states for private lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives
to encourage good tree management practices. For context, Goal IA is to update tree regulations to reduce
clearcutting and other development impacts. She encouraged the Council and anyone listening to read the
goals on page 8 of the UFMP if there were any concerns about her statements. The memorandum also states
interest was expressed by members of the Planning Board, City Council and public in expanding tree
regulations as justification for the current action. The memo does not include any indication of the feedback
provided during the development of the UFMP which clearly states public engagement on urban forest
issues has demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property,
but prefers to have the City only provide guidance and education as opposed to regulation when it comes
to stewardship of trees on private property (page 56).
Ms. Seitz said the memo appears to unbalanced because it selectively chooses what feedback to include and
does not include any of the public feedback information from the UFMP. It is not fair, transparent, or good
public practice for the recent view of the Planning Board, City Council and select public referenced in the
memo to outweigh the entirety of the UFMP process and public outreach. Page 2 of the memo lists six
options for regulating the maintenance of private trees and she questioned why it did not include a no action
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 9
alternative. Having decided on a whim to do this with an emergency ordinance, she questioned why the
Council could not decide it is a flawed idea and presented that as an option. She suggested including more
options that target tin -treed properties. as they are clearly the source of the tree canopy coverage. Generally
environmental stewardship laws try to target the polluters and not those involved in beneficial stewardship
which is why these types of regulations backfire. She referred to the paragraph regarding equity issues that
only scratches the surface on the effects of requiring tree retention in less developed, poorer properties and
spending more than a page discussing view corridors.
(Written comments submitted to Pub]icComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
APPROVAL OFT HIE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING/BUDGET RETREAT MINUTES OF
MAY 8, 2021
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
AMENDING ECC 10.80 SALARY COMMISSION
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained there are two primary amendments, 1) changing the regular
cycle of the Salary Commission from every two years to every four years, and 2) selecting Salary
Commission members in the year in which the Commission meets. The Commission has had fairly
consistent recommendations with regard to changes in compensation for the Mayor and City Council, but
a significant amount of staff hours are needed to support the commission. That seemed to indicate a four-
year cycle would utilize the City's resources more effectively.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why these changes were being proposed now, relaying that a lot of people
are wondering why the Council is the topic of many procedures. The last Salary Commission recommended
creating a job description and said the salaries were not cornmensurate with the amount of work. The Salary
Commission did not interview all Councilmembers and did not interview her when she was Council
President in 2014. She questioned the estimate of 150 staff hours, noting although that was a lot, it was
spread over two or four years. When she inquired about the estimate, she was told the City did not dedicate
that much time to the commission. She reiterated her question of why now. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it
seem appropriate to do it now coming out of COVID and possibly holding Council and Mayor salaries flat
while the City's financial resources are determined. She was uncertain who Councilmember Bucksbnis
spoke with regarding the time allocated to the commission; she spoke with those who actually did the work,
staff that supported it and the consultant as well as the former HR Director and all confirmed the amount
of staff time required to support the commission. She acknowledged it was an estimation as staff did not
keep track of the exact hours; the estimate was 5-10 hours/week beginning in March.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the commission's recommendation to develop a job description was
not followed. Ms. Neill Hoyson responded it would be very odd to have a job description for Council; she
was unaware of any other cities that have a Council job description as Councilmembers are not employees.
If the intent of a job description is to more accurately compare the work the Edmonds' Council does to
other comparable cities, a job description is unlikely to achieve that. Councilmembers' duties are outlined
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 10
in the RCW; every City and Council does that differently and every Councilmember does that work
differently and may devote different amounts of time. A job description would just restate what the Council
is authorized to do per the RCW and would not address compensation issues versus an employee where the
job description identifies level of authority, years of experience, education requirements, independence, etc.
While she understood the commission said a job description would be helpful, she disagreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there were four new Councilmembers last year and she recalled a
Councilmember saying it would have been beneficial to have an understanding of the roles of Council
President. Many things could be included in a job description, not just related to compensation. The
commission spent a lot of time and provided some examples and she was concerned the City was not
pursuing their recommendations.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmember Buckshnis speak to the content
and not the experience of other Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was speaking about
the legacy of why a job description would be helpful.
Council President Paine expressed concerned about equity and whether this has gone through an equity
analysis with regard to the pay and the salary structure. She was not opposed to the proposed changes, but
felt there needed to be an equity analysis. Compensation changes have been consistent over the years, but
it does not provide information about who is able to be part of the City Council. She recalled comments in
the commission's past reports that the pay is fairly low so the result is hobbyists rather than valuing the
time. She supported doing an equity analysis as part of the next Salary Commission's work.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Salary Commission meets every two years. Ms. Neill
Hoyson advised the current code requires the commission met every two years in odd numbered years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the Council does not have to accept the commission's findings.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered once they are submitted to the City Clerk, the Council has no authority to
accept or reject their proposals. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled at one point the Council
disbanded the Salary Commission due to an unwillingness to accept their recommendation for an increase.
The ability for Councilmembers to do the job is for the voters to decide; there is no measurement too]
because Councilmembers are not City employees. She agreed the salary was low, recalling $0.19-0.20/hour
was suggested, but it is not necessarily something that people do for the money. However, unless a
Councilmember has another source of income, they cannot afford to be on Council. Someone working full-
time may not be unable to participate in everything the Council does.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for an equity analysis, noting a lot of work is occurring in
the City related to evaluating departments, and it would be appropriate to apply this to that work. He asked
how four years was determined rather than three, noting four years seemed like a long time. With regard to
continuity of membership and not having to reinvent that process, commissioners can serve two terms but
as proposed essentially everyone would be up for reappointment. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the term
would only be during the time the commission meets because there is no work for them to do outside of
when they meet to establish salaries of elected officials. Having commissioners in their position only during
the time the commission is meeting is administratively more manageable. With regard to four years, that
seemed like a reasonable amount of time given the history of consistent changes, often no changes.
Reappointment to two terms is established per RCW.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented while serving and prior to serving it was hard to ignore that a
certain level of privilege was required to serve on Council which results in at least to some degree a
consolidation of power among a somewhat similar subset of the community, leaving out a large subset of
the community. The City is working on using an equity lens across the board in the City While she
appreciated that the administration was additionally burdened right now especially with COVID and that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 11
resources were stretched, she was concerned with pushing this off without a clear picture of how to apply
an equity lens so who is represented on Council can be expanded. She hoped to continue this discussion
and come back with a broader picture of what this might look like.
Councilmember Olson questioned the urgence of this action. It seemed that the Salary Commission
members learned of this by Councilmembers asking them questions versus staff consulting them. She
recalled Ms. Neill Hoyson mentioning she spoke with the consultant and staff and suggested input from the
commission may be of value. Ms. Neill Hoyson said staff did not speak to any current commissioners
regarding the proposed change. The urgency is if the commission convenes this year, it needs to happen in
July which will require notifying people about appointment to the commission; several commissioners'
terms expired at the end of last year.
Councilmember Olson asked if former salary Commission members were contacted. Ms. Neill Hoyson said
no Salary Commissioners were contacted. Councilmember Olson appreciated staff considering a three or
four year meeting cycle, agreeing a two-year cycle may be a bigger use of resources. She referred to
language she provided to staff and bcc'd to Council regarding continuity.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday observed a majority of Councilmembers have raised concerns about equity and
making the City Council positions more accessible to a broader array of community members by making it
more of a living wage. It is unlikely a Salary Commission would get the Council to that place based on
previous Salary Commissions' results. If that is the direction the Council wants to go, the path would be to
disband the Salary Commission, have the Council set salaries for future Councilmembers, not their own,
and they can be set as high or as low to accomplish those policy aims. That is allowed under state law
because the Council will not be setting its own salaries. If the Council wants to undertake an equity approach
to the Council salary, that is the way to accomplish it.
Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed if the Council's intent was a full-time living wage for Councilmembers, convening
the Salary Commission this year would not achieve that.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Salary Commission was disbanded in 2014. If the Salary
Commission is disbanded and the Council sets its own salary, she asked what happens to the Mayor's salary
and does a Salary Commission need to be established to set the Mayor's salary. Mr. Taraday recalled the
Council set the Mayor's salary. Ms. Neill Hoyson said that year that the Council disbanded the Salary
Commission, the Council did not receive an increase and the Mayor was given a COLA.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Salary Commission meets in off years when there are no elections.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the Salary Commission meets every two years in odd years; moving to every
four years would still have it occur in odd years. If that was the intent, a three year cycle may not meet that
intent.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled former Councilmember Joan Bloom was also interested in the issue of
equity. She relayed Councilmembers do not do full-time work, but the salary should be more than
$ l 000/month.
Councilmember K. Johnson supported the way the Salary Commission was established. There were
staggered three-year terms and they provided information between July 15T and September 30"'. She
preferred to continue with that process and found no compelling reason to change it at this time. Because it
is a five member commission with staggered terms over three years, it is possible to have two vacancies.
She urged the Council to continue with the existing Salary Commission process and not make any changes
at this time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 12
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when the Mayor's salary was last increased. Ms. Neill Hoyson
answered the Mayor has received a COLA each year; the last one was in 2021. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked when it was last increased besides COLA. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she researched back to
2012 and it has only been a COLA since then. She offered to research that further.
Councilmember Olson asked whether information from the commissioners could be included in the
narrative next week. There has been a lot of information from several parties for consideration today, but
the commissioners seems to be a missing element. That would also give Council time to think about what
they have heard. Ms. Neill Hoyson asked what information she was looking for from commissioners,
whether it was input on the proposed changes. Councilmember Olson answered she was interested in their
perspective on sunsetting, whether continuity was of value, and the change from a two year cycle to a four
year cycle.
2. PROCESS FOR REVIEWING HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled at the May 11"' meeting the Council was close to
approving a process for reviewing the Housing Commission's recommendation. At the conclusion of the
May I 1", meeting it was agreed it would only take a few minutes to decide which policy ideas to consider
first. She explained reviewing recommendations from the Housing Commission does not mean the Council
is approving them, just that they are trying to get a fuller sense of them and determine the need for more
details and other work to be done. For example, after the Council's initial review of idea, they could decide
to have the Planning Board work on it further, provide the Planning Board direction or comments, variations
on the idea, more details, etc. For the policy recommendation that do not require Planning Board review,
the Council could direct staff to return with more detailed information.
Ms. Hope explained at the May 11 "' meeting, Councilmembers were split on Option 1, divide the work first,
or Option 2, start simple. A hybrid of the approaches was possible and Council could even have a study
session later this month to review a short list of items. In a hybrid approach, Council could divide up the
work and refer some things to the Planning Board this year, knowing that all Planning Board
recommendations will come to the Council for further work and final decision, and address a couple things
that do not need Planning Board input. The remaining items, especially the more complex ones, could get
started later, probably in 2022. In that approach, the Council could begin with 2-3 items of low to moderate
complexity for the Planning Board to start working on this year and maybe one item the Planning Board
could work on after a budget allocation. For the Planning Board this year, the Council could do an initial
review of a short list of recommendations.
Ms. Hope disla ed the Housing Commission licy Aspects Table:
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
neighborhoods
Equity housing incentives
Yes
High
Probably not
4-6 mo.
Medium -density SF
Yes
H igh
Probably not
4-5 mo.
housing
Neighborhood village
Yes
High
Yes
8-9 mo,
subarea planning
Cluster/cottage housing
Yes
Moderate
Probably not
4 mo.
Detached accessory
Yes
Low
No
3 mo.
dwe I I i ng units
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 13
Multi -family tax
No
Moderate
Probably not
exemption MFTE)
Inclusionary Zoning
Yes
High
Probably not
4-5 mo.
Existing Sales Tax for
No
Low
No
Affordable Housing
County Sales Tax for
No
Low
No
Affordable Housing
HASCQ ILA
No
Law
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.
Comp Plan goal
Low
stage
No
Discriminatory
No
Provisions 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
Ms. Hope explained the most likely items for a short list of ideas for initial review seem to be:
■ Detached accessory dwelling units (low complexity)
• Cluster/cottage housing (moderate complexity)
• Multi -family design standards (moderate complexity)
• Neighborhood village subarea planning (high complexity and likely will need a budget allocation)
Ms. Hope explained the Council could also work on non -Planning Board items later this year by
considering:
• Discriminatory provisions in covenants & deeds (low complexity)
• Development of housing partners (low complexity)
In 2022 after the Planning Board begins work on a short list, the Council could review the remaining ideas
and provide direction/comments to the Planning Board. The Planning Board would do their work and
provide recommendations to the City Council for further consideration, public input, Council changes, final
decisions.
Ms. Hope said if the Council concurs with this approach, staff will work with the Council President to
schedule an initial review of the short list of items, possibly at a special study session this month. A study
session, open to the public, would allow a more focused look without other City business on the agenda. If
a study session is not possible, it will be worked into the Council's regular agenda. She asked for Council
input on, 1) whether the Council agrees with staff bringing back the short list of items to Council for initial
review, and 2) is the Council willing to have special study session focused on the short list of items rather
doing it at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the May 1 I" minutes suggest selecting two general recommendations and
two Planning Board recommendations. However, tonight Ms. Hope identified three general
recommendations and four Planning Board recommendations. She asked if those should be reduced to just
two. Ms. Hope recalled there was a suggestion to identify two items for the Planning Board and two non -
Planning Board items. She also recalled a suggestion for three Planning Board items, one simple, one
moderate and one complex. She was uncertain that it was decided that there would only be two.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 14
Councilmember L. Johnson was in favor of a special study session later this month. She appreciated the
items Ms. Hope identified for a short list such as having the Planning Board look at DADUs and
cluster/cottage housing, items the Planning Board has expressed interest in. She agreed multifamily design
requirements were also an important component because that will provide the Council and the general
public a visual and will answer a lot of questions. It will be difficult to move forward with discussions on
cluster/cottage housing and even DADUs without the multifamily design requirements. She supported those
moving forward in tandem.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for a special session. Her concern is the Council has not
discussed the vision for Edmonds. If the input on the survey was followed, there would be no upzoning, no
DADUs and only single family homes. She asked if the study session will include looking at the
Comprehensive Plan and the policies in the housing element and whether those need to be changed. Ms.
Hope envisioned that would be part of presenting the short list of items or any of the Housing Commission
work. In the Comprehensive Plan, the Council set the vision for future; it is multi -faceted.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the need for reviewing multifamily design requirements. She asked
if the Housing Commission policies that Ms. Hope selected were from the list of Housing Commission
policies that identified level of complexity. Ms. Hope referred to the table on page 181 in the packet that
listed all 15 of the Housing Commission's policy recommendations. There is a column "Subject to PB
Review," nine of the policies are subject to Planning Board review. The level of complexity, high, moderate
or low, was somewhat of a value judgment. At least a couple of the policies will require an outside
consultant but most will not. There was no final decision on May I I" regarding which items to move
forward so that is the intent of tonight's agenda item. She emphasized the Council's review of the policies
would not be decisions on the policies, just gathering more information to make a decision about next steps
or to forwarding them to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City has a lot of middle housing stock in 1950s-1980s houses.
Neighborhoods are changing, houses are being razed and larger houses are being built. The Council also
needs to consider the Comprehensive Plan and the impacts of additional housing on the environment and
stormwater. Ms. Hope said that would be part of the consideration and discussion if any of them go to the
next step. It may take months to gather all the information to make a decision. The Housing Commission
recommendations were at a broad level; implementation could vary and would have different impacts. The
intent is just to start.
Council President Paine expressed support for a special meeting. She would like to have the Planning Board
start on a couple of the items Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, envisioning that would be a good way
to kick things off and begin to form the direction.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the input lie provided last month was incorporated in what Ms. Hope said.
He welcomed a special study session on housing issues.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Ms. Hope what she expected from Council tonight. Ms. Hope asked the
Council to confirm whether the short list of policies sounded reasonable to begin looking at and whether to
schedule a special study session. The list for Planning Board would include DADUs, multifamily design,
cluster/cottage housing and possibly subarea planning later because it will need a budget allocation. Items
that do not require Planning Board review include discriminatory provisions in covenants & deeds and
possible options for community and regional partnerships.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how DADU and cluster/cottage housing were selected. Ms. Hope it was
discussed at the May 11"' meeting and several Councilmember thought those would be useful. DADUs are
one of the simpler things for the Planning Board to consider. Councilmember Buckshnis said someone sent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 15
her a picture of a DADU and it looks like just another house. She was concerned about upzoning and not
having transition zones. Citizens need to know where and how rather than everything being carte blanche.
Hearing no opposition, Ms. Hope assumed there was Council consensus to proceed with those items and
schedule a special study session.
3. STAGE 2 TREE ISSUES
Development Services Director Hope said this is a follow up on an issue the Council has considered over
several months. The Council adopted new regulations related to development following up on the UFMP
and other work. Council has also been interested in doing things beyond that.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained when the Council was working on tree code
regulations that applied to developing sites, a number of Stage 2 items were identified for future updates.
Some are underway now and nearing completion such as Inventory of Downtown Trees, Street Tree Plan
Update, and Tree Canopy Assessment. He displayed a list of Upcoming Tree -Related Items and Timing,
explaining the shaded items will go to the Planning Board and the Planning Board has requested clear
direction from Council on those items_
Item
Timing
Inventoa of downtown street trees
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Q2 2021-Q4 20221
Tree cano2y assessment
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Heritage Tree Progiram
32021- 4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Exploration of other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open sace acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
Q4 2021
Partnerships with other organizations
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Annual reports on City tree activities
Q2 2021
Treegive-away program
2022 or TBD
View con•idors
2022 or TBD
W i ldlife. & habitat corridors
Q3 2021- 4 2021
Expanded public education & Information
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Stormwater & watershed Analysis
4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Mr. Lien reviewed:
Tree Regulations on Private Property
o Goal 1 - Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success with this
objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees and a deeper
understanding of the population of trees on private property. The following actions will support
this objective. -
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban
forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code
violations
o Goal 3 Ancentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
,Tune 1, 2021
Page 16
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary public
participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective.
• Equity
o Edmonds is a varied city that has developed over many years.
o In some areas, large swaths of native trees have been cut — as part of intense urban development
o Elsewhere, many trees remain, due to limited incentives to remove them or perhaps the
landscape did not encourage their removal (e.g. steep slopes or stream corridors)
o Equity concerns should be considered
o A balancing of private property rights with public benefit should be considered
• Options for Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development
I . Require fee permit for removal of any significant tree (6 inch DBH)
2. Allow X number of trees on a given property to be removed over a period of time
3. Allow X number of trees less the 24 inch DBH to be removed over a period of time
4. Require paid permit for removal of more than the allowed number of trees and for removal of
24 inch DBH trees
5. Review retention requirements for all of the above, or only when permit is required?
6. Consider whether all residential properties should be required to have minimum number of
trees
Heritage Tree Program
o UFMP Goal I .D Develop a voluntary heritage tree program
1. Completely voluntary program. Designated Heritage Tree to be removed from Heritage
Tree Program at owners desire
2. Property owner voluntarily designates Heritage Tree, but Heritage Tree must be protected
and only removed if hazard or nuisance
3. Anyone may nominate a Heritage Tree regardless of property owner's consent and
Heritage Tree must be protected
Views
o UFMP recognizes views, but does not include in specific goals related to view protection
o Public view corridors vs. private view protection
o City would be arbitrator between property owners
o State has strong protections regarding private property rights and city will have limited ability
to enforce restrictions on one property to protect the view afforded another
o Other considerations include critical areas
View Options
o Establish "view sheds" or "view areas"
a. Limit mature tree height to allowable zoning height
b. Require a "view corridor" over a percentage of the property line where trees could not be
planted
o Establish process where trees may be removed if they grow into a view in a "view area"
o If city pursues regulations regarding private views other factors need to be considered such as
critical areas
Habitat Corridors
o Largely protected by critical areas
o Education
■ Stormwater crews
■ Partner with organizations such as Stream Keepers and Students Saving Salmon
o Critical area Habitat and Species of Local importance
o Tree canopy assessment
• Incentives
o Goals 3 — Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 17
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the City recognizes that voluntary public
participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of:
i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or
it. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting
and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that
maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
Mr. Lien relayed staff was seeking direction from direction from Council on what they wanted to see in the
Stage 2 Tree Update related to the options for tree retention on private property not related to development:
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it was necessary to charge any fees when the goal was to keep track
of trees being cut down. She asked why the City would want to require a fee permit fir 6 inch tree. Mr.
Lien referred to the list of options on page 186 for tree retention on private property not related to
development. He was not recommending a fee, but that was one of the options for Council to consider.
With that option, if someone wanted to remove a tree, a permit could be required with a minimal fee.
Options 2 would not require fee permit but would require documentation. Property owners would be
allowed to remove X trees of any size per year; it would not require a permit or fee, but documentation
would need to be submitted so the City could track it and ensure they were not asking to remove more than
the number of trees they were allotted. Option 3 would allow property owners to remove X number of
smaller trees. Option 4 would require a permit to remove more than the allowed number of trees or removal
of 24" DBH trees. If permits are required for removal, even the 24" DBH trees, it will be necessary to
establish criteria; why would the City say no to removing those trees, are they allowed outright, is a permit
required to review a replanting plan, etc. Options 5 and 6 refer to retention requirements and a minimum
number of trees on the property. He summarized a fee permit for any tree removal is option as well as no
fee but documentation.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred Options 1, 2 and 3. She recognized those will be labor intensive and
asked whether an analysis had been done regarding additional staff. Ms. Hope said the exact amount of
staffing depends on which option the Council selects. There would need to be an urban forester or arborist
position to oversee this as well as 1-2 additional staff or more if a more complex process was selected.
There are a lot of costs associated with tracking regardless of whether a fee is charged.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the unintended consequences she has witnessed with the
emergency ordinance regarding 24" landmark trees. Homeowners reporting their neighbors to the City for
cutting a big tree. She wanted citizens to feel comfortable that they could remove some trees and to
understand the environmental reasons for retaining trees. She preferred a no fee permit and only monitoring.
Ms. Hope recalled some Councilmembers were interested in staff talking with people who wanted to cut
trees and explaining their options. That is a great idea but will also require staff resources.
Council President Paine agreed with either free or low cost permitting for trees. She supported some type
of permitting process so the City can track what is happening with trees. Before adopting requirements, it
will be important to have the canopy assessment to provide a measurement. The Council can then determine
a canopy goal/target and how to reach that canopy. Education will be helpful to many homeowners. The
program will require resources include urban forestry staff, code enforcement, permit review, and staff who
to provide education.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 18
Council President Paine asked if the Planning Board was seeking direction from the Council about a
Heritage Tree Program. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board was interested in direction from the Council
about a Heritage Tree Program. Mr. Lien said the Heritage Tree Program is separate from regulations for
tree retention on private property. The Heritage Tree Program would be a recognition type program, two
separate code updates. The Planning Board is seeking direction from Council regarding tree retention on
private property not related to development. He provided the six options to give Council something to
consider.
Councilmember Olson agreed with not requiring a fee. She recalled Bill Phipps referencing Kirkland's code
and what he like about it was there was no fee and the city took responsibility for planting elsewhere for
some of the trees being removed. There is greater incentive for a property owner to identify the trees they
want to remove and get counsel from the city arborist or other knowledgeable source regarding alternatives
to removing a tree. The time the Council has spent on the tree code has been very valuable and she thanked
staff and citizens for being patient with the time it takes to synthetize inputs and develop good policy. Some
of points that have resonated with her are the difficulty to enforce prohibitions, people who are determined
to take trees down and people who love trees and therefore bought property full of trees and end up being
penalized.
Councilmember Olson referred to the question raised during Audience Comments about why the City is
doing this. She said the environmental component was the driver, trees are an important part of carbon
sequestration and a component in climate change. Protecting the tree canopy not only helps with that but
also enhance the aesthetics. With regard to a Heritage Tree Program, she would support a site specific tree
program and if it is required in the UFMP, she would support a voluntary program. With regard to views,
she referred to vegetation used as a fence. The City legislates how high fences can be, and if someone uses
vegetation as a fence, it should not be allowed to be 20 feet tall and block their neighbor's light or view.
Mr. Lien said the City has regulated hedge height in the past, but that was removed from the code before
he came to the City 13 years go. Regulating hedge height requires the City to be arbitrator between
neighbors; one person wants the hedge for privacy and the other wants the hedge removed for view reasons.
Councilmember Olson commented the code could be clear if vegetation used as a fence blocked views, it
needed to comply with the fence height regulations. That did not mean a property owner could not have a
tree in that area, but they could not use a hedge as a fence.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for taking a comprehensive look at the Tree Code Stage 2,
incorporating a range of options and asking the Council to narrow it down for the Planning Board. She was
unsure if that was what staff wanted or if the Planning Board wanted to continue to look at the range of
options. Ms. Hope said staff was not asking Council to eliminate any of the options tonight, but to determine
next steps for the Planning Board to begin that work. All the other items will come back to the Council in
the future.
Mr. Lien said the Planning Board was seeking clear direction from the Council regarding what direction to
go and what to look at. Tree retention on private property not related to development is the most difficult.
If the Council wants to pursue a Heritage Tree Program, that is pretty easy and there are a few options. With
regard to tree retention on private property, Council appeared to be interested in an option that did not
require a fee; tracking tree removal with no fee. Additional Council direction is needed regarding when a
permit is required, whether it is above X number of trees or is it not allowed and a property owner can only
remove two trees, or is it limited by size, etc. He asked when a permit would be required.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with moving the Heritage Tree Program to the Planning Board. She
was also interested in wildlife and habitat corridors, relaying her understanding that they were protected
under the critical area ordinance but there are large trees in parks and other areas so she encouraged the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 19
Planning Board to tackle that issue. Wildlife and habitat corridors are important for the tree canopy as well
as salmon recovery efforts.
Council President Paine agreed with having the Planning Board look at a Heritage Tree Program. She
supported a free or low cost tree permit for removal of any significant trees, and suggested having the
Planning Board consider Options 2 and 3 along with data from the canopy assessment. She also agreed with
looking at wildlife and habitat corridors.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with providing general direction to the Planning Board regarding
Options 2 and 3 and have them consider a no cost tracking permit. The clock is ticking on the emergency
ordinance so there is some pressure to ensure the 24" and larger trees are addressed via an update from the
Planning Board that will come to Council. He expressed support for Option 1 for a Heritage Tree Program.
He has seen how some of the more restrictive options such as Option 3 have been used with buildings where
people have applied for landmark status on something they do not own and have no interest in and how that
has been weaponized.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with a Heritage Tree Program. She recalled the Floretum Garden Club
and the Tree Board had discussed that and Councilmember Olson provided an example of program that did
not need to be codified. She supported doing districting or establishing view/no view areas in the UFMP.
Edmonds' real estate market is flourishing and houses with trees are priced differently than houses with
views. She was not sure how to diplomatically address view versus no view in the code. She agreed with
focusing on wildlife and habitat corridors, no net loss and net ecological gain. A lot of it is related to critical
areas but there are also wildlife corridors in non -critical areas. With regard to incentives, she was concerned
with opened up a ball of wax, especially related to stormwater issues. She summarized habitat, permitting
and view corridors were her top three.
Councilmember L. Johnson recommended approaching this as a shared responsibility; the overwhelming
responsibility should not be on one subset of the community or homeowners over another. She agreed with
Options 2 and 3 for tree retention on private property not related to development, noting the canopy
assessment will guide that. The canopy assessment will also guide Option 6, whether all residential property
should be required to have a minimum number of trees. Without the information provided by the canopy
assessment, it is difficult to decide.
With regard to a Heritage Tree Program, Councilmember L. Johnson supported Options 1 or 2 related to a
voluntary program. With regard to view corridors, this is related to the equity issue and providing a balance.
A number of properties have already been cleared, is it fair to put the burden on those who have not yet
removed trees? It will be a delicate balance and will depend on the canopy assessment. She questioned what
constitutes a view corridor, observing there are a lot of different views. She referred to comment related to
light and asked whether access to light was prioritized for someone living in a view corridor but not for
other homeowners which she felt was an inequity issue. The City does not want to be in the business of
defining and regulating views and should leave that up to homeowners to do amongst themselves. With
regard to wildlife and habitat corridors, she cited the importance of education and incentives. She supported
certification for wildlife and habitat corridors similar to a Heritage Tree Program. She was not sold on
incentives but neither did she want to rule them out. She would support incentives that were easier to do
and did not require as much staff time to monitor.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not prepared to provide her arguments for and against options
tonight. She misunderstood what the Council was doing with this agenda item and will not be stating her
preferences but is listening to everyone else and has a good understanding of their priorities.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 20
With regard to the issue of light, Councilmember Olson agreed that related to equity; it could arise anywhere
and was not exclusive to the bowl. Blocking light can be an issue for someone's garden. She strongly
favored incentives, agreeing they were complicated to figure out but that was the way to go. The
environment is important, and instead of spending money on enforcement and punishment, she preferred
to provide incentives for having the right tree in the right place. She felt the City could get better results
with incentives rather than punishments.
Mr. Lien said he did not assume the Council would complete this tonight; it was intended to provide some
guidance. The Council has provided clear direction on the Heritage Tree Program. The direction regarding
tree retention on private property not related to development seemed to be no permit but tracking for the
removal of a certain number of trees. He will come back to Council to discuss views and habitat corridors
in more depth so Council can provide clearer direction. Council agreed. Mr. Lien referenced comments
regarding light, noting some jurisdictions have regulations related to solar access..
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. He relayed Council President Paine and lie conferred during the
recess and decided Item 8.5 would be postponed to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION
IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC
Development Services Director Shane Hope advised this is not about outdoor dining on sidewalks or streets.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this is a Planning Board recommendation on an interim ordinance
Council adopted at the end of December related to outdoor dining. Although the ordinance was listed, it
was not included in packet. He displayed the one -page ordinance and explained on private property, dining
is allowed as an outdoor use. Until the interim ordinance, an additional 10% of the indoor seating was
allowed as outdoor seating or 12 seats whichever was greater and beyond those limits a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) was required. He commented 10% of the interior seating or 12 seats was not very much and
especially during COVID, it came to the City's attention that restaurants needed more flexibility. A CUP
goes to the Hearing Examiner and costs thousands of dollars and takes up to three months for approval,
making any significant outdoor dining cost and time prohibitive for a typical restaurant/small business.
Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance adopted by Council removed the requirement for a CUP,
clarified the need for a building permit for any structures, and for retaining any ADA accessible parking
spaces. The original code did not have a limitation on the amount of outdoor dining; the interim ordinance
had a limit up to 50% of the existing interior seating and up to 30 seats. The interim ordinance was more
generous than what was allowed without a permit, but not as open ended as the original code. The Planning
Board held a public hearing and recommended making the interim ordinance permanent. A public hearing
at City Council is scheduled on June 15t"
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how 30 seats versus 40 or 20 was decided when the original was 12. Mr.
Chave it was 12 or 10% of the indoor seating whichever was more. Thirty seats seemed like a reasonable
number, it could be lower or higher. The 50% was not a magic number but it clearly indicates that outdoor
dining was to be a secondary part of the overall operation, not the main part. Under the interim code, the
additional outdoor dining could be 50% of the interior or 30 seats. For example, a small takeout place with
just a kitchen and no interior seating could have 30 outdoor seats.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 21
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Planning Board minutes did not indicate how 30 seats was determined.
She recalled the Planning Board asked about safety issues. Mr. Chave said there is a provision in the interim
ordinance that states any dining adjacent to vehicle parking shall be separated by landscaping, curb stop
wall or other suitable barrier. That was not in the original code and was added to the interim ordinance as
a safety feature.
5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
This item was postponed to future meeting
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas cautioned the Council not to throw things on the agenda for campaign
purposes. She was seeing campaigning occurring and did think that gave the citizens a fair shake if
Councilmembers were using Council meetings for campaigning.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Memorial Day was wonderful. She went to the cemetery and
visited her parents, both of whom were WWII veterans, and her nephew, a Marine serving in the Middle
East. Memorial Day is very important for those whose family members served in the military. She was very
proud of her parents and her family for serving in the military particularly during WWII.
Councilmember Olson reported she was excited to be working toward having 4"' of July events. It will be
a full press from the entire village to make it happen. She invite volunteers to reach out to the Chamber of
Commerce sooner rather than later. There will be a lot of volunteer slots to fill but people with backgrounds
directing traffic are particularly needed. She thanked the sponsors and large supporters, they are needed and
appreciated.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported on the nice event yesterday at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and
thanked staff, the local VFW and also the Cemetery Board for organizing it. He relayed gun violence is
preventable; there were some victories at the legislature this year, but there are many areas where a lot more
work can be done. This is a policy choice and he hoped it will continue to be a priority for Edmonds,
reducing preventable gun violence in the community.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported June 1st is the start of Pride Month. It was sad to see the discriminatory
bills from certain state legislatures, especially targeting trans youth, which is representative of how much
work still needs to be done in Washington and in other states to ensure LGBTQ+ communities have the
same civil rights, healthcare rights, and housing rights afforded everyone. He said we can celebrate and we
can do good work.
Council President Paine recognized the start of Pride Month. She recognized all the wonderful support she
has had from managers and directors in her professional life who have been LGTBQ and the generosity of
their support and interest in learning more about public administration. Memorial Day was a lot of fun and
she was appreciative of the event at the Edmonds Cemetery and all the volunteers.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for being at the end of the drive -through Memorial Day
event at the cemetery. She expressed appreciation to President Biden for honoring the victims of Black
Wall Street that marked 100 years yesterday, 100 years ago today Black Wall Street was devastated in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. She found it very heartwarming and a wonderful gesture that shows the President
recognition that things happened and the need to understand the equity aspect. She recognized the start of
Pride Month, recalling three years ago she was on a cruise ship on June I" along with Maureen Judge, a
fun time to be celebrating the joy of being a human being. She said everyone has right the right to do and
say and be happy.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 22
Councilmember L_ .Johnson thanked Mayor Nelson for the proclamation recognizing Gun Violence
Awareness .Day. She also thanked the three guests, local gun violence prevention advocates, for attending
and for their tireless work to raise awareness and address gun violence in the United States. Gun violence
is a rampant public health issue. A lot of work needs to be done and she appreciated the work being done
to raise awareness. Friday, June 4th is Wear Orange Day, more information about events is available on
wearorange.org. She recognized the beginning of Pride Month, June I" and wished Happy Pride to all.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson also recognized the start of Pride Month. He reported COVID numbers continue to decrease
in Snohomish County, now at 129/100,000; although a decrease, that was the height of the first wave back
in early March 2020. In Snohomish County 63% of residents have initiated one vaccine shot, which is on
the way to 70%. He looked forward to wearing orange on Friday in recognition of the gun violence that
sadly plagues communities.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
MIC44AEL NELSON, MAYOR
SC PASSEY, CITY CL K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June I, 2021
Page 23
Public Comment for 6/1/21 Council Meeting:
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:35 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>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica
<Jessica.NeillHoyson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the June 1, 2021 City Council Meeting
My Edmonds News reported in January 2021:
-Neither Nelson nor Neill Hoyson answered the questions we have raised. We have again asked
the mayor for an interview.
-Susan Paine and Laura Johnson have not answered questions we sent them about this.
Why is Council working on a Code of Conduct when nobody enforces the Code of Conduct and
Code of Ethics that are already in place?
Specifically:
For Neill Hoyson:
10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT
The City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that
goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer.
All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous,
efficient and helpful.
Ms. Hoyson has refused to answer all my emails. Despite this, she still works for the City. For
example, she prepared an agenda packet for Council about extending the acting appointment
of Jim Lawless in January of 2021. Why was she allowed to make her subjective points about
intent, etc. to Council when she refuses to answer the emails and questions from citizens
represented by Council? Should she be allowed to participate in Council meetings prior to the
Mayor informing Council whether he ever will enforce 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT?
For Nelson, Paine and Laura Johnson:
Code of Ethics:
Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between
the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public
and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 24
citizens. Refusing to answer citizen emails is not friendly and courteous service to the public
and certainly does not improve the quality of public service or confidence of citizens.
Please do not pass a new code of conduct without openly discussing ongoing violations
regarding the current Codes we already have and disclosing to citizens how the Codes we
already have will be enforced now and in the future.
My Edmonds News also reporting in January of 2021 that:
The three other councilmembers said the city never alerted them. Diane Buckshnis, Vivian
Olson and Kristiana Johnson told us they only found out about the domestic violence and career
concerns after Olson obtained the federal records and sent them to human resources, the
mayor and council.
So, it is not just citizens that are kept in the dark?
Again, please do not pass a new code of conduct without openly discussing ongoing violations
regarding the current Codes we already have and disclosing to citizens how the Codes we
already have will be enforced now and in the future.
Please also review the Code of Ethics, expand it so it covers City Staff and provide procedures
for enforcement. Please consider establishing external infrastructure and process
that counsels and mediates when conduct and ethics become a concern.
Thank you.
From: Bill Herzig
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Single Family Zoning in Edmonds
Edmonds is already a fairly dense city as measured against other towns in the Puget Sound
region, and we have 700 units, mostly multi -family in various stages of development at present.
This number puts Edmonds ahead of it comprehensive plan growth targets.
Edmonds already has over 36% of it's housing stock in multi family housing, likely on its way to
over 40%, with the current units in development.
Over 60% of Edmonds citizens surveyed stated they did not want the Single Family zoning
changed.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for eliminating single family zoning in face of these statistics!!
We do not want Edmonds trashed by developers like Ballard has been.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 25
We will be watching the City Council to see if they do what the Citizens of Edmonds clearly
want and deserve, or if they are operating on a political agenda against the will of the Citizens
of Edmonds.
Bill Herzig
Edmonds, WA
From: Audrey McLaughlin
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 6:01 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Yost Pool Comments
Hi there,
My name is Audrey. I've lived in Edmonds my whole life and had some of my best memories
and friendships have come from Yost pool. I always loved the casual feel of our little community
pool. I really have been missing swimming there and was excited to get back into it since covid.
Then I read that our pool was being taken over by a private swim team and we would need to
try out. I think that we should do everything in our power to prevent this so that everyone can
enjoy having a place to swim without the pressure of harsh competition. I also think this is not
fair because many people do not have access to places to practice or the money to be in a
private swim team in the first place. This would remove many of the things people love about
yost. Even if the cascade had no other place to practice, surely we could incorporate time for
the penguins to practice so that anyone could swim if they wanted to. I hope you consider.
Audrey McLaughlin
From: debbie mccallum
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 7:28 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Citizens of Edmonds....
Private property is the foundation of every right we have and is legally protected by law and the
Constitution. When did we, the citizens of Edmonds, grant the right to create and impose
restrictive codes to seven people? Trees on private property, with the exception of those in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 26
environmentally sensitive areas, should never be under city authority. Certainly it is
unfortunate when any sizeable tree is removed, but that decision is the right of the tax paying
property owner and has absolutely no place in city discretion. In an urban setting with limited
property sizes, "heritage" trees are often times dangerous and can be a nuisance and unwanted
for a variety of reasons, none of them the 'business' of over -reaching council members or city
employees.
If you believe that the city will reach responsible conclusions about tree removal consider the
plight of my neighbors: a cedar located on level ground stands on their shared property line less
than fifteen feet from the foundations of their homes, with five inches of space between the
trunk and each driveway, and, astride all utilities, including water and gas. In addition, the tree
is a constant source of debris which falls into the gutters and on the roofs with massive
threatening branches that hang over both structures. They were denied the ability to rid
themselves of (their) tree, which is clearly a hazard.
The City of Edmonds has used Covid to surreptitiously, and successfully, mask decisions that
affect all citizens, confident in the knowledge that the majority of us are not paying attention
because there are not in -person meetings that can be attended or easy -to -watch meetings on
the local channel. If there is any dispute to this fact I would remind city officials of the open
council meeting a few years ago where the public, so tightly packed that there was standing
room only, even in the hallways, vociferously argued against any misplaced notion of control
that the city dreamed they might usurp concerning trees. The message was loud, clear and
sometimes angry: our trees are beyond the scope and control of the city, with the exception of
those within critical areas. The institution of private property is our right by law and any action
by the council to supersede is an infringement of our civil liberties.
Debbie McCallum
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 27