Loading...
cmd0622211. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. Agenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 J U N E 22, 2021, 7:00 PM DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOO M. U S/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL PRESENTATION 1. Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes (5 min) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA Edmonds City Council Agenda June 22, 2021 Page 1 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2021 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2021 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donald Cadieux 5. Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes 6. Urban Forest Planner Job Description 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Clarification of Tree Regulations for Development (40 min) REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min) 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda June 22, 2021 Page 2 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES June 22, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 Tulal ip 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 RESOLUTION REJECTING RACIALLY BASED HARASSMENT AND HATE CRIMES Councilmember K. Johnson said this has been a rising concern; even after all the protests in March, there continues to be daily reports of elderly Asian women being beaten and that is what prompted her to write this resolution. There has been a long history of prejudice bias and extreme actions against Asians, including the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Harassment and hate crimes against Asians have risen dramatically, up 164% over the last year. In March, cities around the country including Edmonds and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 1 Bellevue rallied against hate speech and hate crimes. Governor Inslee denounced hate and violence after recent attacks on Asian and Pacific Islanders in Washington State. On May 20, 2021 President Biden signed a bill aimed at countering the rise in anti -Asian hate crimes during the corona pandemic, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. May was Asian American and Pacific Islanders Heritage month in the United States, recognizing the contributions and influence of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans through their history, culture and many achievements. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a basis to justify hate speech and cannot be tolerated. She read a resolution for the Council's consideration, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes, particularly against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders due to COVID-19. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the resolution. Council President Paine suggested guests be provided an opportunity to speak. Councilmember K. Johnson invited John Kim and Jenna Nand to comment on the resolution. Jenna Nand, Edmonds, spoke in support of the resolution which highlights a problem that has existed in communities since the 19"' century when anti -Asian programs used to be carried out in Washington State because Asian labor was considered a threat to American born labor. She relayed a friend who is Vietnamese American and born in Washington state was called an expletive and told to go back to her country. She and her other female Asian friends are afraid to ride the bus due to "slap an Asian game." She has personally been impacted and asked if her parents are illegal immigrants. These are things that the Asian America community she is part of has experienced throughout her lifetime. However, there is a perception that Asian Americans are meek and docile, do not create a fuss, do not ask for help, and do not trumpet their problems so it is much easier to abuse Asian women and get away with it. This is not a problem that will go away when the pandemic is over and she was glad that popular culture and the government are starting to pay attention to the unique problems that Asian communities are facing in Edmonds and the larger nation. John Kim, Edmonds, said he was born and raised in Pennsylvania. When he was young, lie was targeted on the school yard, called names and beat up constantly. When he complained to his mom, she said don't worry, it's because they're afraid of you, you're not like they are, you're other to them. He said she was right because eventually he gained a measure of acceptance in his own community; that took years and it was never fully complete but he no longer worried about being attacked on a daily basis. History is frill of examples of laws and policies that have discriminated specifically against Asian Americans, typically driven by fear, understandable fear, but ultimately unjustifiable fear. Even though there is wide spread acknowledgement of how wrong those laws and policies were and the irreparable harm that they caused to Americans of Asians descent, the pattern of fear mongering, blaming, othering and exclusion persists. The rhetoric of the last administration could not have been clearer and is evidenced by the horrific attacks on innocent Asians, often vulnerable elders. Today the Council is considering a resolution denouncing an important part of that vicious discrimination cycle. Fear mongering, blaming and othering nearly always precedes the passage of racist policies and laws. He supported passing this resolution and calling out fear mongering, blaming and othering for what it is, wrong and unjustified. He supported speaking out and filling the space with messages of solidarity, decency and acceptance of others, and crowding out negativity, hate and violence. He expressed his support for the resolution and strongly recommended the Council do the same. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed appreciation for the resolution, commenting her family are Pacific Islanders who were not born in the United States and were in their mid -teens when they came to this country, speaking no English. She has been around this issue enough to understand the harm it can cause. She was pleased to see the Council taking a positive approach, commenting she has heard people of Asian descent referred to as yellow people or not provide the same benefits given to White businesses. It is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 2 an important step for this Council to realize that discriminatory behavior occurs in all walks of life, not just one culture or another. She appreciated the Council being educated on how words can hurt. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Jenna Nand and John Kim for sharing their very personal stories, commenting the Council does not know what it is like to walk in their shoes. She also has extended family of Asian descent so she has been very aware of and sensitive to this subject for decades. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1476. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed support for a Council resolution that condemns hate against the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. Tonight both Councilmember K. Johnson and the guests who graciously attended made excellent comments and points. Verbally condemning hate is a start but resolving means a solution or determination to follow a course of action. Since tonight's meeting has been shortened, she suggested taking the time to incorporate what was included in the introduction as well as the guests' statements, specifically that racially motivated hate isn't new to America, that it goes back a long time and the pandemic and Trump's incendiary rhetoric have just made it worse. She suggested the resolution acknowledge the long history of racism toward the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) community and defining what harassment and discrimination look like would strengthen the document. Council President Paine expressed appreciation for the guests' comments that add the dimension of personal experience, the ongoing hate and the intersectionality of both gender and age where young and elderly people are targeted. This is particularly important to understand the impacts of history and she welcomed the opportunity to strengthen the resolution. These issues have occurred prior to the pandemic and worsened by weaponizing a false narrative that has harmed everyone, but most particularly the AAPI communities. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the proper procedure to amend the resolution, whether it should be amended as part of this agenda item or the resolution placed on the agenda under Unfinished Business. City Clerk Scott Passey said it was simply when the Council wanted to do it, now or pull it from the Consent Agenda and amend it under Unfinished Business. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there were two guests present and she was uncertain anyone captured what they said to incorporate in the resolution. She feared if the Council waited until later to amend the resolution, the momentum of the guests and their comments would be lost. Councilmember K. Johnson said Councilmember L. Johnson and Council President Paine have had the resolution for over a month. She suggested they make an addition to the whereas clause if they felt they had something else to say and then the Council could pass the resolution. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson, relaying it was her understanding that the resolution went through a few committees which generally does not occur with resolutions. She observed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas shaking her head, and said apparently it had not gone through a committee. She preferred to work on amendments now due to the presence of the two guests. Racially based harassment and hate crimes have occurred throughout this year; she also has family who are Asian Americans, even some who were in camps, and she was aware of the heartache they have gone through. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember L. Johnson if she was prepared to make amendments to the resolution. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested incorporating whereas clauses that provide history and suggested borrowing language from other cities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 3 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADD AS THE THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE, "WHEREAS WE STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER (AAPI) COMMUNITIES AND ASSERT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS THAT ANTI-ASIAN RACISM, INTIMIDATION, AND HATE CRIMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND HAVE NO PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY; AND." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND BY STRIKING "DUE TO COVID-19" IN THE RESOLUTION TITLE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this behavior has been occurring long before COVID; including that language in the title makes it sound like it began with COVID-19. She lives with people who are Pacific Islanders and this behavior has occurred for years. COVID-1 9 created issues, not just for Asians and Pacific Islanders, but for a lot of different people. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO AMEND BY ADDING: "WHEREAS AAPI COMMUNITIES ARE IMMENSELY DIVERSE, CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE ETHNICITIES, HUNDREDS OF LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS, WIDE-RANGING SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS, AND DISTINCT IMMIGRATION PATTERNS; AND WHEREAS RACISM AND SCAPEGOATING TOWARD THE AAPI COMMUNITY HAS PERSISTED SINCE THE 19TH CENTURY AND CONTRIBUTED TOWARD POLICIES LIKE THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882, WHICH PROHIBITED THE IMMIGRATION OF CHINESE LABORERS, AND INTRODUCTION OF THE TERM "YELLOW PERIL," WHICH REPRESENTED EAST ASIANS AS DANGEROUS AND THREATENING TO THE UNITED STATES; AND WHEREAS RACIST POLICIES CONTINUED INTO THE 20TIl CENTURY WITH THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 EFFECTIVELY BANNING ALL IMMIGRATION FROM ASIA; EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 IN 1942 AUTHORIZING THE INCARCERATION OF JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING WORLD WAR II; AND OTHERS THAT HAVE IMPACTED SOUTHEAST ASIAN AMERICANS, SOUTH ASIANS, MUSLIMS, AND SIKHS, AMONG OTHERS; AND WHEREAS, SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE IN THE 2019 PANDEMIC IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY JANUARY 19, 2020, HATEFUL RHETORIC REGARDING COVID-19 HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A SPIKE IN DISCRIMINATION AND HATE CRIMES TOWARD ASIAN AMERICANS; AND" Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the dates in the last whereas be less specific and instead of "January 19, 2020," state "January 2020."Councilmember L. Johnson accepted that as a friendly amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested a lot of this background could go into the agenda memo; it complicates and muddies the purpose of the resolution. She did not support adding five new amendments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the agenda memo does not go with the resolution when it is filed. She encouraged Councilmembers to support the amendments, including Councilmember Buckshnis' suggestion. Council President Paine expressed support for amendments. She is drafting a whereas regarding to intersectional ity related to age and gender which is a huge aspect. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 4 Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her disappointment; she tried to get on this on the agenda in May. Both Councilmember L. Johnson and Council President Paine have had the resolution for over a month and she preferred they had given her their suggestions so she could have incorporated them prior to the resolution being on tonight's agenda. Councilmember L. Johnson acknowledged they had this document earlier, however, it was her understanding that the feedback from the two committees it was presented to might be incorporated. Therefore, she felt it important to allow Councilmember K. Johnson to incorporate that feedback into the document. Until she saw it on this agenda, she did not realize that feedback had not been incorporated. Mayor Nelson pointed out rather than committees, Councilmember L. Johnson was referring to boards and commissions. At the request of Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember L. Johnson reread the last whereas with her amendment. "WHEREAS, SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF THE CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) IN THE 2019 PANDEMIC IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY IN JANUARY 2020, HATEFUL RHETORIC REGARDING COVID-19 HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A SPIKE IN DISCRIMINATION AND HATE CRIMES TOWARD ASIAN AMERICANS; AND" Councilmember Buckshnis suggested including COVID-19 and not including the dates, noting there were a lot of numbers in the preceding whereas. She as okay with what Councilmember L. Johnson read. Councilmember Fraley-Moni I las commented the dates and what has occurred in the United States are good to include in the resolution. It is important to recognize internment and it is good to include what occurred to AAPI in the resolution. Councilmember L. Johnson said she included that because she felt the resolution could be read that COVID- 19 was the cause of this and she wanted it to be clear that COVID 19 has only exacerbated this. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND BY ADDING: "WHEREAS, AS THIS HATEFUL ANTI-ASIAN RHETORIC SPREAD, ESPECIALLY AS IT INTENSIFIED THIS PAST YEAR, HAS RESULTED IN ASIAN AMERICANS BEING HARASSED, ASSAULTED, AND SCAPEGOATED FOR THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC; AND VIOLENCE AND HATE CRIMES AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS HAVE INCREASED 150 PERCENT IN U.S. CITIES; AND WHEREAS, ASIAN WOMEN ARE OFTEN FETISHIZED AND OBJECTIFIED THROUGHOUT MEDIA AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND THIS AFFECTS THE RACIALIZED, GENDERED, AND SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE AAPI WOMEN HAVE EXPERIENCED, HISTORICALLY AND NOW; AND WHEREAS, AFTER THE ATLANTA SPA SHOOTING, WHICH LEFT EIGHT DEAD, INCLUDING SIX WOMEN OF ASIAN DESCENT, THERE WAS A CONSTANT DEHUMANIZATION OF ASIAN WOMEN DURING MEDIA DISCUSSIONS; AND WHEREAS, EVEN PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, AAPI WOMEN WERE EXPERIENCING A GREAT DEAL OF VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF RACE/ETHNICITY, GENDER, IMMIGRATION STATUS, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS, AMONG OTHER FACTORS; AND Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 5 WHEREAS, DESPITE THESE INCREASING ACTS OF HATE AND BIGOTRY, AN ESTIMATED TWO MILLION ASIAN AMERICANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS SERVED ON THE FRONT LINES OF THIS CRISIS AS HEALTHCARE WORKERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS, AND IN OTHER ESSENTIAL ROLES; AND" Councilmember Olson recognized Councilmembers all feel strongly that they want this to be positive for the community, but rewriting the entire work product submitted by one Councilmember during a Council meeting in front of everyone instead of doing it behind the scenes seemed very inappropriate and was truly taking away from the message. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, objecting to being lectured on making amendments which is appropriate during any meeting on any resolution or motion. She was sorry if some Councilmembers were uncomfortable with it but said that was "the way it goes." Mayor Nelson ruled point taken, it was absolutely appropriate for Councilmembers to make amendments to a resolution, and it was incorrect to say that it was inappropriate. Councilmember Olson said because this was such an extensive rewrite, she recommended it not be done. Councilmember L. Johnson said she would fully support working offline on this and bringing it back. She agreed making amendments to a document as important as this on the fly during a Council meeting was a lot to ask. If the Council was willing to consider that, she would support it. Councilmember Buckshnis spoke in favor of moving forward with this, pointing out obviously the process on this resolution was broken. She recalled amendments being made to resolutions in the past including the Climate Action resolutions. She had no problem working on the resolution now as the Council has plenty of time due to the cancellation of the public hearings. She encouraged the Council to stop bickering, move forward and get it done. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: "WHEREAS, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, AS ELECTW-LED REPRESENTATIVES, TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST HATE AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUR RESIDENTS OR VISITORS TO OUR CITY; AND." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND BY ADDING: "WHEREAS ACTS OF HATE AND DISCRIMINATION ARE ANTITHETICAL TO OUR VALUES AS EDMONDS' RESIDENTS, AND AS A COMMUNITY, IT IS OUR DUTY TO PROMOTE RESPECT, INCLUSION, AND A WELCOMING COMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE OF ALL RACES, NATIONAL ORIGINS, AND ETHNICITIES, SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS, GENDERS, GENDER IDENTITIES, GENDER EXPRESSIONS, DISABILITIES, AND AGES. WHEREAS, ALL EDMONDS RESIDENTS CAN PLAY A ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND WELCOMING COMMUNITY BY INTERVENING AND REPORTING INSTANCES OF HATE AND DISCRIMINATION. REPORTING THESE INCIDENTS IS CRITICAL TO HOLDING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE AND FULLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE. THE CITY OF EDMONDS ENCOURAGES COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO OBSERVE OR ARE EXPERIENCING INCIDENTS OF HARASSMENT OR HATE TO CALL 911 IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS AND TO REPORT ALL INCIDENTS TO THE WASHINGTON STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (1-800-233-3247). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES; AND CONDEMN ALL ACTS OF RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, SEXISM, GENDER -BASED VIOLENCE, DISCRIMINATION, ANTI-ASIAN BIAS, SCAPEGOATING, AND ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AGAINST ALL PEOPLE; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL COMMITS TO FOLLOWING THE LEADERSHIP OF COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY HATE AND VIOLENCE IN THE WAKE OF COVID-19, WORKING JOINTLY WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP TANGIBLE, COMMUNITY -LED SOLUTIONS TO ROOT OUT DISCRIMINATION, HATE, AND SYSTEMIC RACISM, AND UPLIFT SOLIDARITY." Councilmember Buckshnis commented that was a lot and suggested doing smaller sections. It appears Councilmember L. Johnson was moving Section 2 of the Now Therefore and moving it to a whereas. Councilmember L. Johnson said she felt including the portion asking community members to call in as a whereas was most appropriate, and stating what the Council was resolving to do themselves. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested she first make amendments to the whereas clauses and then amend the Now Therefore section. Mayor Nelson suggested splitting it into two amendments. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON RESTATED THE AMENDMENT: "WHEREAS, ALL EDMONDS RESIDENTS CAN PLAY A ROLE IN ESTABLISHING A SAFE AND WELCOMING COMMUNITY BY INTERVENING AND REPORTING INSTANCES OF HATE AND DISCRIMINATION. REPORTING THESE INCIDENTS IS CRITICAL TO HOLDING PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE AND FULLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE." Councilmember L. Johnson said she was happy to have Section 2 be part of the "Further resolved" section if that was more appropriate, but she wanted to include a section stating why it was important for Edmonds residents to address the issue and what their role was as well. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the inclusion of Section 2 in a whereas clause, but either way was fine with her. Councilmember K. Johnson said she appreciated the attention to the resolution, but it would have been more helpful if the additional whereas clauses and comments had been provided to her in a timely fashion so that the Council was not doing this now. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from personal remarks, and pointed out this opinion had already been stated multiple times. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS BY ADDING: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED THAT, THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES; AND CONDEMNS ALL ACTS OF RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, SEXISM, GENDER -BASED VIOLENCE, DISCRIMINATION, ANTI-ASIAN BIAS, SCAPEGOATING, AND ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE AGAINST ALL PEOPLE; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL COMMITS TO FOLLOWING THE LEADERSHIP OF COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY HATE AND VIOLENCE IN THE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 7 WAKE OF COVID-19, WORKING JOINTLY WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP TANGIBLE, COMMUNITY -LED SOLUTIONS TO ROOT OUT DISCRIMINATION, HATE, AND SYSTEMIC RACISM, AND UPLIFT IN SOLIDARITY." UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD SECTION 9, NEW BUSINESS, AND AN ITEM, ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A PREREQUISITE ON RESIDENTIAL TENANT EVICTIONS AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY. Councilmember Distelhorst requested discussion be on the merits of adding this to the agenda. He explained the State's eviction moratorium will expire June 30"' and there has been no declaration regarding Governor Inslee's intent regarding the moratorium. He worked with the City Attorney over the past five days to develop an ordinance that is not a local eviction moratorium, but attempts to connect landlords and tenants with current and possibly future rental assistance. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Councilmember Distelhorst's intent was to have discussion and action on the ordinance tonight or at a future date. Councilmember Distelhorst explained it was drafted as an emergency ordinance that would need to be passed tonight to ensure there was not a gap in eviction protections as the state eviction moratorium will expire on June 30"' and there is no Council meeting until July 61'. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD "RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 4225 PASSED LAST WEEK, AMENDING THE CHAPTER ADDING JUNETEENTH AS A CITY HOLIDAY." Councilmember K. Johnson said she would like to change her vote so it should only take a few minutes Council President Council President Paine asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's intent was to change her vote on the ordinance or the resolution. Councilmember K. Johnson said they were one in the same. City Clerk Scott Passey recalled there was the Juneteenth City holiday and Juneteenth resolution, Ordinance 4225 amended Chapter 2.35, vacation and sick leave, adding the June 19"' holiday. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adding this under Unfinished Business as Agenda Item 8.2. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a motion to reconsider required a majority of Council to pass or a super majority. City Attorney Taraday said motions to reconsider are not done at subsequent meetings. It takes a majority to pass. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the public hearings needed to be removed from agenda. Mr. Passey advised the agenda was amended this afternoon to remove them. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, explaining Americans have the right to live their lives with the freedoms and liberties afford them in the U.S. Constitution. She was asking for the same freedoms allowed to those who built homes previously, the freedom to divide and build on their property with no tree fees and without 100% taxation for the timber and carbon footprint of their trees' worth or even $2 per square foot which would be $100,000 in unproductive spending for their three homes. That was taken away from them in March and April with the regulatory and monetary taking tree ordinance. Before they are allowed to build 3 homes on their 1.2 acres, they are required to pay the City either $250,000 or $100,000 for the worth of trees on their property that they own that need to be removed. Any amount is illegal. Edmonds is forcing them to purchase their trees, which are their property, twice. The Council plans to use the money taken from her family to enforce the same infringement on other homeowners in Edmonds as shown by the intent to hire an urban forest planner as an enforcer. The Council intends to give a City official permission to trespass onto private property to enforce the tree ordinance and penalize those who trim or remove trees from their own property. Ms. Ferkingstad explained as elected officials who pledged to uphold the Constitution, it is their duty to stand up for those whose liberties have been infringed upon. This Council is leaving a legacy of infringing on the freedoms and liberties of Edmonds property owners, homeowners and taxpayers. The Council has legalized the theft of the worth of their trees from Edmonds property and homeowners who are equal in the law. The Council is violating the 5"' and 14"' amendments. The Supreme Court summed it up as, the 5t" amendment which guarantees that private property will not be taken for public use without just compensation was designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The due process clause of the 14"' amendment similarly limits the power of state and local governments by commanding that nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. These provisions recognize the fundamental nature of the right to hold property, the right to tell others to keep out, the right to develop and use the land, the right to derive income from that property. Trees are a renewal resource; Washington state has been exporting lumber since 1928, annually providing $4.9 billion in wages and $200 million in taxes. She urged the Council to stand up for individual rights, stop governmental overreach, discrimination and infringement on private property in Edmonds. Bill Herzig, Edmonds, said he moved here five years ago from Ballard. While in Ballard, he watch new housing policies turn their neighborhood from a charming bungalow area to something that is nearly unlivable today. He was concerned the current Mayor and four Councilmembers are operating with a pre- determined agenda and avoiding true transparency and citizen engagement. Examples include the Police Chief, the Salary Commission and the current Housing Commission and the way it was operated by Shane Hope which was clearly done with a predetermined agenda. Edmonds is a special place with unique qualities. It has density and lower cost housing on transit corridors and nice upscale single family housing in the bowl. For a small town it has a good mix of over 36% multifamily housing which is increasing. He was deeply concerned that this Mayor and Council will eliminate all single family zoning by limiting transparency such as the study session on June 2411' that does not allow public participation. Any major changes to single family zoning needs to be done with a lot of public engagement and total transparency; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 9 that did not happen with Shane Hope and the agenda -driven Housing Commission. Over half the commissioners felt it was driven by a pre -determined outcome rather than true citizen engagement. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the proposed amendment to ECDC 23.10, stating she was pleased the City appeared to be trying to address some of the most egregious takings associated with the existing code. She hoped the City thoughtfully considered the amount of effort private citizens are required to undertake for the City to begin to recognize the taking. She also hoped the City would seek to address multiple issues with the code at this time. The Urban Forest Management Plan supports updating tree regulations associated with development; it does not support regulating trees in association with the newly added definition of improvement which may broaden the applicability of the code to new activities. She requested the City clarify if improvements are newly regulated under the proposed amendment. She has attended every Planning Board meeting since the emergency ordinance and questioned wily these amendments were not more transparently discussed where the public could provide comment and/or ideas for better solutions. The proposed code amendments does not approach the responsibility of the urban forest as a community burden. It does not require planting anywhere near the retention requirement required of treed properties. Trees are not in and of themselves critical areas and every property in Edmonds can grow trees. The proposed code continues to create a strong incentive for property owners to remove trees and not plant them. With regard to the land use impacts of the tree code, the City is not allowing public comment at the June 24"' meeting when the Council considers the Housing Commission recommendations. The City has also thus far circumvented SEPA requirements to evaluate land use impacts for the UFMP or recently enacted tree codes. As the Council discusses various development and improvement, Ms. Seitz hoped the Council took a moment to realize the disproportionate burdens placed on areas zoned RS-8, 10 or 12, areas annexed in the 1960s and 1990s, and over -burdened communities located along Highway 99. These areas are effectively penalized from improving their property and achieving their highest and best use. This is clearly a land use impact which she hoped the City would evaluate holistically, transparently and for the first time associated with the most recent proposed changes. With regard to the urban forest planner job description, she proposed a 6-word amendment that would clarify the scope of the position to be consistent with the current code and the UFMP by amending to indicate the position is responsible for implementation of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan, not program, as it relates to development on critical areas on private property. She emphasized the importance of getting this position right, the City's primary tree interface with residents; a bad interaction based on a broad or undefined scope will be shared with neighbors, coworkers and friends, leading to the removal of trees or lack of planting trees due to regulatory burdens. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, applauded the Council for scheduling a special meeting on June 24t" regarding the Housing Commission's recommendations, an important topic worthy of everyone's times and consideration. However, the agenda does not include public comments; he was hopeful that was a mistake or an oversight and that it would be included. If it was not an oversight or a mistake, he requested a Councilmember make a motion to amend the agenda to include audience participation. Susie Shaefer, Edmonds, said she was speaking for the trees. She is not satisfied with the tree code, but compared to the proposed amendment, she supported the tree code because the amendment allows for more removal of trees and no compensation for the trees. She has watched Edmonds turn brown and lose a lot of trees. Trees and the canopy are very valuable to everyone and, in her opinion, a matter of life and death particularly with climate changes. Trees are one of the ways of combatting climate change, something everyone needs to be responsible for. She was opposed to the proposed change to allow for removal of all the trees if it was proved feasible; she was uncertain who it would be feasible for as it would not be feasible for maintaining any tree cover or for the trees to be removed. As a tree lover and a tree hugger, she has a different viewpoint than others, but wanted to ensure her viewpoint was considered because so many trees Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 10 have been lost, the City has so few parks, fewer than any other city, the canopy is rapidly disappearing and nearly all the big trees have been removed. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, referred to the tree code related to development, recognizing that the Council understood the significance of protecting trees and that they cared about protecting them. The Council also realizes how upset Edmonds citizens are by the rampant clearing of land by developers. Therefore she was confused and disturbed by the lack of rigor in the tree code. The recent addition of capping the amount developers must pay for tree removal has made an already weak code even weaker. The proposed code protects developers instead of protecting trees and she questioned whether that was what the Council wanted. Doug Swartz, Edmonds, said the way the Housing Commission was conducted was a joke. Essentially Shane Hope drove this process with a pre -determined outcome in mind. When the survey didn't bear out the outcome, she repeated the surveys. He demanded that a third party survey be conducted with an impartial arbiter looking at the results. The Housing Commission's activities should be suspended until there are live meetings again and face-to-face citizen comments. The City Council has a responsibility to listen and solicit the opinion of the people who elected them. Some Councihnembers have their own agenda and do not care what the citizens want. If they do not feel they can represent the citizens of Edmonds, he demanded they resign their position and let someone who will represent the citizens fill their position. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) ROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITE Councilmember Buckshnis suggested pulling Item 7.5, Resolution Rejecting Racially Based Harassment and Hate Crimes, as it had been amended. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested stating as amended. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the resolution had already been passed so it could be pulled off the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DONALD CADIEUX 6. URBAN FOREST PLANNER JOB DESCRIPTION 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREE REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 11 Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained the tree code adopted on April 13"' did not include a process if a site could not meet the 30% retention requirement for single family or 25% for multifamily sites. There was general acknowledgment that there would be times when it was not possible to meet the retention requirements. At the April 13" meeting, Council agreed to form a subcommittee to review that situation and develop code language. As a result, a new section and a couple new definitions were developed. Given comments received since passage of the tree code, consideration was also given to an incentive so that if a certain number of trees are retained, the fee in -lieu does not apply and there would be a cap. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed this was a fol low up to the April 13t" meeting to address the issue of a site that is unable to meet the retention requirements. Mr. Lien described proposed amendments to F. 23.10.030F. Tree Retention Procedures: F Tree Retention Procedures 1. If a revised building placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the tree retention and rotection develepinem plan should be adjusted to: a. ma*iFaize Maximize the retention of stie4 higher priority trees, and b. Satis , the retention requirement in subsection C. 2. This a jusiment in subsection F.1 o this section rnzrst be done unless the a licant can demonstrate that actual cons fiance with subsection C would make the proPosed dei7e10 rrtent infeasible. In documenting in easibili . a licants o subdivision and short subdivision must consider inr lernentin conservation subdivision design as rovided for in L•'CDC 20.75.048. 3. Once the location ol on -site im rovements has been established throe h cLIX review and applicant revision of the tree retention and prolecfion plan, existing Priority One trees not itrr acted by 1he installation o said inr rovenzetrts must be retained at least to the number o trees required b , subsection C exce t for hazard trees and nuisance trees, 4. if there are not enoar h existing trees outside of the inn roved areas of the site to satisfy subsection C throar h retention alone the gi2olicant shall be required to make tv the deficiency ar follows: a. Planting a number o new trees on -.site that would be sufficient, in combination with the number o trees actually retained to satis subsection C. and b. ff it is not feasible for pkaimWzynder this subsection to achieve the required nirntber o trees the a licant shall make a fee -ire -lieu payment of S2 500 for eveU tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. L.G. IL a development retains 50% of the si ni rcant trees on a site thefee-in-lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080.E does not apply. Mr. Lien reviewed the new definitions: G. Feasible — means for the puipose of this cha ter the pno'ect qRplicant.7 ainiary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this cha ter require certain actions unless they are feasible, the burden ofproving infeasibilLa is glaced an the a licant. K. k4 rovement — means and includes but is not limited to an buildh structure storm draina .e acilities road driygM ylgLfy and pedestrian facilities, or other ob'ect constitattin a h sical addition to real property Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section FA.a. which she found rather vague. She was concerned if someone removed three century -old fir trees, they could replant three apple trees. Instead, she wanted to encourage planting of native species. She recommended making that section stronger by stating "planting a number of same species trees onsite..." Mr. Lien said there is another section of code that addresses what needs to be replanted, 23.10.080.D.2 states, "Replacement trees shall be primarily native species." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember K. Johnson asked if 23.10.060.F.4.a could be tied to 23.10.080.D.2. She wanted to ensure there was a correlation between what is removed and what is replaced and did not want it to be open to misinterpretation. Ms. Hope suggested adding "pursuant to..." Councilmember K. Johnson agreed. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND F.4.A TO READ, "A. PLANTING A NUMBER OF NEW TREES ON -SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH23.I0.080 THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT..." Councilmember Olson pointed out the need to make allowances for right tree right place. She questioned if a large confer that was removed was not the right tree, replacing it with the same species should not be encouraged. Mr. Lien said 23.10.080 does not say a Douglas Fir has to be replaced with a Douglas Fir. There are more native trees than just Douglas Fir, 23.10.080.D.2 states, "Replacement trees shall be primarily native species," so it is not a like for like replacement. Council President Paine expressed support for the amendment and said referencing the replacement policy was a good idea. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has a lot of concern as the Council never went through 20.75.048, Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Standards other than a depiction of an outline, but not the actual code. She did not understand the relationship between this code and the subdivision code as this seems to be a subdivision issue. Mr. Lien answered 20.75.048 was in the packet the entire time the tree code was being reviewed by the Council. It was adopted in Ordinance 4218 and is now in the code. How that code section ties in with the tree code is it allows flexibility in site design to retain more trees. He referred to the example that illustrated how reduced lot size and setbacks retained more trees on site. That is why 20.75.048 was included in this development tree code update, to allow flexibility in development to retain more trees. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concerned with the process, that the Council never went over that when the two are very interrelated and she believed this information should be addressed in 20.75.048. Mr. Lien answered it is still tied to that. The purpose of that section is tree retention. If someone is proposed a straight up subdivision and they have not looked at the conservation subdivision design and are saying they cannot meet the 30% retention requirement, the language in 23.10.060.D.2 states, "...In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivisions and short subdivisions must consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048." Councilmember Buckshnis said she would not support this because the Council never vetted 20.75.048 and she felt the Council was premature in putting standards on developers before the Council knew if they liked 20.75.048. She had concerns with how the tree code was rolled out and said this could not continue to be looked in silos. She urged Councilmembers not to support the proposal and reopen 20.75.048 so it could be vetted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also had a lot of concerns with this process. She talked with numerous citizens and there are a lot of questions have been raised about why there are not better solutions for working with citizens and property owners and moving forward without input from citizens. She referred to weekly comments made by Ms. Ferkingstad and Ms. Seitz as well as others about the unfairness of the process. Unless the City works with citizens and property owners, there will be nothing but questions and misunderstandings with this process. For those reasons, she will not support the proposal and she did not think the City had done a good job educating constituents or property owners. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 13 Councilmember K. Johnson suggested City Attorney Jeff Taraday explain whether the City has the ability to control private property and trees. She believed it fell under the City's police powers but suggested Mr. Taraday explain the legal footing the City is on in order to pursue controlling trees on private property that are not involved in development. Mr. Taraday said that conversation is better suited to an executive session where he can be more candid with the City Council about where he thinks the line is between permissible and impermissible regulation and he would rather not do that in open session. Councilmember K. Johnson requested an executive session if the Council finished before 10 p.m. tonight to have that timely conversation. Mr. Taraday said he could do a much better job leading the Council through that conversation if he had an opportunity to prepare for it at a subsequent meeting. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed. Council President Paine said she wanted people to feel comfortable with these regulations, but recognizing there has been some public input, she suggested having it go through the Planning Board for further analysis and come back to Council later this fall. She asked how Council members felt about that. Councilmember Olson liked the idea of the Planning Board taking a look at it as has been done with previous amendments. She wanted to ensure the discussion was not getting off track, referring to Council comments about private property, pointing out these regulations are related to development. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was unsure what was misleading about the fact that the Council never vetted 20.75.048. If the Council wants to send this to the Planning Board, she also recommended they review the subdivision code as they should be reviewed in tandem. If the Council wanted to vet 20.75.048, she had many amendments to make. This process has been so disjointed and a lot of people are tired of bringing their issues to Council. Whatever the Council wanted to do, she said the subdivision aspect also needed to be discussed which is a separate code. Councilmember L. Johnson asked for clarification whether Council President Paine's suggestion was to bring 20.75.048 and this section that is referenced in code to the Planning Board or was it bringing the entirety of what was before Council today to the Planning Board and waiting until fall. Council President Paine said her intent was the tree retention aspects associated with development activity, 23.10.060. The Planning Board could provide a second set of eyes. The Council had 20.75.048 available to them earlier this year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said a second set of eyes would be a good thing and going back to the Planning Board would provide an opportunity for citizens to provide input. She recognized people have testified before Council over the last two years regarding the tree canopy, the tree code and the tree regulations. The City has done a good job reaching out to those concerned about trees and the environment, but may not have done a good enough job talking to property owners and citizens who have issues with the tree regulations. She was concerned with the number of people who object to what the Council was doing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the City creating any groups comprised of property owners or citizens to look at this, not just people who testified before Council. Ms. Hope said there were no special groups formed; it went to the Tree Board, and Planning Board where there were multiple meetings, announcements, press releases and online information, but no special groups were formed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Tree Board was somewhat biased. She supported having more public input. Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council can defer to the Planning Board but the Council has discussed this many times. She did not want to wait until fall and six more months of uncertainty, she preferred to make a decisions now. The Council could have a public hearing, study sessions with land owners, etc. and do the work themselves. The Planning Board is not better equipped to do that work, it would just remove Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 14 the burden of coordinating that effort from the Council and put it on the Planning Board. She did not support this idea. Council President Paine said she could see Councilmember K. Johnson's point. She would like to have the well -prepared staff talk about some of the issues that arise with these new procedures and help resolve questions from the public. This proposal offers some options and the Council has the option of changing the numbers if they wish. This is a good solution to resolve the retention procedures that were left during the last discussion of the Stage 1 tree code issues and this is what the subcommittee developed. She would like to have the discussion completed tonight so Council can hear from staff themselves. Ms. Hope explained the intent behind these amendments was not to wipe out the code that the Council already adopted but to deal with impractical and overburdening things that the public brought up. There are still strong protections, criteria, etc., but amendments are proposed to address the practical problems that staff saw and have heard from the public related to heavily treed properties where, in order to do anything, some trees need to be cut. For example, the Council heard from a property owner very concerned about the cost this added to development of her property and the work their family has done to situate three homes on a very large, wooded lot. This was a way to provide a softer approach that still deals with the practical side of retaining trees but not going so far that it became impossible for ordinary people to build a home. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how this conflicted with housing issues. The Housing Commission was very interested in allowing detached dwelling units on property. If there are a lot of trees on a property, a detached dwelling unit was unlikely due to costs associated with trees. Ms. Hope said the Housing Commission was also very interested in providing open space, the need to protect the environment and retaining trees in the community; it is a balancing act, where and how it applies so there are opportunities for more housing and still have trees. Where the line is drawn is difficult. The Council's adoption of the code drew the line pretty far toward protecting trees and without any amendments, that line remains and there is no option for certain exceptions to address special circumstances as have been brought up by the public. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the conservation subdivision design code could be amended to change the setbacks. She was very empathetic for these two people who call in, they have been working on this project since 2017 and she questioned why it had taken so long. The Council has yet to vet the conservation subdivision design code; all these issues are related and housing is part of it. The process has not been very smooth and there have been several disjointed meetings. The Council should address the subdivision code because it can impact setbacks and then tree retention may not be an issue. Councilmember Olson said as far as process, having it go through the Planning Board would be great. She preferred it not take until fall; not knowing what the Planning Board's priorities are, it would be great if they could get to it sooner rather than later like in 2-4 weeks. She was happy to have the proposed regulations come forward as she felt the City was penalizing the wrong people, people who love trees and purchase property with trees and in the one example, they want to retain 50% of the trees which is more than is typically retained when property is developed. If someone has a lot of trees and the City's code does not have any cap, that individual gets penalized. She liked how that was addressed in this code amendment. If this change didn't work well, it could be changed again although she felt it was an improvement to the current code. She appreciated the work done on this by fellow Councilmembers and staff and felt it was a move in the right direction. Mr. Lien said the code was brought back to the Council tonight because there was no outlet if a property could not meet the retention requirement. There is no variance that applies to this chapter, there is no process, no reasonable use, etc. Two other items were added, one as an incentive and a cap for properties where the fee -in -lieu gets very high. It is important to address the issue of what happens when the retention Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 15 requirements cannot be met. He suggested Council review the proposed amendments tonight and if they are adopted, they will need to be incorporated into this chapter during the Stage 2 tree code update. At that point, it could go back to the Planning Board for another review along with any other tweaks that need to be made to the development code. Councilmember Distelhorst asked for clarification whether Mr. Lien wanted this section adopted sooner and the other issues reviewed later. Mr. Lien recommended the Council adopt the proposed changes tonight. There needs to be a process for when someone just cannot meet the retention requirements given where the trees are located onsite. The code does a good job of pointing to the conservation subdivision design which allows flexibility in setbacks and lot size and moving things around to retain more trees. The proposed amendment encourages reorganizing the site to retain as many trees as possible and when that is not possible, it allows replanting and a higher penalty if replanting is not done. Section G is an incentive, "If a developer retains 50% of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080 does not apply." He encouraged the Council to at least adopt Section F tonight to address a property unable to meet the retention requirements and if the Council wants to look at it again during the State 2 tree update, this section could be considered again by the Planning Board. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to public comments that implied that these edits allowed for the complete clearing of sites and asked Mr. Lien to respond to that. Mr. Lien said there inay be instances where the trees are located in the area to be developed. It is on the developer/property owner to show that it is infeasible. All development is an iterative process; applications are submitted and staff almost never approves a development application on the first round without comments, 2-5 rounds of comments are not unusual. If a developer/property owner's first approach is to clear-cut the site, staff s answer will be no and a requests to show why retaining trees is infeasible, how they have considered moving things on the site, why the conservation subdivision design does not work, etc. It does not mean there will not be situations where there is a clump of trees on the only flat portion of property. Mr. Taraday agreed with Mr. Lien regarding the overall direction. To his knowledge there was not an ordinance in the packet so at the very least, it would need to come back on Consent for adoption which could happen at the next regular meeting. If the Council is on the fence about whether to pursue that, he offered another possibility; adoption could be in the form of an interim regulation which would ensure it comes back to Council within a six month period before the interim regulation expires. That would give the Planning Board time to comment as some Councilmembers have suggested and the Council could review it again late this year and decide whether to make it a permanent regulation. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out the Council has already passed the tree regulations without these additions, there is already something in place. The Council and staff have worked hard to develop a balanced approach to regulating trees and protecting the canopy within the City. The Council, subcommittee and staff worked hard to develop something balanced that still prioritizes canopy protection. It may not be perfect, but it is stronger than most cities. However, after passing it, it was apparent some were overburdened by it and the subcommittee took that into account and addressed it. If the Council does not make these changes, those individuals remain overburdened. She encouraged Council to consider moving forward on something to address that. There may be other steps that could be taken to make it perfect but these steps need to be taken tonight. Council President Paine, a member of the subcommittee, said this is a good solution for addressing the conditions that have been highlighted. The opportunity to be released from any fee -in -lieu is a decent, workable solution as is the $2/square foot of the parcel which is less than previously discussed. The new definitions define what is feasible or infeasible. As the Council began making amendments before staff completed their presentation, she suggested Mr. Lien and Ms. Hope have the opportunity to finish their presentation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 16 Councilmember K. Johnson referred to 23.10.080 Tree replacement, specifically E.3 and 4 and asked Mr. Lien to estimate the appraised value of a significant tree greater than 24" DBH. Mr. Lien referred to Fee - in -lieu Development Examples, explaining the appraisal depends on the tree, species, location, size. • Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree removed into Tree Fund o Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example o Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees (low $541, high $12,415) o No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund ■ Fee for Replacement trees not planted 0 1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement o $350 per tree beyond 30% • Fee -in -lieu Cap $2 per square foot of lot area Councilmember K. Johnson referred to 23.10.080.E.4, "In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed two dollars per square feet of lot area." She pointed out that would be $87,120 for an acre lot and could be $17,424 for a small lot. Mr. Lien said he applied that to the examples he provided the Council in the past. The reasoning behind the $2/square foot was it was scalable in the RS6, 8, 12 and 20 zones in the City. He displayed examples of the tree fund payment: • New Single Family Development 0 15 trees predevelopment 0 30% retention — 5 trees o Trees retained — 6 trees o Assume plant 3 replacement trees o Tree Fund payment - $25,210 (Cap: $28,228) • Short subdivision — Four Lots 0 41 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention —12 Trees o Trees Retained —13 Trees o Assume 3 Trees/lot —12 Trees o Tree Fund Payment-$67,510 (Cap: $87,676) o Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees — (50% tree retention) — no fee -in -lieu payment Subdivision — Ten Lots 0 90 Trees Predevelopment 0 30% Retention —27 Trees o Trees Retained —20 o Assume 3 Tree/lot —30 o Required replacement trees not planted —74 o Tree Fund Payment-$102,570 (Cap: $173,314) Conservation Subdivision Design o Standard subdivision design a 153 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention —46 Trees ■ Trees Retained —15 Trees ■ Assume 3 Tree/Lot —12 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$346,370 (Cap: $89,584) o With reduced setbacks, lot widths, access easement ■ 153 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention —46 Trees ■ Trees Retained —62 Trees ■ Assume 3 Tree/Lot —12 Trees Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 17 ■ Required Replacement trees not planted —141 ■ Tree Fund Payment - $202,600 (Cap: $89,584) Councilmember K. Johnson commented the conservation subdivision design with the cap is new information that is really important. Mr. Lien said he's shown these examples before, but the cap is new. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a property on Paradise Lane that was clear-cut a few weeks ago. Council President Paine raised a point of order, whether the question was germane to this discussion. Mayor Nelson ruled he would give Councilmember Buckshnis some latitude. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the property on Paradise was not required to retain trees. Mr. Lien said that development started in 2017 so they were vested to the old tree regulations. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES IN 23.10.080 THAT LIMITS THE FEE -IN -LIEU OF PAYMENTS TO NOT EXCEED $2/SQUARE FOOT OF THE LOT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Mr. Lien referred to the new 23.10.080.G, "If a development retains 50% of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080.E does not apply." Councilmember Olson said that amendment would make her really happy. The point is tree canopy and incentivizing pro -environmental behaviors and that is exactly what this does. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for that language. She referred to someone attempting to retain 50% of the trees on their lot, acknowledging that there are still trees lost to development, but nothing like what has occurred so this is a definite improvement. She favored celebrating and encouraging people to reach for that level of retention. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE ITEM G, "IF A DEVELOPMENT RETAINS 50% OF THE SIGNIFICANT TREES ON A SITE, THE FEE -IN -LIEU PROVISIONS OF ECDC 23.10.080.E DOES NOT APPLY." UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mr. Lien pointed out the Council voted on an amendment in F.4.a but not the section itself. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON AND SECONDED TO APPROVE ITEM F, TREE RETENTION PROCEDURES, 1, 2, 3, AND 4 AS AMENDED. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, relaying that she thought the original motion was for all of F since that was what was on the screen. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified her motion was to approve F in its entirety as she was uncertain the Council had voted on it previously. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 18 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE TWO DEFINITIONS REGARDING FEASIBLE AND IMPROVEMENT. Councilmember Olson suggested the amendment include renumbering. Council President Paine commented that was not necessarily required. Council President Paine said adding these definitions strengthened the enforcement aspect of the code. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested including the correction in J as well. Mr. Lien advised that was considered a scrivener's error. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien referred to a proposed amendment to 23.10.060.A, "...The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the a feasible development proposal..." COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 23.10.060.A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien referred to a proposed amendment to 23.10.060.C.1, "General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment exce t as substituted under subsection A A below, shall...". COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 23.10.060.C.1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Hope advised the ordinance will be on a future Consent Agenda for approval. 2. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 4225 PASSED LAST WEEK, AMENDING CHAPTER ADDING JUNETEENTH AS A CITY HOLIDAY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE HER VOTE FROM AN ABSTENTION TO YES. Councilmember K. Johnson explained she was very concerned with many of the process issues which is why she abstained. After further reflection, she could see this was a very important holiday that had been passed at a federal and state level. Therefore, she would like to change her vote to yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating the motion should have been to pass the Juneteenth holiday, noting the motion that was passed was for reconsideration, not regarding the holiday. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said it was not clear to him if the Council intends to readopt the ordinance so it will have a different effective date than the originally adopted motion. Councilmember Olson explained Councilmember K. Johnson simply wanted to change the record to reflect that she was voting yes. Mr. Taraday said the only way that can happen is if the Council has a new vote on Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 19 the item. He was open if someone knew of a different parliamentary procedure to accomplish that; it was beyond his knowledge of Robert's Rules. Normally when the Council changes a vote, it is to change the result. In this case, the result would not change, the ordinance still passes. That is what is different about all the other times that lie could recall when there had been a change to a vote. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in changing the date of the ordinance. She was sorry if Councilmember K. Johnson was not tracking or had other emotions. She recalled instances when Councilmembers have changed their votes at a subsequent meeting and the Council was not required to revote on the item; the Councilmember was simply allowed to change their vote. She observed COlmcilmember Buckshnis was agreeing with her. Mr. Taraday said if what Councilmember Fraley-Monillas described was the will of the Council, the motion would be to change the minutes to reflect that Councilmember K. Johnson voted yes on ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it would be a motion to change her vote and add a note to the minutes that the vote was subsequently changed; the minutes have to reflect the vote that occurred at the meeting. Mr. Taraday said he was not prepared to render an opinion. City Clerk Scott Passey said his off-the-cuff answer would be to pass a motion allowing Councilmember K. Johnson to change her vote to yes. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was not interested in reissuing the resolution. It was significant that the Council passed it before June 19"' and before it was passed by Congress and she did not want to do anything that jeopardized the date of passage. She hoped this could be left unsettled and those who know the ins and outs be allowed to research a possible solution. It may come down to the fact for reasons of frustration, Councilmember K. Johnson chose to prioritize her frustrations over the passage of an ordinance recognizing this holiday and that may need to stand if another suitable solution cannot be found. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO USE A METHOD THAT MR. PASSEY COMES UP WITH TO HAVE THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CHANGED HER VOTE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ABSTAINING. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council is making this more complicated. Basically Councilmember K. Johnson wants to correct a mistake and correct her vote. She recalled an instance when she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pulled Title 20 from the Consent Agenda and changed their votes without changing the date. It is clear Juneteenth will remain the same date and Councilmember K. Johnson wants to change her vote and that will be reflected in the minutes. Mayor Nelson pointed out the Council just voted on how they wanted that accomplished which is potentially different than what Councilmember Buckshnis just described. Mr. Taraday said in researching this during the discussion, he found the following in Robert's Rules regarding changing a vote, a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced (which Mr. Taraday said would have been last week), but afterward to make the change only by the unanimous consent of the assembly requested and granted without debate immediately following the chair's announcement of the vote, (which Mr. Taraday said also would have been last week). It was not clear to him under Robert's Rules that this is a proper process. Mayor Nelson asked how the Council should proceed if the previous motions were improper. Mr. Taraday said the Council can suspect the rules to accomplish its intent. The Council is not bound by Robert's Rules Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 20 and if the Council wants to do something that Robert's says is not procedurally proper, the Council can do that. Councilmember Distelhorst commented the Council has had a robust discussion and still has business to discuss. Everyone has heard it and the minutes will reflect what Councilmember K. Johnson would like to have resolved. He suggested moving on to the rest of the agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas appreciated Councilmember Distelhorst wanting move forward, but did not want the record to be incorrect. Saying this is a mistake is not correct; Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to change her vote, which she felt was fair, but it should be not categorized as a mistake. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to reconsider her vote and vote no on the last motion, finding it nebulous now. The Council either needs to follow Robert's Rules or not. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Buckshnis voted with the prevailing side so she had the right to move for reconsideration of a vote taken during the same meeting. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR RECONSIDERATION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson inquired about the procedure. Mr. Taraday said the underlying motion that passed previously now needs to be voted on again. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the motion was improper and needed to be handled via a different avenue. Mr. Taraday said he read to the Council what he found the most applicable in Robert's Rules regarding changing a vote. It appears a request to change a vote needs to happen immediate after the results are announced and would need the unanimous consent of assembly. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking that the motion be reread. Mr. Passey advised there was no motion on the floor. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she moved for reconsideration of her vote and asked if the motion made by Councilmember Olson was now on the floor. Mr. Taraday said his understanding of a motion for reconsideration is if the motion for reconsideration passes, the Council is forced to vote again on that motion, in this instance, the motion made by Councilmember Olson. Having passed the motion for reconsideration, the Council has basically agreed to vote again on that motion. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: TO DIRECT SCOTT PASSEY TO WORK ON A SOLUTION TO THIS AND COME BACK. Council President Paine relayed her understanding a motion for reconsideration needed to be unanimous. Mr. Taraday clarified Councilmember Olson's motion is on the floor as if had not been voted on yet. The Council now needs to vote on Councilmember Olson's motion. Councilmember Olson restated her motion; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 21 TO HAVE SCOTT PASSEY COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WOULD HAVE IT ALL VOTED AND DONE BASED ON THIS VOTE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IMPOSING A PREREQUISITE ON RESIDENTIAL TENANT EVICTIONS AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY Councilmember Distelhorst explained as Councilmembers knows and some of the public also know, the State's current residential eviction moratorium will expire on June 30"' if the Governor does not take any action. The Governor's remarks on the subject last week were murky and non -committal at best. In Snohomish County, rental assistance is currently available through agencies and organizations, either initiated by a landlord or a tenant, but it takes time and resources to process and distribute those funds. This timing concern was highlighted in a letter from the Snohomish County Council to Governor Inslee when they asked that the eviction moratorium be extended and that letter was subsequently reported on in today's Everett Herald. Councilmember Distelhorst explained last week he drafted and circulated a draft emergency ordinance to put a new eviction moratorium in place. Over the last 90 days in Edmonds, approximately 230 households have requested rental assistance from Volunteers of America (which operates 211), an average of 2.5 households/day requesting assistance in maintaining shelter. Following that draft, he worked with City Attorney Jeff Taraday on legal review of an eviction moratorium. Many other cities in the Puget Sound region have extended moratoriums through September 30"', 3 months from the end of the State's current eviction moratorium. However, the solution developed is a process that attempts to better connect landlords and tenants with resources that are currently available and does not create the liability to the City that an eviction moratorium could potentially create. Councilmember Distelhorst explained this is a compromise; there is a need for rental assistance in Edmonds and residents may be at risk of eviction. Additionally small landlords may not have received the assistance that is currently available to them and that may be available in the coming months with County or State American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. This ordinance promotes the use of available money and possible future money to reach landlords on behalf of tenants to prevent potentially unnecessary evictions. Councilmember Distelhorst displayed the draft ordinance, explaining there are a number of whereas clauses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, largely repetitive based on the eviction moratorium that Council passed prior to the State's eviction moratorium in spring 2020, Ordinance No. 4179. The ordinance also mentions the CARES funding that the City prioritized for rental assistance and housing stability in 2020 as well as publicly available data from Washington 211 who is currently administering rental assistance in Snohomish County. They have open data that includes zip codes and the type of assistance that residents are requesting. Rather than someone being able to directly evict a tenant, a process would be set up with the new Human Services Division in the City's Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department where a form would need to be completed stating they sought rental assistance available to them in the county. The goal is to connect landlords and/or tenants with the money available so people awaiting rental assistance are not evicted. Mr. Taraday explained the idea is there is a lot of money out there, not enough to meet all the need, and the goal of Section A of the ordinance was not to have people unnecessarily evicted if they qualified for resources that are available and may be able to make the landlord whole through those and other resources. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 22 It is a fairly minor procedural step that the City is asking landlords to take before they commence an eviction proceeding. It is ultimately up to the landlord to determine whether those alternative sources are sufficient to cure the tenant's non-payment of rent. The City is not putting itself in the decision -making role of determining whether someone can or cannot be evicted, it is just making landlords go through this extra procedural step to evaluate whether those resources might be sufficient. If ultimately the landlord determines they cannot be made whole through those alternative funding resources and wants to proceed with an eviction, this ordinance would not prevent an eviction from occurring. The ordinance introduces a small procedural step before an eviction can occur. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the ordinance includes an end date of September 30, 2021. Action by Governor Inslee within the next 8 days could render this ordinance moot. However, given that the State eviction moratorium expires in 8 days and the Council does not meet until July and given the need and the number of requests, it was prudent to take an extra step to connect people to available resources. He advised the draft ordinance was provided to Councilmembers. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, FOR APPROVAL. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the minimum that the Council can do to prevent unnecessary evictions and it was a much needed stop gap while money and assistance are disseminated. She was very much in favor of the ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson said this began in spring 2020 and extending it to September was 18 months. She acknowledged the Council did not want anyone to be evicted, but questioned whether small landlords had been able to maintain their rental income and if this unfairly burdened landlords. Given that rental assistance has been available for 13 months, she wanted to be sure that both sides of the equation were considered. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES TO 10:08 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Paine agreed this was the least the Council could do and she encouraged people to call the Governor and ask for at least a 3-week extension to ensure the most vulnerable landlords and tenants get the services they need so there is the least disruption. In response to Councilmember K. Johnson, Councilmember Distelhorst explained this ordinance does not extend the eviction moratorium to 18 months; this is not an eviction moratorium. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained this provides a way for landlords to apply for funding if they are in same position as tenants. She thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for drafting the ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the ordinance will prevent unnecessary evictions which helps both the renter from eviction as well as the landlord to ensure they collect past due rent. She viewed this as the least the Council can do and as the best the Council can offer for both sides given the circumstances. Councilmember Olson expressed support for the ordinance as it is compassionate for both parties, making them aware via a required form of a step that might make things work for all parties. Mr. Taraday advised a unanimous vote is required for immediate effectiveness. The ordinance contains language to the contrary, but it was his recollection that a unanimous vote was required. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 23 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE: BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS To all the 2021 graduates including her graduating daughter Emma, Councilmember L. Johnson said they have all endured a lot over the last year plus, but have persevered. She wished them all congratulations, an incredible summer, and fun making up for all their missed experiences. Councilmember Buckshnis congratulated former Students Saving Salmon Member Alyssa Barnett on the receipt of a four-year scholarship to the University of Washington's Aquatics and Fisheries Science Department. Councilmember Distelhorst extended congratulations to all the grads. He thanked Councilmembers, Mayor and Staff for their work on the eviction ordinance. He wished all a very safe Independence Day, stay cool and watch out for each other during the coming very hot, dangerous weather. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she will not be at the special Council meeting on Thursday regarding the Housing Commission recommendations, but planned to watch the video. When the notice was issued of the June 24"' meeting, she informed Council President Paine that she had another commitment. She reminded the Council was not meeting next week as it is a fifth Tuesday. Council President Paine thanked Councilmembers for getting through the items on the agenda as the Council will not meet next week due to the fifth Tuesday. She looked forward to seeing most Councilmembers at the special meeting on Thursday, June 2411' at 4:30 p.m. Student Representative Roberts encouraged everyone to continue to make safe choices and stay hydrated during the upcoming warm weather. He offered congratulations to all the 2021 graduates, noting their perseverance and resilience have been an example to him this entire year. He encouraged everyone to enjoy the outdoors and to have a Happy Independence Day. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson offered congratulations to his sixth grader who graduated. In recognition of his dad who would listen to NOAA Radio weather forecasts, an excessive heat watch is in effect from Friday afternoon through Monday afternoon according to NOAA; dangerously hot conditions with highs in the 90s and possibly near 100 Saturday and Sunday. According to NOAA, everyone should drink plenty of fluids, stay in air conditioned rooms if possible, stay out of the sun and check up on relatives, neighbors, young children and pets, and do not leave pets in the car. He wished all a wonderful 4"' of July and hoped to see everyone at the parade. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR PASSEY, CITY ERK Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment for 6/22/21 Council Meeting: From: cdfarmen Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 5:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Tree code amendments City Council members, I've been hearing rumblings from others that there may be an attempt to eliminate the 30% tree retention requirement that is in the current tree code, in favor of developers. That would be an absolute disaster for our environment and tree canopy. Isn't there one ounce of concern about clear cutting? Has the housing commission swayed you to lose sight of your responsibility to your electorate? Don't you care about Perrinville Creek and it's headwaters. Don't you understand the creek is in serious trouble? The city has already spent probably close to 2 million dollars to try and fix the creek's drainage problems and more yet with phase 2 of the Seaview Park stormwater project. For those of you who support housing, the developers, and who could care less about our trees, remember who elected you into office. There are a lot more of us out here in the community that want to save our trees and Perrinville Creek than the few on the housing commission. I ask that this effort to allow clear cutting be voted down with a resounding NO vote. It's time to quell your political views and do what the majority of city residents wants you to do ..... save trees..... protect our environment ..... protect Perrinville Creek. Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Kim Bayer Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 4:15 PM To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <pubIiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Monillas, Adrienne<Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 25 <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; LauraJohnson@edmondswa.gov Subject: No Public Comment Allowed at CHC Study Session Susan, I'm so disappointed for the lack of leadership you continue to exhibit as Edmonds City Council President. This latest faux pas of conducting a CHC Study Session prior to in -person meetings is just another example of how you clearly do not value citizen input and open meetings of city government. Here's why many of citizens feel this way: • You are rushing a study session to take place with the city council prior to in -person meetings returning in July. The optics indicate you want to hide behind Zoom meetings which do not allow citizen presence, dialogue and interaction directly with the council as they are discussing these extremely important policy changes that will impact the future of Edmonds • There is no opportunity for citizen input at this study session. This is completely irresponsible considering the controversial issues you will be reviewing and discussing • The organizational chart for the City of Edmonds shows Edmonds Citizens at the top. Why do you and the mayor continue to act as though the city council is running a dictatorship? • Your response in The Edmonds Beacon is completely unacceptable in that you weren't aware citizens were not allowed at this session until the agenda was set. Do you really think we are all that naive? It appears it's just another way to have the block of four manipulate a very transparent agenda You have the ability to change this but, you choose to look the other way and proceed without any effort to right this wrong. We know this closed door meeting is occurring because Shane Hope is leaving and it's your chance to quickly push through the CHC policies to the planning board as swiftly as possible. THE MAJORITY OF CITIZENS IN EDMONDS DO NOT WANT ALL THESE POLICY CHANGES, INCLUDING DADU. Many are open to some of the policies and/or revising some of them; but clearly there is LITTLE TO NO support for up -zoning all of Edmonds, DADU's in all of Edmonds, multi -unit subsidies for developers and an increase in sales tax, not to mention other areas of concern. Please do the right thing and postpone this meeting until citizens can be present. Thank you, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 26 Kim From: Jonathan Milkey Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 3:26 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Jonathan Milkey <JPMilkey@gmail.com> Subject: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Good afternoon, I sent an email to the City Council last Friday. A Council Member responded and in the response mentioned that "most of the bigger recommendations from the Housing Commission are not being evaluated this year". I appreciated the response and I have to say that Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs), cluster/cottage housing and multifamily design standards are also "Big Issues". The potential negative impact to a community, as a result of incremental changes to single family housing, begins as soon as the impacts are underestimated or downplayed before considering citizen input or potentially biasing study session participants/spectators. DADUs/Cottages are simply more houses in a smaller area than are permitted within single family zoning - this is up -zoning. The following information is from the Edmonds Community Development Code. Attached units are allowed within single-family dwellings while preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods. There is a density limitation and its purpose is to ensure that the approval of an accessory unit shall not increase the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. In addition, one of the criteria for an attached unit is regarding location and appearance "The single-family appearance and character of the residence shall be maintained when viewed from the surrounding neighborhood." It appears the current code was written with respect/consideration of the character, density and appearance of the single-family zoning. Increasing housing density in single family areas, even one DADU or cottage at a time, WILL incrementally impact the character and charm of Edmonds —trees/vegetation, reducing open space, increased runoff, wildlife and habitat, more light at night, noise, traffic... If people prefer higher density housing and the issues associated with higher density housing, there are numerous neighborhoods in the area that may be a better fit than Edmonds. Thank you for listening and we are looking forward to in -person meetings! Regards, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 27 Jon and Kelli Milkey From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 1:57 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Cancel June 24th Study Session! To All, Please cancel the June 24th study session and all discussion and decisions about housing proposals until there are in -person meetings and more publicity about proposals. Most people are not aware of what is going on behind the scene. This is our city and we have a right to be informed and involved with all issues, especially this one which would forever harm our quality of life and the charm of our city. (More density, traffic, pollution and noise. Less trees, vegetation, open space and wildlife.) Send out mailings to all citizens, post notices around town and don't proceed until in -person meetings resume! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Erika Will Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 12:17 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: ECHC Discussions City Council Members, I am concerned that the City Council is moving forward with discussing the ECHC housing policy recommendations around rezoning for detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) and cluster/cottage housing on Thursday, but excluding the general public (the BIGGEST STAKEHOLDER) from your discussion by not allowing public comments for Thursdays'session. I see the ECHC Housing Recommendations as something that will have long lasting consequences for all who live in Edmonds, and therefore all who live here should be able to participate in any and all discussions related to this topic. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 28 In a little over 3 weeks city buildings will be reopened and the council will return to in person meetings - only then should such important issues be discussed. As you may know, Edmonds schools are still in session this week, teachers and parents and wrapped up in the flurry of the last week of school and have little to no capacity to get engaged in these issues tonight, or on Thursday, it is truly terrible timing and excludes many young families from your discussions. In my impromptu polling, many parents of younger children in Edmonds have had zero engagement so far in this process, as we have all been stretched to our max this year during the Pandemic. This is not the right time. Wait, and let us all have a say. Thank you, Erika Will From: Larry Williamson Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 11:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Rezone Proposals. June 22, 2021 Dear Edmonds City Council Members: My wife and 1 are Edmonds citizens, residing in a Westgate neighborhood for forty-five years. After we became aware of Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission activities, we have watched with interest all ECHC and relevant Council meetings over the following eleven months. We understand the Council will start discussing the six ECHC housing policy recommendations that would involve rezoning this week. Shane Hope, Director of Development Services, announced that Council will begin with the recommendations around detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) and cluster/cottage housing. Discussion on the four remaining rezoning policy recommendations will continue next year. The thinking is, apparently, that the DADU proposal is comparatively simple and could serve as a stand-alone item to initiate deliberations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 29 I am concerned with an approach where Council may consider these six rezone recommendations one by one, in isolation, over time, possibly adopting them sequentially, without fully working through the total effect several approved policies may have together. Adopting the DADU proposal can add another structure on any/every lot in Edmonds. But the Missing Middle Housing proposal, to be considered next year, can also double the number of living units on any/every lot in Edmonds. If both units in a new duplex can also install a DADU, then the density on a single-family lot increases from one unit to four. It seems far better to consider the six proposals as a group over time, not implementing any rezone changes until a coordinated and coherent overall policy recommendation can be arrived at, one that considers the ramifications of all of the individual proposals acting together. A better approach could be to use the Medium -Density Single Family Housing proposal as a starting point, fleshing it out with attributes from other recommendations, such as the Neighborhood Village and Cluster/Cottage Housing proposals. The Medium -Density option is a more circumspect and prudent proposal, suggesting increased density in appropriate areas, along high -volume transit routes, sited next to business districts, or close to schools or medical complexes. But I think these siting criteria should be applied carefully and narrowly, allowing increased density near college and hospital locations, for example, but not close to any school or medical office in Edmonds. I think Council should avoid adoption of the Missing Middle Housing and DADU proposals that would open any/every lot in Edmonds to increased density. 1 think these two proposals represent what 78% of Edmonds residents disapprove. The rationale for these is enhanced affordability/accessibility, but with DADU costs around $400,000 and duplex prices above that, these goals will not be realized. The subcommittee for Missing Middle Housing never acknowledged nor addressed ECHC concerns about affordability and increased density. Larry Williamson From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 20215:07 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 30 <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing regarding private code amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision - Applicability The June 22, 2021 City Council Agenda Packet, Page 108, states that: "Because the requested code amendment is a Type V legislative decision, the Planning Board first reviewed the change in accordance with ECDC 20.80.020." The link to ECDC 20.03.003 in ECDC 20.80.020.13 (Notice) does not cover Type V. So once again we have a Code error that leaves us wondering what the rules are. If ECDC 20.03.003 does cover Type V - Time of Notice of Public Hearing: Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less than 14 or more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. [Ord. 3817 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.03.004]. Public Notice was published June 9, 2021. June 9th is 13 days before June 22nd. Please make clear representation as to whether timely Notice of this Public Hearing has been provided. If not, please pull this from the agenda and provide timely Notice next time. Furthermore, the May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes include the following: "When this application was submitted, staff felt it reasonable to add two more zones where ground floor multi -residential is an option, the Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone and a few parcels in the Office Residential (OR) zone on Sunset." What staff "feels" is reasonable is irrelevant. This is an application for a "private code amendment" and the application doesn't apply to Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone and o few parcels in the Office Residential (OR) zone on Sunset. Why is staff comingling different legislative processes into one? Please stop. Furthermore, did City Staff take any steps to determine that the citizens of Edmonds want to add two more zones where ground floor multi residential is an option? Finally, I conclude with my public comments made during the February 18, 2020 Public Hearing for an Ordinance amending ECDC unit lot subdivision application procedure (AMD20190005). Please appreciate, it is always the Mayor's DUTY to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced: Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said when it comes to subdivision application procedures, the critical part is enforcement of the laws the City Council adopts. Enforcement of application procedures for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 31 subdivisions should not be contingent upon citizens monitoring applications and ensuring they file an appeal before the 21 day LUPA period expires. Citizens do not have time to monitor subdivision applications to ensure they are complete, consistent and legal; it is mayor's job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. He feared the 21 day LUPA appeal period creates a problem for citizens. Whatever the Council adopts, he recommended strong enforcement of the procedures. From: Ken Reidy <kenreid hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:42 AM To: PUBLICCOMMENTS EDMONDSWA.GOV<PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.G_OV>; publiccomment@edmondswa.gov <a-ubliccomment@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Shane Hope <shane.ho a edmondswa. ov>; Phil Williams <Phil.williams@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <oeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council 2edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Jud a edmondswa. ❑v> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC Ordinance 4210, passed by City Council on December 15, 2020 states that pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing. RCW 36.70A.390 requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on an emergency interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. Therefore, a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 was required by February 13, 2021. Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 by February 13, 2021. Packet Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet did state: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." "Both ordinances" refers to Emergency Ordinances to allow Streateries in ROW(4209) plus the Emergency Ordinance involving Outdoor Dining without CU permit(4210). I haven't had time to research Ordinance 4209 yet but there is reason to fear the required public hearing within at least sixty (60) days did not take place. Ordinance 4209 clearly states it is an "interim zoning ordinance". Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 32 What needs to happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? What a mess. Why was the following included in Ordinance 3992 but not in Ordinance 4210?: "WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption;" Why is holding a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption mentioned in Ordinance 4217 but not mentioned in Ordinance 4210? What a mess. How does this type of thing happen and who is responsible? From: ACE President Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 8:51 PM To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Teresa Wippel <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>; Edmonds Beacon Editor <edmondseditoryourbeacon@gmail.com>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Agenda Packet for 6/24 special meeting on council calendar only has cover page as of 8:30pm on Monday night 6/21 Good evening council president Paine, I see the agenda and the packet links for the 6/24 "special meeting" have been uploaded on the city calendar and upon opening it, the Agenda Packet is just the same as the 1 page Agenda with no packet of actual information. It is 8:30pm on Monday, June 21 before the June 24 meeting. Wow, That was unexpected for such a critical housing policy review process that is to take place at 4:30pm in a few short days. I would think with a 2+ hour meeting scheduled this Thursday, it would take time for the council and the interested public to do the reading and get properly prepared for this meeting, now with only a few days to prepare and with no packet of information to actually review. It seems this is just adding even more to valid public concerns, with this omission of necessary public information showing an alarming lack of council president and administration preparation. It looks like this has been a hastily arranged "study session" with the expectation that we will just be told what to believe. How could you study the information literally a day and a half after your council meeting tomorrow night (if you even get it posted tomorrow) and say you are ready to participate and be able to ask questions/get resources you need ready, etc? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 33 With all of this public concern over the optics and the shutting off of any public engagement portion, along with a clear lack of time for a proper publicly -available presentation packet to be reviewed, you should strongly consider cancelling this "special meeting". I am actually not even going to put any of this on Director Hope, as I know she works very hard and has an incredible amount of work that is put on her to complete in a fraction of time, when it should be given much more gravitas by the group that hurried this "study session" in the first place. Please do the best for your citizens and fellow councilmembers and delay this special meeting until Edmonds' residents can meet in public with proper notice given (which this did not have), with a timely available public Agenda Packet (which this did not provide), and offer the chance to have the citizens' live questions answered at a time when most people who work and have kids can attend (which 4:30pm does not). This is clearly not going to be a productive meeting for anyone. Sincerely, Dr. Michelle Dotsch Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) President From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 7:06 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 City Council Meeting The June 1, 2021 City Council agenda packet claims that: On January 25, 2021, the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct by motion. Why wasn't this done by Resolution? Is a clean copy of the new Code of Conduct displayed on the City's website? Does the new Code of Conduct state that "Councilmembers shall focus discussions and debates on vision, policies, and their implementation"? During the June 15, 2021 Council Meeting, Councilmember L. Johnson said out of curiosity, she looked at the minutes from August 19, 2014 when the Salary Commission was disbanded in the past and found Councilmembers Buckshnis and K. Johnson voted in favor of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 34 disbanding. (Despite Councilmember L. Johnson's "curiosity", she would later have to admit she got it wrong.) Councilmember Diane Buckshnis raised a Point of Order. Mayor Nelson ruled that Councilmember Buckshnis' Point of Order was not taken. After Councilmember L. Johnson's June 15, 2021 comments, City Council voted to adopt a new Ordinance disbanding the Salary Commission. AFTER that vote, Councilmember L. Johnson corrected the record: in the August 19, 2014 minutes, Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voted in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission and Councilmember K. Johnson voted against. Nobody made a motion to reconsider the vote, even though the vote took place AFTER Councilmember L. Johnson represented false information and the vote took place BEFORE Councilmember L. Johnson corrected the record. I assume Councilmember L. Johnson's false comment was relied on by voters as Mayor Nelson ruled that bringing up past repeals was relevant. Is all the conduct discussed above allowed under the new Code of Conduct adopted by motion during the January 25, 2021 Council Meeting? Please answer and please explain the reasons for your answer. When and how did Mayor Nelson and Council President Susan Paine "confer" after the June 1, 2021 Agenda was approved near the start of the June 1, 2021 City Council meeting? Why did they decide to move "Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedures" to a Future Meeting? Why should I even have to ask these questions? Should not all business of the Governing Body be conducted openly? Was this type of conduct addressed in Open Public Meeting Act training for Elected Officials? As these acts have taken place, what will be done about it? Anything, or are these rules and codes just empty words on paper? Edmonds likes to claim it welcomes all people. How is refusing to answer reasonable citizen questions "welcoming"? The last email response I received from an Edmonds Mayor was in March of 2012. I believe I have asked hundreds of reasonable questions over the last nine plus years. Do all Edmonds elected officials welcome all people? Please be truthful. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:43 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 35 Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC Ordinance 4210, passed by City Council on December 15, 2020 states that pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing. RCW 36.70A.390 requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on an emergency interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. Therefore, a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 was required by February 13, 2021. Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 by February 13, 2021. Packet Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet did state: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." "Both ordinances" refers to Emergency Ordinances to allow Streateries in ROW(4209) plus the Emergency Ordinance involving Outdoor Dining without CU permit(4210). I haven't had time to research Ordinance 4209 yet but there is reason to fear the required public hearing within at least sixty (60) days did not take place. Ordinance 4209 clearly states it is an "interim zoning ordinance". What needs to happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? What a mess. Why was the following included in Ordinance 3992 but not in Ordinance 4210?: "WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption;" Why is holding a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption mentioned in Ordinance 4217 but not mentioned in Ordinance 4210? What a mess. How does this type of thing happen and who is responsible? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 22, 2021 Page 36