The URL can be used to link to this page

Cmd032922 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HYBRID SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 29, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Susan Paine, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Paine. Mayor Nelson requested a moment of silence for Tyler Steffins, an off-duty Edmonds police officer who was murdered on Saturday. 4. PRESENTATION 1. WRIA-8 PRESENTATION Councilmember Buckshnis introduced Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, WRIA-8. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak to the council about the collaborative salmon recovery effort in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 2 the watershed in which Edmonds is a strong partner. He recognize Councilmember Buckshnis, Edmonds’ representative to the WRIA-8 Salmon Recovery Council. He reviewed: • Map of salmon in the watershed o Most populated watershed in the State with over 30 jurisdictions o Working to recover Chinook salmon primarily and focusing on both adult fish coming back to the watershed and juvenile fish that leave the watershed; in both fresh water systems of lakes and streams within the watershed (dotted blue on map) as well as the marine nearshore environment which is of particular interest to Edmonds where juvenile fish migrate as they make their way into Puget Sound and out to the Pacific Ocean o Goal: Recover harvestable, sustainable Chinook Salmon populations to achieve tribal treaty right fisheries as well as recreational fisheries o Although focus is on Chinook salmon, their efforts benefit other species as well such as coho or silver salmon and a unique species of landlocked salmon, the Lake Sammamish Kokanee • Predevelopment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 3 • Today • Proving ground for whether salmon and people can live together o Central Puget Sound population is currently about 4 million and projections are for another 1.8 million by 2050 o Salmon recovery deals with impacts of development o Make communities more sustainable and resilient ▪ Climate change ▪ Restoring river floodplains and shoreline and water quality • Chinook Recovery o 1999 Chinook salmon listed as threatened under Endangered Species Act o Local government partnership o Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan o Governance ▪ Interlocal Agreement ▪ Salmon Recovery Council: 29 local governments, tribes, federal & state agencies, nonprofits, businesses, citizens o Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council • What are our priority actions? o Habitat restoration ▪ Restore river floodplains ▪ Increase wood in streams ▪ Replace armored shorelines with beaches, wood, and native plants ▪ Remove invasive species and plant trees to restore streamside/riparian areas ▪ Restore stream connections to Puget Sound along marine nearshore ▪ Create cold water refuge in temperature impacted areas o Public education and outreach o Land use recommendations o Research and monitoring o Diversity, equity, and inclusion • Integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion in salmon recovery o Revised grant funding applications and review criteria to strengthen DEI principles and outcomes • Special projects/efforts o Developing public-private partnership to fund critical Ballard Locks infrastructure repairs o Addressing Ship Canal temperature to improve salmon survival o State/federal legislative priorities • Restoring stream connections to Puget Sound Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 4 o Edmonds Marsh Restoration and daylighting Willow Creek o Meadowdale Beach and Estuary Restoration (constructed by late 2022) Council President Olson commented this presentation was very timely; the council has had a lot of conversations about salmon recovery in the context of the PROS Plan. One of the topics of discussion was whether the same funding sources are used for parks and park acquisition versus salmon recovery. She asked it was true that there were additional funding sources not available for other uses if salmon recovery was involved, so projects are not competing for the same General Fund dollars. Mr. Mulvihill- Kuntz answered there are specific state and federal funds directed toward salmon recovery efforts that are focused on watershed priority areas. The group will be prioritizing funding investments through state and federal grant programs toward priorities in the salmon recovery plan for the watershed, funding sources specific to salmon recovery habitat restoration efforts. The sources can sometimes be the same such as in the case of the Meadowdale Beach project, there is a county park there so Snohomish County was able to access both funding sources, park related funding as well as salmon habitat restoration funds. Council President Olson referred to prioritizing projects, and asked if things attached to Puget Sound were given higher priority and if so, why. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered they use a salmon lifecycle model to focus on areas of the watershed that are critical for the specific life stages of the fish they want to provide habitat for. They focus on restoring river floodplains because that is a critical habitat area for salmon as they come back to spawn. Juvenile fish coming out of the rivers migrating to the ocean need a different kinds of habitat which is the reason the marine shoreline habitat is a high priority for restoration. Council President Olson referred to Lake Ballinger, which is partially located in Edmonds, and asked if there was salmon recovery opportunity there or was it not on the same par as what could be done at the marsh or the creeks that go into Puget Sound. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered he was not as familiar with Lake Ballinger, but it is not a place Chinook salmon would go with any frequency so it is not a priority habitat area for Chinook salmon which is WRIA-8’s focus. It may be a habitat area for other species like coho which utilize different streams than Chinook. WRIA-8 would not direct the funding sources they administer to projects in Lake Ballinger because it is not a high priority for WRIA-8. Councilmember Tibbott asked how committed Washington State is to restoring habitat on Puget Sound. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz said he was pleased to say it has become an even higher priority in the last couple years. During the last legislative session, the governor updated the State strategy for salmon recovery and put forward a proposal for investing $180 million to support salmon recovery priorities statewide. Not all of that was funded by the legislature, but it demonstrated the governor’s strong commitment to salmon recovery. Part of that is recognizing the critical tribal treaty right that salmon provide and recognizing the State needs to invest in work that will support meeting that obligation to the tribal communities. WRIA-8 has tribal priorities in salmon recovery that are committed to getting to recovery and harvestable levels. It is a high priority, but there are competing needs around the State. The shoreline has always been a priority, and is probably even more of a priority now; the Tulalip tribes and other researchers have highlighted the value of coastal stream mouths where they enter Puget Sound and the importance of restoring those spots along the marine nearshore. There is a lot of investment going into removing bulkheads and promoting softer shoreline alternatives in the marine nearshore. It is a strong priority but there could always be more resources and investment. Councilmember Tibbott said the reason he asked was because the City is making a significant commitment to shoreline restoration and watershed improvements and would like to think the State was doing a significant amount to help with that work. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz said the federal government is another strong partner. When Senator Cantwell visited, he mentioned the goal of two projects in the nearshore for restoration and that that would be really challenging and she questioned doing just two, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 5 saying that more needed to be done. He summarized there are strong partners in the congressional delegation as well. Councilmember K. Johnson said she have been very interested in this subject for as long as she has been on Council, about 10 years. During that time, the City has been waiting for the Unocal property to get cleaned up. She asked if the City should wait until the property is cleaned up and the ownership transferred from Unocal to WSDOT and hopefully to Edmonds, or should the City get started now putting materials together for the grant application. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz said that was a challenging question, recognizing there was a lot of risk the City would need to consideration in taking on a property like that in its current state. From WRIA-8’s perspective, they would love to see the City explore the more comprehensive, multiple benefit type project in that area to maximize the habitat potential of the marsh. He was hesitant to suggest moving forward until the City knew what the full footprint might look like. WRIA-8 worked with the City early on and what they heard from the state review partners was it did not do enough, it was too small in scope, too narrowly focused and did not have enough opportunity for restoration to make it a strong investment for salmon recovery. They encouraged the City to consider the broader opportunity, the more comprehensive opportunity that exists that would require waiting for that property to be available for acquisition and made part of the project. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that the previous application was related to a very narrow channel for Willow Creek. The City hopes to have a more comprehensive braided channel that goes through the entire marsh. She was chomping at the bit because she wanted this to happen, but it was a very slow process. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz agreed it was a slow process and WRIA-8 is equally chomping at the bit, but there are complications due to the status of the property. Councilmember K. Johnson recognized the contamination level on the property is another complication. Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about the status of culvert removal, relaying there is a very large culvert under Talbot Road that prevents fish passage on Perrinville Creek. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered culvert removal and fish passage barrier removal have become high priorities in part because of the culvert case that the tribes brought against the State and the Supreme Court case decision, basically telling the State they needed to fix culverts. The State has made a significantly increased investment as have local governments and the federal infrastructure bill provides funds that focus specifically on fish passage. There has been a lot of work done to prioritize and inventory barriers at the State level which is being coordinated with existing local government databases to ensure efforts are coordinated and ensure the sequence makes sense to open habitat for fish. That is an area where there has been significant investment recently. He did not know the status of specific barriers in the watershed; there are not a lot of barriers for Chinook salmon in the watershed so WRIA-8 is not as active in identifying barriers for removal and repair as other places that have barriers for Chinook. However, there are a lot of barriers for coho migration that would be important to consider removing so they can access habitat. Councilmember K. Johnson commented Perrinville Creek is just south of Meadowdale Creek and would be something important to look at as there is only one culvert. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz said that makes it a lot easier. Places where coastal streams enter Puget Sound such as a failing culvert under the railroad which could support juvenile salmon would be important as would be upstream culverts owned by the city, county or state. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Hershel had been removed from the Ballard Locks. Mr. Mulvihill- Kuntz Hershel answered Hershel is probably no longer there but some of his cousins are. Predation by marine animals has become a big issue again; the number of salmon coming back has dwindled so much that when they queue up to get through the Ballard Locks in the ship canal, the harbor seals and sea lions see an easy meal. It is amazing to watch although disheartening for those in the salmon recovery business. Tribes have identified the growth of marine mammal populations in recent years and are pushing for ways Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 6 to reduce that predation on fish. WRIA-8 has dabbled in supporting acoustic based technology that tries to startle the marine mammals out of the area so they do not have access to the fish, but its effectiveness is still being tested. Councilmember L. Johnson said she enjoyed her time as an alternate on WRIA-8 in 2020 and learned a lot, including that the majority of WRIA-8’s focus is King County. Edmonds has been a member of WRIA-8 since its inception. She asked the annual funding availability and what projects within Edmonds have been supported with grants to date. With regard to future grant funding potential, the project WRIA- 8 lists for Edmonds is daylighting of Willow Creek and downstream from the Edmonds Marsh which she believed was within Marina Beach. She asked, if the City secured $1 million from another grant program, could that have been used as a match for a WRIA-8 grant. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered WRIA-8 has several different grant programs; state and federal funding of approximately $450,000/year and an additional $1.8 million every other year that can be spent anywhere in the watershed including in Snohomish County. That would be the funding source for any projects in Edmonds and was the source of grants that WRIA-8 awarded to the Meadowdale project. WRIA-8 also has local grant funds provided through the King County Flood Control District, approximately $3.7 million/year, but unfortunately that source can only be spent within the King County boundary of the watershed. When projects come forward for funding, the best funding source is considered and unfortunately the amounts available for projects in Snohomish County are more limited. With regard to if the City had $1 million for the marsh and daylighting of Willow Creek that were not salmon recovery dollars, could that be used as a match for WRIA-8 grants, he said absolutely. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about projects that have been funded to date in Edmonds and the amount. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered there have been at least two grants focused on early feasibility work related to the marsh restoration project. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a study she read recently about nature preserves in Belgium that found dog urine levels are being deposited in nature reserves in such quantities that it is likely to be damaging to wildlife. She asked about concerns related to high levels of dog urine and potential negative impacts on salmon recovery efforts. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz said he not heard that to be a problem in this area. There are pet waste scoop laws due to the impact of pet waste on Puget Sound recovery in general and water quality. From what he knows of the effect on salmon, it does not have a huge impact on salmon, it is more for the general water quality of Puget Sound, nutrients and shellfish. He did not think it was a huge problem for salmon recovery. Councilmember L. Johnson offered to send him the study. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the $400,000 grant in 2013-2014 was related to hydrology. She complimented Congressman Rick Larsen who helped get $3.5 million awarded to Mountlake Terrace for Lake Ballinger restoration which will include Hall Creek which might help whatever salmon are in Lake Ballinger. She also complimented Jack Ferris who has been helping with the Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery Council WRIA-8 pilot project related to restoration at the Ballard Locks, noting a catastrophic failure at the Ballard Locks could create serious issues. She referred to the earlier question about the $1 million grant, noting the design did not include Willow Creek. Councilmember Chen wondered whether there were opportunities for combining flooding problems on Perrinville Creek with projects for salmon. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered yes for the City, looking at multiple benefit opportunities to address a stormwater flooding issue and habitat restoration in one project. With the funding that WRIA-8 has available, they would not be able to fund that part of the project but would fund the project as whole, focused on the habitat restoration components related to the marsh that benefit juvenile Chinook. Beyond the marsh, juvenile Chinook do not access those areas; WRIA-8’s grant resources are focused on Chinook salmon such as marsh restoration and downstream to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 7 the marine nearshore outflow to Puget Sound. Councilmember Chen observed projects would require coordination. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz agreed and encouraged comprehensive thinking around multiple benefit projects where the City can meet multiple needs and create benefits as part of one project. Councilmember Chen referred Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz’s comments that Lake Ballinger would not be eligible for WRIA-8 funds. He asked if that decision was already made or were studies conducted to reach that decision. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz answered there is a lot of technical basis, science and conservation hypothesis done as part of the development of the watershed’s Chinook recovery plan to identify priority habitats and which streams and areas of the watershed to focus on for habitat restoration. Lake Ballinger and the streams that outflow from it are not utilized by Chinook salmon in a way that would make it high priority for investment. There is important work to be done related to water quality and reducing flashy flows from stormwater runoff, but not related to habitat restoration work for Chinook salmon that WRIA- 8 provides resources for. He summarized Lake Ballinger is not a high priority location because Chinook salmon are not actively using it. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding of Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz’s comments that as far as WRIA-8’s work, Lake Ballinger does not have the same priority as the Edmonds Marsh with regard specifically to Chinook Salmon. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed if one were to look at Edmonds holistically, would he say that Lake Ballinger is a priority area for other aspects related to environment protection. She wanted to emphasize that he was not saying that Lake Ballinger was not a priority as a whole but with regard to Chinook salmon, it was not WRIA-8’s highest priority. Mr. Mulvihill-Kuntz agreed, from the work being done to recover Chinook salmon, Lake Ballinger is not a priority area for their focus. WRIA-8’s focus for Chinook salmon recovery is the marine nearshore part of Edmonds. For the City, thinking about its environmental priorities, there are many other areas of value and importance. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE ORDER OF ITEMS 8.2, SALARY COMMISSION REINSTATEMENT, AND 8.3, ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 ECDC RELATED TO ADDRESSES FOR USE IN MAILED NOTICE. Council President Olson observed staff was present regarding Item 8.1 and it would be to their benefit to have those items sequential. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, a resident of the 2nd floor at 600 Bell where the entire side of her condo will be facing the proposed wall, speaking for herself and her neighbors who are not comfortable speaking publicly, said the proposed project is above all about density and high density is the elephant in the room. The City is not addressing this on this project and may be encouraging it. The outdated zoning and comprehensive plan are not slated to be addressed until maybe 2024. Two of Mayor Nelson’s 2022 priorities for the City are making Edmonds more livable and accessible and to improve public safety. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 8 moratorium is a thinly veiled attempt to appease the public outcry, it is very narrowly focused, doesn’t address multifamily design standards, only addresses materials, private amenity space and streetside space or pedestrian areas on or around Main and not on the alley which is not enough and is another win for the developer who can use the rooftop deck as 50% of the amenity space and charge more for views whereas the adjacent condo gets a wall in front of them. She invited councilmembers to visit on a weekend day and envision what they will have to contend with. There is a survey marker in front of the garbage container; imagine an enormous building with a 40-foot solid flat wall against the entire length her condo between 23 and 25 feet from her windows, no privacy, no direct sunlight or view of life that she now has in abundance. With regard to safety, Ms. Fireman stated her garage is 18 inches below the alley grade; the garbage enclosure has been lifted up to meet the alley grade and obscures her vision. Backing up the incline, there is no visibility until fully in the alley, the wall is 15 feet away. The same will be true for this proposed building, drivers will be unable to see until they are in the alley and a mirror will not help. Cars park too close to both sides of the narrow alley entrance, both on 6th and 7th, obstructing visibility and cars are unable to pass in the alley without a setback. Now with warm weather approaching, more vehicles and pedestrian with small children will be coming up and down on weekends and holidays. The 4th of July parade and fireworks, the Taste, the alley is blocked by the City resulting in more pedestrians. The arts festival and walkable weekends result in traffic jams and vehicles blocking turns at 6th and more bottlenecks at their alley entrance. The City said no loading zone is required on Main and no setbacks; she anticipated moving trucks blocking the alley for hours and compromising safety. The alley is a public right-of-way and not a private parking lot. She fears this building will be approved and they will be the sacrificial lambs and their property values will plummet. She asked the council to stop the development, it is too high density and if not, reduce it by 50%, require setbacks on the alley and fix the zoning and comprehensive plan so this doesn’t happen again. James Martin, Edmonds, a resident on Alder Street, said Edmonds has many well-done features. He referred to Linda Fireman’s letter to the editor in My Edmonds News, commenting if there are concerns, the time to make comments is before decisions are made, not after so he hopes his comments are timely. He was familiar with the property near the corner of 6th & Main, commenting Ms. Fireman has a lot of valid points. He has never met Ms. Fireman other than reading her letter, bringing this subject to his attention. All the other properties on that alley seem to have setbacks so he suggested the council consider that all those other property owners complied with the requirement for setback and asked why the City would grant a variance for this location. He understood variance were appropriate at times, but it depends on the location, timing and type of variance. If this building has no setback and comes up to the alley. It will cause a serious problem for people exiting the condo garages as well as for traffic in the alley. He hoped the City and council consider Ms. Fireman’s comments, the subject and the traffic and make the right decision for Edmonds for all time. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said on March 2, 2022, the city attorney gave quasi-judicial training to the architectural design board. During the training, he spoke of ex-parte communication, Anderson v. the City of Issaquah and some generally scary things that made him think members took a bit of risk being on the ADB. He understood the City was having a hard time finding ADB members. He wondered why this went to the ADB as the first step in the process. The staff report states a subsequent lot line adjustment would be necessary to combine the two parcels into a single lot for construction of the apartment building and asked why that wasn’t the required first step and why the ADB was spending time and taking on risk looking at a development that might not happen if the lot line adjustment was never approved or successfully appealed. He questioned why gaps were identified in the code that required a moratorium; the need for a code rewrite has been discussed since at least 2006 and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been budgeted for it, yet there are gaps in the code in 2022 that require a 2-month moratorium. Next, regarding the salary commission, the June 8, 2021 meeting minutes indicate a councilmember commented Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 9 there was an equity issue on council related to the salary because it makes it difficult for people who are working or who have children to participate. The restated motion the council passed 4-3 was to not reconvene the salary commission and leave the next 6-7 months to work on what equity would look like with the HR director leading and council participating. He found no evidence that anything whatsoever was done over the next 6-7 months so he requested someone provide an explanation as to why the salary commission was disbanded; it had active members whose terms had not expired. Now the council is planning to reinstate the salary commission when nothing was ever done regarding equity issues or anything else. Finally, he expressed support for council continuing to allow written public comments printed in the public record. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said until parks can be brought to people without access, she recommended bringing people to parks via free weekend transit to Edmonds parks. Second, she said Edmonds’ tree canopy has increased 117.6 acres since the 2017 canopy report that used the same lidar technology as this month’s report, showing that the 2017 regulations were successful. With 34.6% tree canopy, 5% over goal, there is no justification for the emergency taking of private property. Edmonds 2019 urban forest management plan suggests a property tax rebate for those who retain more than the required 30% of trees to compensate owners for tree retention. Instead, Edmonds has taken, then charges owners for tree rights that all previous home owners have legally benefited from. Edmonds has taken possession of 100% of the trees over 24” in diameter on all vacant properties, forcing owners to pay the City $3,000 to $12,000 for rights to each tree before removal to build needed homes. Edmonds then denies owners the rights to all remaining trees on their property by labeling them City protected trees. Even new owners will not have the rights to their trees. Edmonds is illegally taking property without just compensation, demanding hundreds of thousands to restore only partial property rights back to owners. U.S. laws are specifically written to prevent Edmonds’ type of theft. The tree ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution’s 5th and 14th amendments takings clause, Washington Growth Management Act and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, for a year she has asked council to rescind the illegal tree ordinance with no response. She wondered if it would take a class action lawsuit for Edmonds to obey the law and stop the theft of property. Third, she said mandating that electric vehicle charging stations be installed in all new or existing homes when remodeled or repaired is wrong. Everyone goes to gas stations for fuel or public charging stations to recharge. Home charging stations are an optional convenience, an extra added to a home like an additional bathroom. Forcing homeowners who do not want or need one to pay thousands for new electrical wiring is governmental overreach for an unnecessary convenience. Fourth, Edmonds School District is teaching kindergarten students that they may not be boys or girls; teaching compassion for the less than 1% affected with gender dysphoria who are at 50% increased risk of drug addiction and suicide is good. Teaching all young children that they may have gender dysphoria is governmental overreach; parents should chose the appropriate age for that discussion. She respectfully asked Edmonds government to stay off their property, out of their homes and away from their children’s gender. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said the PROS Plan has not been adopted and there has been a lot of lobbying on how environmental priorities could and should be included in the plan. Citywide environment priorities should be set through support from City staff, shared knowledge and a transparent public process with advertised times to participate and citizen engagement that is representative of the diversity and geography of the City. The process that is proposed, having a short-term advisory group set environmental policy, is not inclusive and will seek to undermine the public engagement and feedback obtained through the PROS Plan process. She referred to the opportunity provided WRIA-8 to speak and asked why the council representative to the Ballinger Forum has not organized a presentation from Mountlake Terrace on the recent grant funding received for salmon enhancement. She asked where the experts were to discuss public health and the effect of breathing particulate and diesel fuel emissions, water quality, climate change, and other habitat experts to best understand all facets of the environment as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 10 the City weighs its open space investment opportunities. The council is not being even handed in deciding who has access to decision makers with the opportunity to discuss resources. She questioned what outcome citizens should expect if the council only chooses to receive a presentation from one group with their perspective, and given these actions, what assurance could the council provide her that the advisory group would be conducted in a more inclusive or equitable than who was afforded the opportunity to speak tonight. Ms. Seitz continued, the potential benefit of investment is only half the equation; there are still timeline costs and risks. Using Meadowdale as a proxy, it is not a contaminated site and smaller, $16 million for construction, 58% funded by Snohomish County taxpayers and 42% grant funded, a small fraction from WRIA-8. The budget and grant funding targets the City has set for the marsh are not realistic. Mountlake Terrace secured more for salmon enhancement than WRIA-8 has provided to Edmonds. She has proposed a path forward that could be equitable, inclusive and cause no harm to the marsh group other than that the processes and priorities would have to be public and inclusive. The City got the service analysis and the inclusive feedback from the PROS Plan process that sought to include multiple languages in underserved communities. It has been the council’s choice not to invite other groups to present tonight. She encouraged the City to have an inclusive public process to decide environmental priorities, afford everyone, all residents of Edmonds but especially the more than 2,000 who participate in the survey and community meetings whose voices will be silenced and subverted with this effort, the opportunity to tell the City what they value most in the environment. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 7.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL/RETREAT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2022 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT ITEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.5) Councilmember K. Johnson said she pulled this because she wanted to vote against it. The electric vehicle charging infrastructure standards were based on Denver, Colorado, and were not compatible with Edmonds multifamily development. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 11 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY-ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged that, 1) there is a housing affordability issue in Edmonds, 2) the comprehensive plan supports a variety of housing types including multifamily development in the downtown activity center, and 3) in the interest of seeing successful multifamily development, it is critical that there are design standards to support that. The proposed interim design standards are intended to fill the gap for multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. Staff welcomes council feedback on the interim design standards. Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: • Moratorium Ordinance 4247: o “The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to draft interim zoning regulations for the BD2 zone that would change the required setback for properties that do not front on a Designated Street Front.” o This was NOT a comprehensive look at the BD zones or multifamily design standards • Downtown Business Zones o BD1 – Retail Core o BD2 – Mixed Commercial o BD3 – Convenience Commercial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 12 o BD4 – Mixed Residential o BD5 – Arts Corridor • Designated Street Front (identified by blue line on above map) Standards o Commercial and mixed-use building o 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial o Floor height minimums o Transparency and access at sidewalk o Detail at ground level o Multifamily allowed behind 45 feet or above • BD2 parcels without Designated Street Front (on the edges of the BD2 zone, transition between the core and typically multifamily residential or single family residential) o Small area on Main Street, small area on 2nd Avenue a few parcels up 3rd and 2nd Avenues and two parcels on Sunset. o Two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property • Comprehensive Plan: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. ▪ E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi-family residential uses • Comprehensive Plan: Downtown Design Goals and Policies o Vehicular access and parking o Pedestrian access and connections o Building setbacks o Building/site identity o Massing • Proposed design standards o Materials ▪ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street-side amenity space ▪ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ▪ Plan view – Street-side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ▪ Section Cut – Street Facing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 13 - Street-side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street-side amenity space o Private amenity space ▪ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the façade and increases ‘eyes on the street’ thereby improving safety ▪ Plan View – Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a rooftop deck ▪ Section Cut – Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5’ into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10’ Mr. Clugston explained the goal tonight, if the council is satisfied with the proposed standards, is to adopt the ordinance in the packet as Exhibit 3 referencing Exhibit 2, the new standards that would be applied to Chapter 23.43. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had a problem with the BD zones having no commercial; in her opinion adding these high density properties was ruining the downtown area because, in her opinion, the BD2 zone was mixed commercial, not residential. The council should look at all the BD zones because she did not understand how the downtown area, which should service small business, is suddenly becoming more dense and apartment blocks. She questioned allowing straight up residential in a BD zone with no mixed use at all. Ms. McLaughlin answered the code allows solely multifamily developments in the BD2 when not adjacent to the blue lines (designated street front) on the map. It is meant to be a transitional space, in an urban development transect, the retail commercial core allows for some residential but predominantly active storefronts on the ground level. This area was always intended to be a transitional zone where it will transition to residential only. The parcels on the edges of BD2 are where that transition is occurring. She acknowledged there could be philosophical differences regarding that. Mr. Clugston agreed the code specifically allows it. He was not employed by the City when the code was adopted in 2006/2007, but these are transitional area on the outside edge of the BD2 zone and the feeling was while it could be mixed use, they could also be just multifamily based on their location relative to the BD1 zone around the fountain. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood transitional zones, but she wondered how those areas of BD2 were selected and did not go further into 6th or further up to Bell. In her opinion, the City needed to unwind all the BD zones; it is important to keep businesses in the downtown area thriving and not have high density buildings. She relayed a citizen’s question about whether the two lots have different setbacks and his feeling it should not have gone to the ADB due to the lot differentiation. Mr. Clugston said prior to adoption of the BD zones, this area was zoned community business (BC). When the different BD zones were developed, the intent was to apply them to the types of development that were there at the time, understanding that most of the commercial area will be around the fountain and radiating out, with transition spaces at the furthest edges. That is what this proposal is trying to address. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 14 Ms. McLaughlin cautioned about not getting into specifics about the project that is under review. She clarified there is no variance proposed for that project. Mr. Clugston explained all the development codes have to be met; the City’s variance criteria are very restrictive, primarily related to parcels with environmental constraints. Virtually nowhere else has a variance been granted in the 15 years he has been at the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there are two different properties. Mr. Clugston explained they are both zoned BD2 with the exact same development standards. The only difference is the eastern side of the site is adjacent to multifamily residential which requires a 15’ setback. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that 15’ setback was still required. Mr. Clugston answered it was. Councilmember Tibbott asked what the setback from the lot lines was for BD2; he understood there was 5% for the front and asked if there was a setback requirement for the side or rear. Mr. Clugston answered there are zero setbacks from any lot line in the BD2 zone whether street, side or rear. The only setbacks that exist for these parcels are when they are adjacent to R zoned property which requires a 15’ setback. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long that setback standard had been in effect. Mr. Clugston answered since 2007 when the code was adopted. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would take to extend the blue lines. As the downtown fills up and commercial businesses thrive when there are other good, viable strong commercial businesses around them, it seems that more commercial space would add to the vibrancy of the downtown. It has been 15 years since those standards were adopted, it may be necessary to extend the blue lines. Ms. McLaughlin answered that certainly should be considered in the scoping for the comprehensive plan update. Given that the downtown activity center is such a robust commercial retail and residential center, the City needs to analyze commercial demands, the future of retail, as well as multifamily design standards coupled with how to meet housing needs. Mr. Clugston commented there have been about 6-7 redevelopment projects since these codes were adopted in 2006/2007. The pace of turnover is very small for a number of reasons. The developer could have proposed a mixed use building for this site but chose not to, believing that residential made more sense than mixed use. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the areas on the edges of the BD2 without Designated Street Front that have been filling in and said there may be opportunities to extend the vibrant business life. He asked if there were any ingress/egress parking standards in BD2, and if so, what were they and what provisions were made to go from a garage to an alley or from a parking lot to a public street. Mr. Clugston said the code does not want access onto the main streets and to have residents use the alley as much as possible. Buildings that do propose to use the alley need to ensure that access can occur safely. Ensuring that access occurs in a safe manner is reviewed with every with building permit. If a building went up to the rear lot line, Councilmember Tibbott asked if turning radius inside the building would be required, wide enough garage doors for sight distance, etc. Mr. Clugston referred to the post office where there is a gap in the wall from one of the drive aisles to allow drivers to see pedestrian on the sidewalks, or sometimes mirrors are used. There are a number of different ways that can be addressed. Councilmember Tibbott observed those standards are already in the code. Mr. Clugston agreed they were. Council President Olson said the overriding reason for standards is to protect other properties in the area, other homeowners in the area and the community as a whole. She thanked staff for this proposal which addressed something that was lacking and what they have brought forward makes a difference and will help with projects that fall into this gap. However, two significant things were not addressed that she hoped could be addressed, first the issue of accommodating loading/unloading on the property. This is 24 units that will have regular turnover, whether it is the tenants moving in and out or having furniture or appliances delivered. She was concerned with a building accommodating 24 families not designating an area for deliveries and felt it should be addressed in the code or be a design requirement. The loading Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 15 zone could be the setback and provide additional space for people entering/exiting their garages from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin expressed concern that Council President Olson’s question was very project related. She offered to speak in theory but not to the project itself as the proposed standards are applicable to all parcels in the BD2 zone. Council President Olson pushed back on that assertion, pointing out any buildings without setbacks on the alley would be in the same situation. Ms. Laughlin said there are temporary right-of-way permits for loading for this reason. There will be episodic loading needs in any urban environment, particularly for moving in/out of buildings. A requirement to accommodate a WB-67 moving truck would deem parking structures infeasible due to turning movements. Staff could look at what that would require and how much space it would take out of the programmatic area, requiring the developer to compensate in other aspects of the project to make that program work. The nature of an alley is that it is slightly utilitarian. Requiring a 25’ width to allow a truck to unload would be a significant amount of space in the alley, pushing the alley to 44’ wide. Council President Olson commented it would not increase the alley width, it would be on the property and made available for loading/unloading which can be expected to occur with some regularity. Ms. McLaughlin said that would need to be dimensioned out. The reason why that is not seen in any other city is because the curb space or alleys themselves are typically used for loading/unloading and moving. Council President Olson referred to the use of “urban” and pushed back, saying Edmonds is a suburban and not an urban environment and she hoped that was part of the planning. Use of the alley for ingress/egress to garages has been encouraged, and loading/unloading from the alley could block access which would have a huge impact. She was trying to assess if it was an option to require some setback from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin asked if her question was how to accommodate moving trucks onsite. Council President Olson answered it was related to moving trucks or delivery trucks. Ms. McLaughlin said the engineering/permitting team could answer that question better than she could and offered to provide further information. Council President Olson said her other issue was consolidating parcels, which is not mandated, and should be an opportunity for the City to get a concession that supports the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan says the City cares about light and not having huge, blocky structures, but this building on a slope which the building height assessed at that level, the center point would be in a different place on one of the parcels versus the consolidated parcel. Consolidating parcels has a negative impact in terms of light. When that is allowed, there should be a requirement for a step down or modulation in the roof line to provide breaks of light to everything around it. That should be required because the parcels are being consolidated and they are not currently allowed to be built on in that manner. If the lots were developed without consolidating them, there would be breaks between the buildings due to required setbacks. Ms. McLaughlin said State law exempts lot combinations from the subdivision law, essentially streamlining lot combination which is intended to ensure it is not a hinderance to meeting density goals. The City does have some discretion to ensure any lot combination meets the objectives within the comprehensive plan. Mr. Clugston explained there is no required setback between the parcels, if they are both zoned BD, they can be built wall to wall. The only time a setback is required is if it is adjacent to a residentially residential zoned parcel. As an example, he referred to a clump of parcels south of Main between 6th and Durbin where, in theory, one person could buy the approximately 8 parcels and construct one building on it. At the northeast corner of 6th & Main, one person could buy three parcels, combine them and develop one project on the site. Lot consolidation for projects happens all the time; if someone owns all the parcels, they can be combined and a larger project developed on it. That would also apply to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 16 parcels on 3rd and there are no setbacks between the parcels because they are not adjacent to an R zoned property. Even if one person did not own all the parcels, each property could be developed wall to wall. Mr. Clugston continued, the intent of the design standards is when there are two adjacent BD2 parcels that could have multifamily, private amenity space needs to be provided. One of the ways to do that is either move the building back to provide a balcony that projects out or create a balcony that is recessed into the building; either way provides some modulation. There are other ways to achieve that standard such as a rooftop desk. When there are no setbacks, buildings can be constructed right to the property line and that is the case with the overwhelming majority of the parcels in the BD zones. Council President Olson said that explanation clarified it for her. She asked if the City just got lucky with the architectural design of the first two parcels at 6th & Main that follow the slope. That makes a big difference and she was unsure if that occurred because the developer chose to be nice and cared about making the community look good, or if the City had it in code. Mr. Clugston said he was not familiar with the location Council President Olson was referencing. Council President Olson referred to the buildings on the north side of the street at 6th & Main, the two largest parcels on the northwest corner of the intersection. Mr. Clugston answered those were zoned multifamily, not BD2, and were built a number of years ago so he did not know what the code requirement was for height measurement at that time. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for a description of public amenity space. Mr. Clugston displayed the plan view, explaining the street-side amenity space has to be 5% of the lot area and must be provided between the building and the sidewalk, be open to the sky and must include landscaping, seating, art, or similar elements. He displayed the section view, identifying the street-side amenity space, the space between the sidewalk and the building front that acts like a setback that is activated through uses. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the map that illustrates the areas with and without designated street fronts, recalling Mr. Clugston’s comment that the areas on the edges of BD2 without designated street fronts were transitional areas. Mr. Clugston referred to the intersection of Main & 5th, and the parcels radiating away from that, the BD1 zone, the retail core. Just outside of that on all sides is the BD2 zone, adjacent to the retail core and in some instances does not extend very far but in some areas it does. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what PRD 2002-102 means. Mr. Clugston answered it was a Planned Residential Development for single family development. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if loading/unloading spaces were required for any other residential type. Mr. Clugston answered not to his knowledge. Councilmember Chen said he had two questions, first, as the City grows, would the BD1 zone need to be expanded into the BD2 zone. Ms. Mclaughlin said that is something that the needs analysis as part of the comprehensive plan update will consider, what are the City’s commercial and retail demands and where should they be located, looking at the City and its activity centers as a whole, including the medical center, downtown and waterfront. She looked forward to doing a needs analysis and engaging the council in those discussions. Edmonds is unique in the sense that all the retail spaces are occupied which is a great sign. It was unclear where there was pent up demand; that will require some retail analysis. Councilmember Chen said his second question was whether the interim code only applied to residential or if it applied to both residential and mixed use, noting the current code allows both residential and mixed use. Mr. Clugston said there are existing design standards that apply to mixed use or commercial/office projects. This proposal would apply only to standalone multifamily buildings. Because this is residential only, the same amount of design analysis has not been done which is why these standards have been proposed. Ms. McLaughlin said that is the unanticipated gap; the intent is to fill that gap with these Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 17 interim design standards specifically for multifamily. Staff is also working on multifamily design standards that would apply citywide. Councilmember Chen suggested the recommendations from the Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) be revisited and incorporated. Ms. McLaughlin agreed some of the CHC’s recommendations were applicable to multifamily design standards and others will be applicable to the comprehensive plan update. Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has an issue with not being project specific when it was dealing with a project. This will be displacing 7-8 businesses, some of them women-owned, in the downtown business district. Acknowledging the council cannot consider project specifics, she asked if traffic, stormwater, or sewer impacts had been considered. As this will be a dense project with 24 - 48 extra cars, she asked if a traffic study had been done. She referred to the aging infrastructure, recalling a sewer break on 5th Avenue in the past. Ms. McLaughlin assured that was part of the permitting process which looks at everything that Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned including the need for traffic analysis, stormwater, existing utilities, what it can support and whether there is capacity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the timeframe for the citywide multifamily design standards. Ms. McLaughlin answered the senior planner that was leading the effort left the City. Recruitment is underway for that position and it may be expedited by moving to a consultant process; those options are being analyzed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussions at the Economic Development Commission about light and buildings next to each other and interest in setbacks. She recalled there were setbacks in Westgate and asked why no setbacks were being enforced to allow for light for adjacent buildings so they did not just look out on a wall. Ms. McLaughlin answered defining light and air can be fairly subjective. There could be a lighting/shadow study done on projects which was something she recommended. Oftentimes when there is an alley or street, particularly when the street is up to 25’ wide, the light and air issue is mitigated by having that space in between buildings. Looking at historic downtowns within a tight urban fabric, the buildings are adjacent to each other like in Edmonds downtown core; the street provides light, air and separation. The same is seen in the development that is currently under review. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is plenty of density in the downtown area. Her issue is changing the mix of the BD zone, and making it more residential. She was aware it was allowed because it was not identified as a designated street front but she was still concerned that mixed use was not required. Council President Olson said this question was already answered but she wanted to be sure staff understood the question the way she intended; staff was saying no other condos or apartments were required to provide loading/unloading even if there is no parking lot associated with the complex. Ms. McLaughlin said in talking with Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien today about this issue, the only one he could recall was a project that requested a loading zone. Council President Olson said this comment was not related to the specific item but for all planning going forward, especially in downtown areas, when the building follows the slope like it does between 5th & 6th on the north side of Main, it is great and charming and although there are no setbacks on the side, it is so cute. She hoped that could be implemented in more places and made a priority in planning going forward. Councilmember Chen commented in terms of timing, the moratorium is expiring so there is some urgency. Ms. McLaughlin said in the interest of lifting the moratorium, given the magnitude of a moratorium on development and market dynamics, a public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled on April 5th. These interim design standards will be returned to council on April 5th; staff’s recommendation is that the interim design standards be adopted and the moratorium would then be lifted on April 5th. With regard to the effective date of the proposed ordinance, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as currently drafted, it would not take immediate effect. Assuming it is adopted on April 5th, it would not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 18 take effect until April 15th. The ordinance could be drafted to take immediate effect, but it would require a majority plus one vote to pass. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was any risk with continuing with the current proposed timeline of a public hearing on April 5th and adoption of the interim design standards on April 5th. Mr. Taraday answered by his calculation if the ordinance is adopted on April 5th without an emergency clause, it would take effect on April 15th. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it would take effect on April 13th. Mr. Taraday said that was before the moratorium expired. Councilmember L. Johnson observed adding an emergency clause would allow the ordinance to take effect sooner if there was some benefit to that. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the benefit of have more than 5% public open space and what the timing would be to incorporate that change into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clugston answered given the short amount of time, it would be easier to stick with this proposal. That could be considered in the permanent multifamily design standards. Councilmember K. Johnson requested staff put that on the list of things to look at in the permanent standards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the setback standards for RM-1 weren’t used such as in the BD4 zone. She recognized this was a transition zone and the intent is a standalone multifamily property. Mr. Clugston explained BD2 is mixed commercial adjacent to BD1. He displayed a map identifying the BD4 zone, downtown mixed residential, which is located in the southwest area of downtown and off by itself. In BD4, if a project is mixed use, there are no setbacks; if it is multifamily only, then RM-1.5 setbacks apply. The three sites that the DB4 zone covers are large, developed sites that were developed without designated street front standards. The RM setbacks are not appropriate for the BD2 zoned parcels which do not have side setbacks unless adjacent to residential which has a 15’ setback requirement. With regard to adding an emergency clause to the ordinance, Council President Olson said if the effective date of the ordinance fit within the moratorium period without an emergency clause, how would an emergency be justified? Mr. Taraday said that was a good question; he did not want to rule out the possibility that an emergency declaration could be drafted that would be valid, but Council President Olson was correct that the ordinance would need to state the basis for taking emergency action. That basis is usually left to the discretion of the legislative body. If council or staff suggested a basis for an emergency, he would not eliminate that possibility, but she was correct that expiration of the moratorium was one basis that probably wouldn’t satisfy the emergency clause. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 ECDC RELATED TO ADDRESSES FOR USE IN MAILED NOTICE Council President Olson explained the reason for notices is to make citizens and other stakeholders aware when there is a project that might influence their interests. The City has been made aware that notices are not always getting to the right people. The intent of this item is to determine how to change the code to resolve that via a code update. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this ordinance was requested by the council president. He tried to correct something that had been brought to her attention, that there are two different types of owner addresses held by Snohomish County, the taxpayer address and the owner address. Most often those addresses are the same, but it is possible for a property owner to contact the county and ask that tax statements be sent to a different address such as when someone owns property in the City but does not reside at the property and wants to receive mail elsewhere. The question is how to best provide notice to the public, in this case about development projects but it could be posed even more broadly. Mr. Taraday continued, because he did not involve City staff early enough, some issues were raised late in the game as this was going into the packet that have not yet been resolved. One such issue is that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 19 typically amendments to Title 20 are reviewed by the planning board before being adopted by the city council. That is not necessary under State law as some things in Title 20 do not quality as development regulations under GMA and do not require review by the planning board. The Edmonds planning board has historically reviewed Title 20 and the last time this chapter was amended, the planning board reviewed it and provided a recommendation. That is a procedural question whether this needs to go to the planning board prior to approval by the city council. If there is urgency, this could be drafted as an interim ordinance so that it could take effect and then go to the planning board. Mr. Taraday said the second issue brought to his attention was concern with implementation, requiring City staff to provide notice to both the taxpayer address and the owner address would require more work for staff so that should be factored into the cost/benefit analysis. Mr. Clugston commented it would take extra time to cross check the lists to provide notice to taxpayer addresses and property owner addresses. Staff currently gets the list from the county assessor; the code requires using real property owner addresses. There would be extra time involved although he was unsure it would be a tremendous amount in the scope of a large land use project. Mr. Taraday said another issue that was brought to his attention that was not included in the ordinance was any change to SEPA notices. As currently drafted, there could be an inconsistency between the way SEPA notices and other types of development notices were done. That was another thing that would need to be addressed going forward. Mr. Clugston said the code requirement in the SEPA section is mailed notice to real property owners as shown on the county assessor records. Council President Olson asked if the real property owner was the property owner or the taxpayer. Mr. Clugston said it means the real property owner. Typically there are two addresses listed, 99% of the time they are the same, sometimes the taxpayer lives elsewhere or has their mail sent someplace else. The code currently requires notice be sent to the property owner. Council President Olson relayed her understanding that SEPA notice was also sent to the real property owner. Mr. Clugston agreed. Council President Olson observed sending the notice to both was the only way to ensure that anyone who might be a stakeholder was notified. Mr. Clugston said the same change would need to be made to the Shoreline Master Program notice requirements. Council President Olson summarized the council was not ready to take action. She asked if council agreed they wanted to have staff continue working on this and bring it forward. Councilmember Tibbott suggested when staff brings it back, he would be interested in knowing the scope of the problem, whether it was actually inconveniencing a number of people, whether it was a public safety issue, or what was the reason for providing extra notices to taxpayers. If there were a small number of aberrations, he was interested in what would be involved to find that aberration, anticipating a lot of time could be spent looking for a needle in a haystack. Ms. McLaughlin said this is not something proposed by staff and staff has not begun working on it yet. In the interest of public notification, staff supports new strategies, but already does pretty extensive public notification including posting onsite, posting at the library and other locations, mailing to the assessor’s list, etc. It is already fairly time consuming for staff on a project by project basis. The City is receiving historic numbers of permits so the ability to turn permits over quickly is also important. When staff brings this back she wanted to address all the datapoints to consider it holistically. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a property by Haines Wharf where there was a difference between the property owner and the taxpayer. She agreed with waiving the review by the planning board. She agreed it would also impact noticing requirements for the Shoreline Master Program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 20 Councilmember L. Johnson questioned how a cost/benefit analysis would be done such as determining the staff time that would be required. Without that, she did not have the information to gauge whether this was something the City should undertake. She questioned whether staff had the time to do a cost/benefit analysis and whether that was a priority given everything else that is going on; she was not sure it was. Ms. McLaughlin said staff does not track the amount of time spent on mailing notification. A trial period would need to be identified to conduct a cost/benefit analysis, etc. She was happy to provide datapoints and bring back whatever makes sense if the council is interested in pursuing it. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was not interested in this right now. There is enough on everyone plates and she was not sure it was a priority. Council President Olson respected that thought, but said anyone who has not receiving the notice they need or they miss it, then they are not vested and do have not have rights. Protecting citizens is a high priority to her. She suggested the council vote on whether to have staff spend time on this. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THIS SO IT CAN COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A DECISION. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO HAVE IT COME BACK IN SIX MONTHS. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON AND THE SECONDER ACCEPTED AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE IT COME BACK WITHIN SIX MONTHS. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. SALARY COMMISSION REINSTATEMENT Council President Olson commented everyone is very familiar with this item. It was discussed at length when the salary commission was disbanded in June 2021 and it is back at city council after directing the city attorney to draft an ordinance to reinstate the salary commission. Councilmember Buckshnis said the original ordinance repealed the salary commission and she recalled City Attorney Jeff Taraday saying it was not necessary to have an ordinance to repeal that ordinance. If the ordinance wasn’t repealed she asked how establishment of a new salary commission was recognized. Mr. Taraday said the proposed ordinance would do that. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4252, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REESTABLISH THE SALARY COMMISSION. Councilmember Tibbott said he was in favor of the motion but was uncertain about the timing of implementing the salary commission. It was his understanding there was a preference to implement it between election years. He asked when the ordinance would go into effect and the duration, recalling it was two years. Council President Olson answered the interval was two years. The salary commission would be reinstated in an odd year in 2023. Council President Olson relayed everything she said in opposition to disbanding the salary commission in 2021 are the same reasons for supporting the reinstatement today. Salaries for elected should not be set by the electeds. The council’s past practice of appointing competent and trusted citizens to set the pay via a salary commission is the best approach. She expressed support for the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 21 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. 4. SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS City Clerk Scott Passey explained with the onset of the COVID pandemic in March 2020, the City responded by conducting virtual public meetings using the Zoom meeting platform. Thinking this new format might have a chilling effect on public participation, the council went the extra step of having staff create a unique email account to allow the public to submit written comments to the council. The council voted to append these written comments to the meeting minutes as a way of acknowledging the comments on a regular basis. Since council resumed in-person meetings as of March 22, 2022, staff is requesting a decision as to whether the council wishes to continue the practice of including written comments in its weekly agenda packet. If the council wishes to continue this practice, staff recommends a couple changes in the format and method of submission: 1. Eliminate the email address and create a web form on the council homepage to submit comments. The form would be limited to a character-count equivalent to a 3-minute speech. Public comment thus received would be forwarded to the council email account in real time as well as be compiled into a written report for inclusion in the next available consent agenda. 2. Rather than appending the comments to the official minutes, comments would be included as a separate agenda memo on the consent agenda, and the could acknowledge them by consent agenda approval. Councilmember Buckshnis supported having public comments attached to the packet somehow. She asked why staff wanted to eliminate the email address. Mr. Passey said the council office is required to do a lot of formatting of emails before they are copied and pasted into the minutes. Creating a web form is a text form and makes it easier to put into an agenda memo. His issue with including the comments in the minutes is that meeting minutes by definition are a record of what happened or was said at a council meeting. These written comments are not a record of what happened at a meeting, they are comments sent to an email address. He recommended acknowledging them and including them as a separate item on the consent agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis said the reason public comments were added to the meeting minutes was because people were not able to speak at the meeting so she believed they were part of the meeting minutes. She understood the reason for a web form because it would remove the sender’s email address. She recalled at times the emails were included which some citizens complained about. She noted some cities read written public comment into the meeting. She asked how the equivalent of a three minute speech would be determined. Mr. Passey answered 3 minutes is approximately 450-550 words. Councilmember Chen thanked Mr. Passey for working on this. He agreed it was important to include written comments, noting they are just as important as people showing up to speak to the council especially in a hybrid world. The email address is not as important as the commentors name and asked if the commenter’s name would be included. Mr. Passey answered staff can include any information council wants. For example, a field could be added for the city of residence. Councilmember Chen said knowing whether or not a commenter was an Edmonds resident would be value added. He was supportive of this proposal. Councilmember K. Johnson said limiting the number of words in public comments to the equivalent of three minutes of speech occurred recently. Previously people would speak at the dais and submit additional written comment. She found it overly restrictive to limit written comments to the equivalent of three minutes and would not support that. Commenters should be allowed to submit what they want; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 22 people are communicating with the council and may have charts or graphs that do not fit into the time period. She did not support limiting public comments to a certain number of characters. Council President Olson said this was not intended to be a temporary measure. Even though it was initiated due to going to virtual meetings, some people appreciate having this access. She referred to an email received today from someone who referenced a disability that made typing an option but phoning in was not. People have expressed interest in keeping written comments as option that can be efficiently managed, knowing the other methods still exist. The council has the option of reading public comment into the record but it takes times out of the meeting to do that. Written comments are not actually occurring during the meeting and including them as a separate item on the consent agenda is the cleanest way to accommodate them. Council President Olson continued, this was not limiting the communication the public can have with the council; the distinction is what is public record that goes into the minutes. Sometimes information submitted is very complicated and photos do not transfer in a digital world. She supported the compromise proposed by Mr. Passey, reiterating it did not limit residents from providing information to council via council email. This form would be the way the public could register public comment that would end up in the public record. Once the process is finalized, it will be communicated to the public. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET FOR MARCH 29, 2022. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a resolution or ordinance was needed. Mr. Passey answered a motion would suffice. Councilmember Tibbott was in favor of having the city of residency and limiting the message to approximately a three minutes speech. He was also interested in delineating that comments were related to a particular agenda item. For example, he wanted to know the difference between a general email and a comment about a particular item on the agenda. He asked if there was a way to include that in the web form. Mr. Passey said the council assistant would need to monitor that. Councilmember Tibbott suggested a check box on the web form to include it as public comment. Mr. Passey offered to work with GIS Analysis Dave Rohde regarding possibilities. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the practice of allowing both verbal and written comments would continue even if they were duplicated. Mr. Passey answered yes. Council President Olson said the form on the web page would include directions that input on that form will be emailed to council as well as included in the public record that will be in the agenda packet. Mr. Passey added the minutes and the packet are permanent and essential records of the council. Regardless of whether the comments are in the minutes or the packet, they are a permanent and essential record forever. Councilmember Tibbott said it was important for the public to understand when they submit a public comment that it was part of a permanent and enduring public record. That was one more reason to limit it to approximately a three minute speech. He wanted to know the email he received was a public comment versus just a general email. Mr. Passey suggested determining a way to indicate if a comment was related to an agenda item or City business. Councilmember Tibbott commented it was important for him to know that distinction. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Tibbott, councilmembers get a lot of email, in 2 hours she received 30 emails, and not all of them are all public comments. The only way she knows something is a public comment is it is addressed to the public comment email. Mr. Passey agreed there are general comments and comments specific to agenda items or upcoming items. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 23 Councilmember Chen commented some people are good at stating a request in the body of email to include the email in public comments; doing that is very helpful. Mr. Passey offered to make the web form very clear with regard to what happens with that record. Council President Olson was curious why councilmembers wanted to know whether a comment was a public record. She could understand why the administrative team needed to know because they were the ones culling the report that would end up on the consent agenda, but councilmembers can receive significant information from both public comments and regular email. For a councilmember, she did not see why it would make a difference or why staff would need to indicate it was one or the other. With regard to why it was important, Councilmember Tibbott suggested the council not receive public comments until they are in the packet because often when people stand at the podium or provide an email, it is in response to a particular agenda item and he would like to have an understanding regarding why they are providing that information. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson commented for those who have not had a chance to visit the city council/court/public safety building, there is a patrol car in front with a canopy over it completely covered with flowers and gifts from the community. The police department has been inundated with baked goods and support from the community. That goes a long way for them at a time when they still have to suit up and go out. Some are grieving now and unable to work and the department is getting support from other agencies to assist while the department deals with the loss of Officer Tyler Steffins. He thanked the community for their support, relaying the importance of that support for the Edmonds Police Department. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her deepest condolences to the family of Officer Tyler Steffins and to his Edmonds Police Department family. He will be missed. Councilmember Tibbott said when he received word of the loss of one of the City’s officers, he felt numb, sad, and angry and he could not imagine what was going through the minds and hearts of the police department. This is such a regretful situation and the community wants to find ways to support the family and the Edmonds Police Department during this deep time of sadness. Councilmember Tibbott announced he has appointed Jay Hogue to the Economic Development Commission for a term that renews next month. Council President Olson thanked the council, staff and Mayor Nelson for supporting this special meeting to address time critical issues. This was the second special meeting today and there will likely be another on Thursday to support benefits for Officer Steffins’ family. Fifth Tuesdays are typically a week off, but instead electeds and staff are here in service. She recognized that sacrifice and thanked all for their commitment to the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 24 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for his tribute. She wished Jack Bevins, a former councilmember, a Happy 99th Birthday on April 2nd. He is sharp as can be and still calls her including calling to congratulate her on pursuing the budget amendments. Councilmember Chen echoed Mayor Nelson’s tribute to Officer Tyler Steffins and offered his deepest condolences to his family. The greater Seattle area has lost three officers within a short time period. He urged the public to show support for officers who put their lives on the line to protect the community; anything they can do, flowers, kind words, cookies, etc. to show their support. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the police department who put their lives on the line for the community. It was unexpected while off-duty and on vacation. She extended her deepest sympathy to both Tyler Steffins’ family and the Edmonds Police Department family. It is a tragic loss and everyone supports them. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.