The URL can be used to link to this page

Cmd52422 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES May 24, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Rob English, Interim Public Works Director Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council 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 Councilmember L. Johnson 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 Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in-person audience comments. Jay Grant, Port of Edmonds commissioner and liaison to the city council, referred to the Waterfront Study later on the agenda, advising several factors need to be addressed in that project. The City is facing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 2 several issues, some it can control and others likely not, including the environment, increased transportation requirements and emergency management. This process will take time and several stakeholders are effected including governments like the City and Port, the Washington State Department of Transportation, Ferries as well as private entities and each have various requirements and objectives including determining the waterfront of the future. The waterfront is one of the City’s gems, visited by thousands each year. How a person enjoys the waterfront is very personal; the Edmonds waterfront he enjoyed as a kid is very different from today’s waterfront and collectively the stakeholders need to determine what they want it to be in the future. Each of the waterfront stakeholders plays a significant role and realistic solutions need to be identified for some of the challenges. The Port of Edmonds contributes greatly to the waterfront, as an environmental steward, a place for citizens and guests to enjoy, and the economic impact it brings to the City as one of the most significant tax contributors. The Port is committed to working with the City and other stakeholders in this process, expecting a cooperative and collaborative effort that addresses the best interest of all. Marlin Phelps said if there was someone in the community who grew up here, went to college, came back and did something of great substance to which a younger generation wants to emulate her, something very good has been done, a legacy. He commented Edmonds is a fine city with a fine city council. He relayed in 2015, Judge Linda Coburn gave an order to have a private inspector work for him, unsolicited, which he thought was odd but he was grateful. The inspector ran a PUD list of where his wife of 10 years had lived and none of it was close to what he had known to be true. He goggled her, looked at several background check websites, found his name and her kids’ names, but her employer is a law firm Honigman, Miller, Quartz and Cohn. He was being persecuted and had good story, so he called 50 law firms, and the only one that returned his call was Honigman, Miller Quartz, Cohn so he knew there was a connection. U.S. Senator Carl Levin then abruptly retired, became the managing lawyer of that law firm. Meanwhile, he received a letter from Maria Cantwell offering her help. Senator Levin was Maria Cantwell’s mentor in the senate. He referred to the murder of Tom Wells, the path of righteousness, and finding out who killed him, something that is well within the City’s rights and is why municipal courts were invented. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, commented she had little time to prepare because the BD2 agenda item was recently changed and Friday’s packet did not contain some of the information being presented today. She pointed out BD2 has the label downtown mixed use commercial, a separate district from all the other BD zones because it is complimentary to the BD1 zone, especially BD1 ground floor street front which only allows businesses with open door policies, not by-appointment businesses unless they are grandfathered in. BD2 allows offices such as accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, medical, acupuncture, counseling, tutoring, etc., businesses that provide services not permitted in BD1 and providing a symbiotic relationship. BD4 is labeled downtown mixed residential which the proposal is trying to turn BD2 into. She questioned why BD2 was called mixed use commercial when the zones were created instead of saying it is all BD4, downtown mixed use residential. She expressed concern with doing this hurriedly and having outside people evaluate what is best for Edmonds. Multifamily is being constructed throughout Edmonds; the zones considered did not include all the multifamily downtown such as up on the hill, on 3rd, 2nd or 5th. She referred to the book, Building a Vibrant Community, and a statement in the book about not rushing things and not thinking that what is good for one city is good for another. She questioned whether the goal was to build a vibrant city for Edmonds, that considers walkability, use of services, and that leads to using retail and commercial. Jack Malek, Shoreline, a Windermere relator, spoke regarding BD2 Designated Street Front. He has a listing for the Soundview Plaza on 2nd & James; the suggested extension is in front of 2nd & James which he opposes. The market study favors residential; allowing mixed use and a more robust ability to adapt to different economies is a smarter choice. He suggested a fully residential building could be allowed with the option to use the ground level for commercial in the future to allow for fluctuating market conditions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 3 Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, explaining Edmonds has taken the rights and worth of their trees, making the building and safety of their homes infeasible with regulatory and monetary takings. The intent seems to be to decrease the value of vacant property so the City can acquire it at lower prices for their tree agenda. Edmonds has 35% tree canopy but only 2% buildable vacant land in single family zones. She questioned whether it was necessary to punish those needing and providing housing. In 2017, she and her family found a beautiful, sloped 1.25 acre property with trees to build homes for themselves and her then 82-year old parents. They hired a geotech whose reports verified there was no critical area, and water retention and soil integrity on the sloped property was so strong, he certified no risk of slides in the next 100-200 years. The report was provided to Edmonds planning who assured them there was no obstacle to dividing the property and they purchased it. After purchasing, Mike Clugston advised dividing would be difficult with the small wet corner that is a landslide risk area; he did not reveal this before. With his encouragement, they gave the corner to the neighbor, a process that took two years, and were then ready to apply for division in November 2020, the week the Edmonds city council halted applications to write tree codes requiring exorbitant tree fees and more work from their engineers and arborists. On June 22, 2021, Edmonds council voted to take ownership of every tree on all vacant, private properties, violating the constitution’s takings clause. Before division is permitted for single family homes, payment of $3,000-$12,000 for each tree needing removal must be made to the City. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have applied for division retaining 50% of the trees, forfeiting safety and mountain and sound views. The City’s response letter states all trees retained on private property become the City’s protected trees involuntarily and indefinitely. When the property is sold, no trees rights remain for homeowners. In the event a tree is damaged, arborist appraisals are still required for every tree, at a costs of $200-$300 each along with a list of replacement trees and planting locations or payment of an additional $2500 for each tree in addition to the worth of each removed. An attached drawing showed about 40% of their property is now classified as untouchable critical area, shocking their geotech. Trees in this area would not count toward the 30% open space or tree retention. She relayed Kernen Lien’s explanation that if 50% of trees are retained, trees in critical area count toward retained trees. If less than 50% are retained, trees in the critical area do not count and additional trees must be retained, plus fees of over $107,000. She urged councilmembers to let them build their homes without the unconstitutional [inaudible] only upon vacant land owners and future homeowners. The Edmonds tree ordinance violates the 5th and 14th amendments and takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, the Growth Management Act, and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. She requested the council reconsider and rescind the tree ordinance. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding Ordinance 4079, the 2017 upzone of the SR-99 and park mitigation. In 2017 the City promised to improve the park system within or near SR-99 to address geographic gaps in service. Specifically, the City promised to expand and partner with the Edmonds School District. This was always a bit of a false commitment as there are no Edmonds schools in the SR- 99 area. Second, explore property acquisition and development and partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions to expand recreational opportunities for the community. By and large that did not happen with the exception for the Uptown Market last year, no acquisition and no improvements since 2017. Chase Lake is not in the SR-99 area so another false commitment. Third, acquire park land in the SR-99/104 area to provide adequate park services in redeveloping areas, create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreational needs especially where service gaps exist or high residential impact is planned. That clearly did not happen. Defining the best routes and treatments to create pedestrian and bicycle corridors did not happen. Increasing connections to the Interurban Trail using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian and bicycle enhancements focusing on crossing Highway 99; the City did not even include the Interurban Trail in the bicycle Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 4 improvement plan. Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District; again, did not happen. Broken promises from the past five years not fulfilled in the draft PROS Plan. One new proposition with only a $1.5 million budget will be less than 1 acre and will not provide adequate service for residents living in the area with the growth and existing land use applications let alone what is planned over the coming years or make up for the historic inequity in service provided to this area. Ms. Seitz continued, those living in the area pay increased property taxes associated with higher land values in the SR-99 area which the City caused despite the upzone so the expensive property excuse is not valid because residents already pay higher taxes to offset higher acquisition costs. All the park mitigation in Ordinance 4079 is feasible if the City stops diverting their revenue to downtown. The PROS Plan CFP demonstrates the City does not have the will to mitigate development impacts because they are not identified in the PROS Plan as promises made to this area. With the over $41 million of investment identified for downtown compared to the less than $4 million for SR-99, the City is not creating spaces for these commitments to occur. Section 5B of Ordinance 4079 identifies that planned action ordinances shall be reviewed no later than five years from the effective date by the SEPA responsible official. The assumptions made by the environmental impact statement are not relevant because the City did not undertake the required mitigation and is not planning to. August 2022 is the timeline for this review; she requested the City perform outreach and engage the SR-99 community in the SEPA responsible official’s review of the EIS. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, asked whether any of the apartments proposed in BD2 would be designated for lower rent housing. Next, she did not want streateries to return to Edmonds, noting there were other options for outside dining. She was interested in having things done to the right-of-way on Highway 99 to improve safety. She supported construction of a parking garage in downtown Edmonds, envisioning it would solve a lot of problems. She did not object to closing Main Street occasionally such as once a month in the evenings, but she did not support an open pavilion with no parking. Something needs to be done about all the crime on 80th and 76th. Arisha Ko, Edmonds, described her family’s circumstances over the past 16 months. Her parents are immigrants from Hong Kong and she is the first generation to go high school and university. They are trying to open a family business restaurant in Edmonds near Highway 99. Her 75-year old uncle has been helping her dad realize his dream of opening a small business noodle shop. Unfortunately, their general contractor’s construction estimate of $138,000 went up to $400,000 with equipment. Her family will be borrowing those funds from their uncle. They trusted the contractor to do the work, but he did not finish the fire alarm system and they failed their firm alarm inspection. The contractor hired a lawyer to sue them and for the past 16 months they have been unable to afford to pay for the fire alarm system. As a result, her family has been struggling with mental health issues, including her father with anxiety disorder. They want to open a noddle shop, Harvest Wonton Noodle, in Edmonds. 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 5 5. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. ONE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 7. APPROVAL OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY GRANT AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR PHASE 1 OF THE EDMONDS MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 8. EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 8. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON ARPA ALLOCATIONS Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained tonight is a public hearing. The details of what ARPA is and the City’s current allocation have been discussed several times in the past. Per the federal government, City may use ARPA funds for several broad categories: • Replace lost public sector revenue o Use this funding to provide government services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic. This is very broadly defined and can be used for many things. o Edmonds received approximately $11.9 million in ARPA funds. The way the rules are written, the City can claim $10 million as lost public sector revenue which means the City is free to spend those funds on almost anything which makes reporting easier. It doesn’t change audit responsibilities; the way funds are disbursed will undergo the same audit as the CARES funds. While it makes it easier for council to decide how to spend, but the record keeping is just as stringent. • Respond to the far-reaching public health and negative economic impacts of the pandemic o Support the health of communities, and helping households, small businesses, impacted industries, nonprofits, and the public sector recover from economic impacts. • Provide premium pay for staff o Provide additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical sectors. • Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure o Make investments to improve access to clean drinking water, to support vital wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and to expand affordable access to broadband internet Mr. Turley explained Edmonds has been allocated $11,893,099 in ARPA funds. The current allocation, and amounts committed, and the remaining balances available, are as follows: Current Allocation Approximate Amount Committed Approximate Amount Remaining City Expenditures $750,000 $490,000 $ 260,000 Household Support 4,150,000 1,050,000 3,100,000 Business Support 1,125,000 560,000 565,000 Nonprofit Support 500,000 421,000 79,000 Job Retraining 600,000$ 600,000 - Green Infrastructure 4,768,099 - 4,768,099 Total $11,893,099 $3,121,000 $8,772,099 Mr. Turley explained he was not prepared to answer questions tonight as this just landed in his lap in the last couple weeks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 6 Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Liz Brown, Edmonds, representing City employees who belong to Teamsters Local 763, specifically parks and public works employees, acknowledged Edmonds has used COVID funds to pay premium pay to many of their members. The members in parks and public works do not have the same opportunity as city hall employees to work remotely. Since the early days of the pandemic, members have worked onsite and in contact with each other and been subject to COVID exposures and positive cases of COVID. ARPA funds can be used for both premium pay and retention pay. There has been great difficulty in retaining employees at the Edmonds WWTP. She urged the council to consider using ARPA funds to remedy this situation at least until contract negotiations are completed; the current contract expires at the end of the year. She thanked the council for providing premium pay to employees in recognition of their hard work during the pandemic. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, wished the council good luck and have a nice weekend. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked when there would be an opportunity to discuss moving funds around, because a lot of nonprofits are waiting for the City to adjust some of the dollar amounts. The period to request funds occurred during the summer last year and a lot of nonprofits were unable to apply. Mr. Turley said the earlier the council makes decisions about how to spend the money, the better. A grant analyst to manage the grants funds has not yet been hired, but there is adequate staff in place to disburse the funds. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City received $11.9 in ARPA funds, and $10 million can be claimed as lost public sector revenue. She asked about the remaining $1.9 million. Mr. Turley explained the City is required to inform the federal government how the funds will be spent in authorized categories. Up to $10 million can be declared as revenue lost during the pandemic; the City will likely report the other $1.9 million will be used for green infrastructure as there are several large projects related to green infrastructure. Councilmember Buckshnis observed here is already approximately $4 million in green infrastructure. She recalled council removed $400,000 for green streets and $750,000, which left about $500,000 in funds that can be moved around. She wanted to move more than $500,000 to small businesses and nonprofits. Mr. Turley explained in reporting to the federal government, there are some ways the City is not allowed to spend the money such as putting it into the pension funds. Reporting to the federal government is only in broad categories such as $10 million in lost revenue and $2 million in green infrastructure. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this has been discussed by the Finance Committee twice. She was interested in redistributing funds as many nonprofits want to submit applications for reimbursement. Council President Olson commented the council did not know that there would be minimal input from the public. She relayed comments made by Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin that the ARPA funds are once in a lifetime, and maybe with the infrastructure bill, twice in lifetime tranches of money and suggested looking at it from the perspective of what could be done to make a mark or impact versus just letting it go into the budget and not knowing what it represents. In terms of far reaching COVID impacts, the council has been talking about what huge issues mental health and drug addiction are and the lack of services in south county. In speaking with Lynnwood, they are starting a mental health approach and she asked whether Edmonds could help finance an expansion of their efforts. They are tapped out in terms of space, so it would not be in collaboration with Lynnwood, there may be opportunities with Mountlake Terrace or Brier. She recommended consideration be given to that before the money trickles out. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 7 With regard environmental impacts, Council President Olson said the City has been aware of creek impacts and downstream stormwater issues for decades and this is an opportunity to deal with some of those issues. With regard to the WWTP, perhaps some of the funds could be used to address the new environmental requirement/standard that the WWTP is being held accountable for. Retention of WWTP employees is a real issue and has been on the City’s radar and would be money well spent. The nonprofit allocation was underfunded in the last funding allocation. She encouraged councilmembers to share their thoughts regarding this opportunity. Councilmember Paine suggested when this comes back to council, hearing more about green infrastructure related to global warming and climate crisis. She was also interested in hearing from directors about their progress on opportunities such as the Perrinville Creek watershed and making a lasting impact. She was interested in lessening the burden on carbon fuels that are completely destroying the planet. The council also needs to hear about projects that are already underway. With regard to providing funds to nonprofits, she was interested in hearing about nonprofits’ needs. Some nonprofits have other funding streams from ARPA; for example, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has some terrific funding sources. She was also interested in supporting human services and ensuring Edmonds is funding its fair share and taking advantage of collaborative programs with neighboring communities. Councilmember Chen said his priorities are small businesses and family relief. There are many small business who are struggling such as those in Plum Tree Plaza who were negatively impacted by a fire and some are still looking for space and recovery. He referenced the comments by during Audience Comments regarding Ms. Ko’s family’s struggles. Many of the services provided to residents are offered by nonprofits and they should not be forgotten. A third priority is a homeless shelter and wraparound services. Last week the council passed a compassionate enforcement ordinance; now it is up to the council to follow up by provide the necessary services and shelter to make the ordinance better. The environment is also important; flooding from Perrinville Creek needs to be taken care of. Councilmember L. Johnson reported she recently learned the City of Kenmore made affordable housing their #1 priority and have discussed dedicating half of their ARPA funds toward 100 units of affordable 30% or below AMI. She hoped Edmonds would explore that. She also supported fully funding human services and fully funding Edmonds’s share of short term shelter and not simply relying on other cities to provide it. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented there is some urgency to lifting the moratorium. The last time this was discussed, council was exploring the possibility of extending the designated street frontage. Staff wanted to ensure council understands the implications of doing that, what a market demand analysis says, and will present that information tonight. Mixed development is definitely supported by the comprehensive plan as is residential development. This will offer transparency to what the market wants to do and what the implication would be in terms of extending street frontage or not in meeting comprehensive plan goals. She apologized for the late arrival of agenda materials, acknowledging it was a lot to process overnight Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Recap o Multifamily Building Permit Moratorium Ord. 4247 adopted to address insufficient design standards for multifamily only building in the BD2 zone o Moratorium extended three times –Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 8 o Interim Design Standards for BD2 properties outside the designated street front that allowed multifamily only were adopted April 29th with Ordinance 4256 o Led to discussions regarding BD allowed uses and designated street front o Council indicated a desire to explore expanding the designated street front • Potential Designated Street Front Designation o Councilmembers voiced interest to have commercial office to support retail core o Legislative history favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street as part of the original designation o Solid blue line = designated street front current in the zoning code o Light blue = potential areas for expansion of the designated street front ▪ 6th Avenue & Main down to Dayton ▪ On Sunset, extending 2nd Avenue to James Street ▪ Dayton & Third • 16.43.020 Uses Table o Clarify ambiguities o Fill in blanks in uses created by Ordinance 3955 o Reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements • Comprehensive plan: Supports a mix of land uses o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E, E-1 ▪ Provide for a strong central retail core…while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. ▪ Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. • BD Zone Purposes – ECDC 16.43.030 o …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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 9 • Designated Street Front – key differences o Must be commercial use within first 45 feet of designated street front o 12-foot minimum ground floor height in BD2 (15 feet in BD1) o Different design standards • Market Demand Analysis o Would designated street front restrictions inhibit market demand for residential development? o Is there existing market demand for mixed commercial buildings? o Is there market demand for solely commercial buildings? • Market Analysis Area o Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 designated areas, defined by blue outlined areas, focus of commercial analysis o Target Area 2: Expanded search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow highlight, focus of the multifamily analysis • Commercial Space Demand Data RETAIL MARKET All SF types of Spaces Current available spaces Average days on Market (DOM) Historical days on market – last 3.5 years N/A 255 DOM (historical) General retail 5 276 DOM (current) Vacant – not listed: C’est La Vie 1 N/A Business appears closed – not listed: Bop N Burger 1 N/A OFFICE MARKET All SF types of spaces Current available spaces Average days on Market (DOM) Historical days on market – last 3.5 years N/A 230 DOM (historical) 1000 to 2000 sf spaces are what currently is available 7 307 DOM (current) o Closeness of the historic and current DOM is an indicator of a stable market. Inventory is low in retail sector but not considered a leasers market o Retail is the stronger of the two commercial uses based on DOM • Multifamily Rental Units Demand o Approximately 425 MF rental units in study area ▪ 56% Two-bedroom Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 10 ▪ 34% One-bedroom ▪ 10% Studio and Three-bedroom o 1% vacancy rate in the study area ▪ 5 –6% vacancy rate considered strong and balanced market ▪ Average DOM approximately 20 days o Biggest takeaway from multifamily information is short supply and high demand of rental units o Study did not look at affordability of units, low inventory drives up rents, limiting who can live in the downtown Edmonds area. Mr. Lien explained the analysis also looked at types of development that occur: • Option 1 – Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-Story over below grade parking o Residential Units ▪ 1 BR: 12 ▪ 2 BR: 7 ▪ 3 BR: 3 ▪ Total: 22 o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 22 o Building height: ▪ Garage below level ▪ First floor: 9’ ▪ Second floor: 9’ ▪ Third floor: 9’ ▪ Parapet: 3’ ▪ Total Height: 30’ • Option 2: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3 story o Residential Option ▪ 1 BR: 6 ▪ 2 BR: 6 ▪ 3 BR: 3 ▪ Total: 15 o Garage parking at grade (1 stall per unit required): 16 o Building height: ▪ First floor: 10’ ▪ Second floor: 9’ ▪ Third floor: 9’ ▪ Parapet: 2’ ▪ Total Height: 30’ • Option 3: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 2-Story o Commercial: 1900 square feet o Residential Option ▪ 1 BR: 4 ▪ 2 BR: 2 ▪ 3 BR: 2 ▪ Total: 8 o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 12 o Building height: ▪ First floor: 12’ ▪ Second floor: 8’ ▪ Parapet: 2’ Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 11 ▪ Total Height: 2’ o Note: Financial feasibility of a 2-story with commercial may be questionable. Third floor may not be feasible due to 30’ height limitation and specific site constraints • Examples of three story development with below grade commercial entrance o 307 Bell Street o 2nd & Main (Post Office) • Conclusion of market analysis o The risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make mixed use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer. • Recommendation o Given that the current designated street front map is consistent with the comprehensive plan and BD zoning purpose, staff does not recommend extending the designated street front o Adopt amendment to ECDC 16.40.020 use table which clarifies ambiguity within the code Councilmember Paine commented there are new properties coming on line in BD1 that are all commercial. The analysis recognized it is not a big zone and she asked how having commercial space in BD1 would impact BD2. Ms. McLaughlin referred to DOM and the absorption rate and how it factors into the proforma for developers making those decisions. A solely commercial building has the lowest absorption rate. Given the increase in commercial from Main Street Commons, the report mentions that may dilute the absorption rate potential for commercial. It is important to differentiate between commercial and retail, commercial office, which is allowed in the BD2 zone, has the lowest absorption rate. Retail has a positive absorption rate, however, the Main Street Commons presents a question whether it will dilute the historic absorption rate. Council President Olson commented the council had been waiting for the market analysis; it was not intentional for it to be added to the packet late. The intent was to have this on last week’s agenda, but that was not possible as the information was not yet available from the consultant. She agreed with the comps, Mukilteo and Snohomish, and she found the comparisons enlightening for Edmonds as well as for the other cities. One of the possible deficits in Edmonds compared to other cities is parking per unit; Edmonds is the only city with 1 space per housing unit versus 1.5-2 parking spaces per unit in other cities; even the smallest units have 1.5 parking spaces. Edmonds may want to evaluate that criteria. Council President Olson recognized the importance of what is happen with the Edmonds Commons and the addition of commercial property, but it is open door commercial property, it is all restaurants. The design of the BD zones was to have offices in the next ring. As downtown expands, having businesses and patrons for those businesses is appropriate. She referred to a written comment submitted to council regarding the idea of versatility and the ability to change the lower level from commercial to residential via a code change in the future if there is less demand for commercial. However, it does not seem appropriate to shortcut the BD2 zone today which is what would be done if the edge on the side of 6th at least is not captured. She remarked on the differential between the commercial absorption on 5th heading toward Pine versus on Main Street. Ms. McLaughlin advised the exiting BD2 zone accommodates commercial, but the proposal the City received was not commercial. It likely was not commercial because of the absorption rate and the risk to developers of building solely a commercial building and combining it with residential does not get the residential yield to justify it due to DOM for a commercial tenant space. Some of the risk is if that mixed use development isn’t feasible, development will not turn over. Councilmember Tibbott said his comments relate well to Council President Olson’s comments. The spaces currently in the corners where consideration is being given to extending the street front are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 12 currently commercial spaces that are rented and where businesses have been in existence for many years. As the downtown continues to grow and become more robust, the City will run out of that kind of space in the downtown area. He had no reason to dispute the DOM that were presented, but recalled the spaces at 2nd and Main filled up quickly with interesting and exciting businesses that the City was glad to have them. He anticipated the City would be glad to have commercial businesses in the areas where the designated street front was extended. There are a lot of ways to configure buildings and improve residential opportunities. Councilmember Tibbott relayed one of his concerns was losing service space. Eliminating the ability for residents to walk to a service business instead of driving was a lost opportunity so he wanted to preserve those commercial space. There are many good examples of integrating commercial into a building that conformed with the parameters. It may not be ideal to step down into a commercial space, but when visiting one of those spaces recently, he found it very nice and people appreciate those spaces even if have to step down two steps. Councilmember K. Johnson commented all the information in the presentation was new to her as she had no time to read it prior to the meeting. In addition, it came to a conclusion very rapidly. She asked staff to review the conclusions again. Ms. Laughlin explained staff wanted to make sure if the designated street front was extended, there would still be developable lots given the market demand for mixed use development. The study found it could be more challenging to build a mixed use development with a residential component, literally because of the ground floor height requirement for commercial offices (12 feet) or retail (15 feet). Those requirements, combined with the City’s 30 foot height limit, mean it is not possible to get enough residential units to ensure a return. The analysis concluded that long absorption rate to occupy commercial and retail spaces, coupled with the reduction in the number of residential units, means a mixed use project would be very challenging on these sites. Staff recommends not extending the designated street front, because there can still be mixed use development, commercial development, and residential development within the existing zoning and would allow the market to dictate. It is also consistent with the comprehensive plan and existing zoning ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson how many closed door business are currently in the 6th & Main development. Mr. Lien estimated 8-10. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if those eight businesses could be replaced. Ms. Laughlin answered staff is not the developer of this parcel; staff is looking at what the market is demanding and understanding the likelihood of what types of development they may see. The market analysis showed those types of businesses are more sluggish at the moment, but that’s okay because when looking at the mix of retail, commercial and residential in downtown Edmonds, there is a very healthy market overall. The other good news is residential development will continue to boost economic development; the report states the City cannot go wrong with adding residences to a robust economy that serves retail and commercial which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. She summarized staff’s goal is to offer transparency to the council with the market analysis and understand the implications. Staff is not developing this parcel and she did not want to be too hyper focused on that development in particular. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand the implications of eliminating eight closed door businesses; those businesses may not relocate in the retail core. Ms. McLaughlin suggested Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises, address that. Ms. Berne relayed her understanding there was a specific proposal for development on the northeast corner of 6th & Main and there are currently two houses with commercial offices. She asked if Councilmember K. Johnson’s question was if those offices were removed for a new development, would they find places elsewhere within downtown Edmonds to locate. Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether those eight closed door businesses located on Main Street would be able to find closed door business space in that area. Ms. Berne answered in the area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 13 they studied, which was not a full-blown study due to a limited area and limited time, there were spaces where those businesses could relocate in that core area. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled citizens have complained about the scale of development. She asked if the frontage were extended and it was a mixed use development, would the building scale be less and more compatible with the adjacent residential areas. Ms. Berne answered that was a complicated question; a lot of analysis goes into developing property. That could possibly be the case, but it could be commercial development on first floor, office or retail, most likely retail because offices do not like to be on the first floor, the rest would be residential. If the building was residential multifamily units or commercial on the first floor, depending on how it is designed, a developer could do a 3-story building with underground parking. She concluded the building could be exactly the same scale with or without commercial depending on how the developer analyzes the feasibility of the project. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if commercial was allowed in BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes. Ms. McLaughlin commented there could be a solely residential building. Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether commercial was allowed in the BD2 zone. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes. Ms. Berne asked if her question was related to commercial office or retail; commercial is a general category. Councilmember K. Johnson said she meant closed door businesses. Ms. Berne asked if that meant office and/or services. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Ms. Berne said those are allowed in the BD2 zone. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if retail was allowed in the BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes, both commercial uses are allowed in BD2. Councilmember K. Johnson did not understand the conclusion not to designate the street front in that area. Ms. McLaughlin said the conclusion comes from the market analysis. Staff’s recommendation pulls from that conclusion and the reason is because there can be a mix of uses, retail, commercial, residential under the existing zoning, Extending the street front designation would limit what developers can do and the City may not see any development in the near term. In terms of limiting the potential to build residential units downtown, staff thinks that’s problematic given there is a very low supply and as the market analysis indicated only a 1% vacancy rate, a very high demand for residential units. Because of those implications, staff’s recommendation is not to extend the designated street front. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that recommendation was based on the 1% vacancy rate. Ms. McLaughlin advised it was based on the conclusion, the risk associated with long absorption time. If a building is required to be mixed use, either retail or office for the 45’ depth in the BD2 zone, the absorption rate is quite lengthy so a developer would need to lean on the residential unit yield of the development to make it feasible. If the number of residential units is cut in half with this zoning change, that means a developer will likely not be able to make a mixed use development work. Ms. Berne commented this a very complex discussion on a very complex topic. There are no black and white answers; she has been a developer and developed projects throughout her career. She listed a few factors that go into a development analysis. 1. Absorption rate – this is a critical element of the pro-forma analysis that determines financial feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin, internal rate of return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are based on historical DOM for the proposed use and projections as to what the future absorption could be. Absorption rates are directly related to the risk of the given project. 2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete – a mixed use project requires a more complete property management system than a single use project. 3. The economies of scale – this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best use of a property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of developing and maintaining the property over the greatest number of income-producing units. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 14 4. Construction costs – these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site, the size of the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials. Ms. Berne explained given the current market in commercial uses and residential supply, they considered what a developer would to build in the community and how would they look at it given assumptions they have to make. They will look at current absorption rates; the new retail space, Edmonds Commons, will be an indicator of how much retail the community can absorb. There are two large spaces in that development that have not been leased, one that is 4,000 square feet and another that is 1,900 square feet. If those remain vacant when it opens, that is an indicator there is not a huge demand for more retail development. Office space has softened, there is more available than there was in the last two years; it not a bad market but it is not a hot market. Their conclusion was a developer will look at the biggest demand in the community and that is residential. There is a huge demand for multifamily residential in the downtown area and there is very little supply. This only affects 21 lots in the BD2 zone, some of which cannot be developed individually and would have to be assembled. It is about 15 development projects that could include retail or office on the bottom floor or not. Mayor Nelson commented this agenda item had exceed the allocated 30 minutes. He asked when council was provided this packet. Ms. McLaughlin answered 7 p.m. yesterday. He commented when councilmembers publicly acknowledge they have not read the packet and now want full-fledged explanations, that holds up and delays everything else. He reminded councilmembers to come prepared so meetings can be more productive. Councilmember Buckshnis said providing council a packet at 7 p.m. last night was not a lot of time, but she read it. She acknowledged the highest and best use downtown would be an apartment complex. A lot of time was devoted to crafting the BD2 zone in 2013 and it is an offshoot of the BD1 zone. She did not believe it should be changed. Ten businesses have been displaced; the other building purchased by this developer displaced several other businesses. Those business owners are upset and contacted her, but do not want to rock the boat. She wanted to keep BD2 as it is with the storefront. She referred to the Greggory building which was the first one with below grade commercial. She recalled the Spee property took about five years to get through council. The council has spent a lot of time on these designations. Sixth & Main is a main corridor where there is a lot of traffic. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged a lot people want to live downtown but the fact of the matter is 35% of downtown is already residential. Her vision was to retain the charm in Edmonds and that does not include allowing multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. She referred to 39.80.018 which states BD2 is mixed commercial. The City’s comprehensive plan is very outdated and still includes Edmonds Crossing. She wondered where the ten displaced business would go. Likely they would not be able to afford to locate in a new building due to increased rent. She preferred to honor downtown businesses and if the desire was to change the entire BD2 zone, it should be mapped out clearly and not spend less than two months trying to figure it out, getting a report at 7 p.m. last night and discussing such a hot topic tonight. She has received a lot of comments from people who are tired of talking about it because no one is doing anything other than trying to pushing this building through. Councilmember L. Johnson said listening to this discussion begs the question where is the concern over the housing shortage, an actual crisis, homes for people to live in, specially multifamily? She had yet to hear anything about a commercial or retail space crisis, yet the council’s focus is on retail displacement without any actual facts. Her hairdresser was one of the displaced businesses and they found another location and she suspected others have as well. Councilmembers are referring to the displacement of ten businesses when there are spaces available to absorb them. She referred to a councilmember’s comment that commercial in the downtown area gives residents an opportunity to walk to a service base; walking is only possible if one lives in the general area, yet another bowl centric focus. There are many other areas Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 15 of Edmonds where services can be increased such as Highway 99; she suggested adding services there that are within walking distance, it does not have to be bowl centric. The analysis found absorption is longer for commercial; vacant spaces do not create vibrancy, people do. People living in an area support business. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, this began as a concern with how the building looks; that can be addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Councilmembers keep throwing out other things, but are not interested in addressing the housing shortage. The council should be prioritizing multifamily, not fighting against. If it is a priority of council to increase commercial, although it should be a priority to increase multifamily, she suggested talking about increasing heights, something that was mentioned in the report but not discussed. In light of news reports about housing and the 1% multifamily vacancy rate in Edmonds, the council’s roundabout discussion does not make sense, priorities are very mixed up and they do not address the need for housing. She reiterated the council should talk about increasing heights, what that would look like and what that would offer. Ms. McLaughlin commented an aspects of the report was to look at zoning challenges if the designated street front were extended, One of those challenges is the 12-foot floor height suitable for commercial office. Adding two floors of residential then bumps up against the 30-foot height limit. Sunken commercial office is challenging from both an absorption rate perspective and is not best practice for pedestrian friendly design as it is not accessible for people with disabilities and is more expensive. As the report indicates, the delta is only 2-5 feet; trying to mitigate for the sunken commercial office strategy and allowing developers to get 3 floors which pencils out for the mixed use development option. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a statement that given the height restrictions, mixed use projects are not feasible for the average boutique builder. She asked if an additional 2-5 feet were allowed, would mixed use development be feasible for the average boutique developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that is what the consultant team concluded. She recognized applying that to Edmonds was challenging. If that tactic would make mixed use development successful on these BD2 properties and council is willing to support it, that is a solid recommendation to get what we want, mixed use develop in the BD2 to support the retail core. Councilmember L. Johnson commented it is clear something has to give and she hoped it was not decreasing the availability of multifamily. To her a win-win across the board would be to consider a height increase and she hoped other councilmembers would consider that. Ms. Berne answered if the height were increased 2-2½ feet, there would be a much more pedestrian friendly commercial spaces. She pointed out the different between walking down the older Main Street where everything is at eye level and very inviting compared to the below grade commercial spaces which are not as inviting and not artistically creative. An addition 2 feet would also result in more residential because the extra 2 feet would allow commercial with 2 floors of residential. The 30 foot heigh limit at one time meant 3 floors with 10 feet per floor. The below grade commercial has been an unintended consequence of the 30-foot height limit Councilmember Chen appreciated the study and the discussion, noting a lot of work was done in a short amount of time. He referred to the conclusion, which relates to whether the development will work for the developer. He acknowledged developers are very important to the economy, but he preferred the study focus on Edmonds, whether extending the designated street front was good or bad for the City in the long term. Real estate and commercial markets fluctuate. He preferred the study focus on the outlook for the City and not what will work for the developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that was where staff was coming from, what is the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. She agreed demands fluctuates; staff has done a thorough job of interpreting the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 16 policies, zoning code and market demand, the conclusion is not based on a single parcel. All the parcels that extending the designated street front would apply to were considered and then the average was factored into the analysis. She empathized the analysis did not focus on a particular parcel or development; it is about the best approach for the City for the BD2 zone. The goal is to afford the most flexibility so it does not result in undevelopable lots thereby resulting in a de facto moratorium or lots that are developed and cannot be occupied (risk of vacancy). It is about balancing marketing demand as it fluctuates and giving developers the most flexibility moving forward. Council President Olson remembered a terrific business, a drop in daycare operated by December Louis, commenting it would be amazing to have a daycare like that at the top of Main Street. She recalled the history of the 25 foot height going to 30 feet height was the 25 foot limit resulted in 2 story buildings with flat roofs. The height limit was changed to 30 feet to get pitched roofs, but now people are building flat roofs to get 3 floors. Mr. Lien explained the height limit actually came down. Back in the day, there was a 40 foot height limit downtown that was reduced to 35 and then to 30 feet in about 1980. What has changed over the years is what happens between 25 and 30 feet. There have been pitched roofs, modulation, etc. He summarized the 30 foot height limit has been in place since about 1980. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE AND THAT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 5 TO AMEND DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMEND ECDC 16.43.020.A BE ADOPTED. Council President Olson stressed this is an interim ordinance. The council got this information really late, but the council needs to make a decision because the moratorium is coming to an end. There are a lot of moving parts; for example, looking at the designated street front map, it is appropriate to extend it on 6th but it may be worth considering moving it north on 5th Avenue and allow more residential there. Since this is an interim ordinance, it will go to the planning board and there will be more public hearings, so the council should adopt something a little more conservative that protects the core. A lot of time, effort and thought went into establishing the BD zones and how they supported each other and in the next few months, these other things can be discussed with more public participation and participation by the experts on the planning board. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson advised this was staff’s recommendation in the original packet, not the staff recommendation provided today. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion, and recommended re-analyzing the BD zones. She believed what was done in 2013 was very thorough and comprehensive and she would like to retain mixed use commercial. Councilmember Paine did not support extending the designated street frontage for the reasons outlined tonight. BD2 allows for mixed use which means multifamily, commercial and all the options. The most conservative methodology would be ensure developers and businesses are not impacted in ways the City cannot recover from. The demand analysis states to have effective commercial, building heights would need to be raised 2-5 feet and that current market conditions support multifamily housing. The City needs more housing in the downtown area; housing abundance and options are good for the community. She supported having more analysis done, but was not in favor of extending the moratorium or having a de facto moratorium. She supported having this considered in a broader way through normal procedures like multifamily design guidelines and zoning. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to comments about sticking with the original 2013 plan. That begs the question whether there was a housing crisis in 2013 and what was the focus in 2013. Sometimes things need to change with the times and not get stuck in the past. This presentation was through and the information, although provided late, was easy to understand; a councilmember only needed to read it and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 17 it pretty much explained itself although it may not have been the outcome some hoped for. With regard to analysis, no analysis is needed to understand the need for more housing; the need is clear, specifically multifamily housing. A delay does not address the housing crisis, something the City needs to focus on and it also seems like kicking can down the road. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Chen said he cannot support the proposal, not because he didn’t not like it, but because he was confused. Within the same meeting, staff presented two conflicting recommendations, one is to extend and this one is not to extend. More analysis is needed. Ms. McLaughlin said staff did not recommend extending the designated street front in a previous agenda. Mr. Lien explained the ordinance in the packet was for council consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the ordinance was prepared that way because at a previous meeting, it appeared the council wanted to go in that direction. Given the timeliness the moratorium, staff wanted to have that ordinance ready but wanted to share the implications of doing it so council could make an informed decision. Mayor Nelson clarified staff drafted an ordinance but did not recommend it. Ms. McLaughlin said staff’s recommendation was not to extend; council asked for an evaluation related to extending the designated street front. Councilmember Chen asked if this was urgent or was there more time. Mr. Lien answered the moratorium expires June 2nd which is one of the reason the ordinance is in the packet. If council acts on the ordinance tonight, it will be in effect before the moratorium ends. The urgency depends on whether the council wants to extend the designated street front. It is possible to extend the moratorium again, but it has been extended three times already. Councilmember Chen concluded more study was needed including looking at the relationship to the City’s development from a long term standpoint, not from the standpoint of one project. Ms. McLaughlin said the analysis studied all the parcels this would be applicable to approximately 15 parcels. Council President Olson referred to the agenda memo which states staff will provide a more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. This was not the recommendation in the packet. The motion she made was in conflict with the recommendation made on the slide. Her recommendation is in the interim, stay the course, extend the designated street front on Main and through the process that follows, all of this will be revisited during the hearings. She asked it was better to adopt an interim ordinance rather than extend the moratorium or would it be better to extend the moratorium. Ms. McLaughlin agreed with a previous councilmember’s comment that enough analysis has been done to know where this will land. At this point up it is to council in terms of the direction they want to go, vote to either extend the designated street front or not. Council President Olson clarified the motion on the table is to extend the designated street front and all the attachments to the ordinance in the original packet before the new information yesterday. For Councilmember L. Johnson, Council President Olson explained the motion is the last two sentences on packet page 196 in the staff recommendation section. That section also stated staff would provide a more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. She restated the motion: THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE. A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 5 WHICH AMENDS THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMENDS ECDC 16.43.020.A IS HEREBY MOVED. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SIMPLY CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY BUT NOT EXTEND THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT. Councilmember L. Johnson said obviously the ambiguity needs to be clarified, but as has been stated, the moratorium has been extended a number of times, the council has the information it needs to make an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 18 informed decision. Clarifying the ambiguity is necessary but she did not believe extending the designated street front was in the City’s best interest. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment although she supported the original motion. She clarified a misstatement during discussion, when she on the planning board in 2012, there was discussion was about 25 plus 5 feet not 30 feet. The height was never intended to be 30 feet, it was intended to be 25 feet plus 5 feet for articulation. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment because there is new, good, data-based information and this is the cycle of market. This may have been what was needed in 2013 or 2008, but it is no longer those times. Not extending the designated street front would allow more multifamily housing, would not put the entire BD1 and BD2 in a moratorium, and offered Edmonds a lot more opportunity for vibrancy and participation in the marketplace. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment and will support original motion. Zoning is permanent for a long time; this is the result of a rush decision, targeted toward one parcel when it affects a larger area. From an interim standpoint, the 6th & Main parcel is very important to the downtown business area and the designated street map should be extended to allow commercial on the lower level. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday pointed out the main motion is lacking specificity with regard to the map. Before the council votes, he wanted to ensure staff understood the map because there is not an amended map in the packet. He believed he understood what the maker of the motion intended and Mr. Lien described earlier in his presentation where the designated street front could be extended. Mr. Lien said the amended map is Exhibit 1, packet page 198. The ordinance contains a space for a public hearing date; a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption of an interim ordinance. He recommended setting the public hearing date before the vote. July options include the 5th, 19th, or 26th. Council President Olson advised the public hearing would be held on July 19th. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson commented he did not believe the council would get to the Waterfront Study agenda item. 2. STORMWATER CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE Interim Public Works Director Rob English introduced Rebecca Dugopolski, PE, Herrera Environmental Consultants, and Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell. He explained this item was discussed in July 2021 and public hearings were held in September 2021. The project was delayed by a SEPA appeal and the resignation of the City’s stormwater engineer. Staff is proceeding now that the appeal is complete and Herrera Environmental Consultants was hired to help with the process. Ms. Dugopolski reviewed: • Why the Update? o The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City’s development code to meet or exceed Ecology’s standards designed to protect surface water from being impacted by development Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 19 ▪ In 2019 Ecology issued an updated Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) ▪ Changes to the ECDC are required to be adopted by June 30, 2022 ▪ Ecology’s changes are mostly organizational - Summarized in the Executive Summary of the 2019 Revisions and Crosswalk: 2014- 2019 SWMMWW. (attached in packet) Mr. English reviewed: • Update on Public and SEPA Process o July 13, 2021: Parks and Public Works Committee o July 20, 2021: City Council Meeting o September 21, 2021: Public Hearing (City Council Meeting) (continued to September 28, 2021) o September 28, 2021: Public Hearing (City Council Meeting) o September 22, 2021: SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Issued o October 15, 2021: SEPA DNS Re-issued o November 4, 2021: SEPA DNS appealed o March 4, 2022: City’s DNS was sustained and the appeal was denied Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • SEPA Appeal Decision o “Using the existing stormwater code as a baseline, the adverse impacts of all the proposed amendments are found to be models, if any.” o City issued a Determination of Non-Significance, criteria for Determination of Significance are probable significant impacts. The City found there would not be probable significant impacts and the hearing examiner upheld that decision o Key points from the appeal ▪ “Hard surface” ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d - Related to untreated stormwater code - This had been staff interpretation - Treatment required “soft surfaces” over three quarters acre - Consistent with Stormwater Manual, which DOE has found to set acceptable treatment standards for stormwater control ▪ PFAS – perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoraklyl substances ▪ Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ▪ Edmonds Basin Direct Discharge Exemption ▪ Procedural Ms. Dugopolski continued: • Drainage Review 101 o Drainage mitigation is required when projects exceed certain thresholds of new plus replaced hard surfaces and/or clearing limits. ▪ Two categories of projects - Category 1: 2,000 to 5,000 SF hard surfaces  LID mitigation (MR #5) required for all projects - Category 2: > 5,000 SF hard surfaces  Flow control (MR #7) for > 10,000 SF (or 0.15 cfs increase in 100-year flow)  Water quality (MR #6) for > 5,000 SF pollution-generating hard surfaces (including all vehicle areas o Based on 52 SFR applications reviewed in 2021: ▪ 24 implemented dispersion or infiltration-based BMPs Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 20 ▪ 22 triggered City-specific detention requirements (otherwise exempt from Ecology’s requirements) ▪ 5 implemented perforated pipes ▪ 1 direct discharge • What’s Changing? o Most of the proposed code changes are updates to match Ecology reorganization and/or to provide clarity where the City has experienced commonly missed or misinterpreted information by manual users & designers. o See 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes (agenda packet) ▪ Direction from Ecology (Orange) = Ecology prescribed/required ▪ Direction from City (White) = City proposed clarification, reorganization, or update without substantial change/impact ▪ Direction from City (Green) = City proposed change with potential impacts • Key Change #1 – New connections of existing hard surfaces o Old: Current code allows for connection of existing hard surfaces on case-by-case basis with a focus on maintaining City pipe capacity. o New: Proposed revisions require new connections of existing hard surfaces to be treated like new hard surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation. ▪ This is specific to new connections; where residents have an existing connection, they are permitted to replace the connection in-kind without additional mitigation requirements. o Rationale: These new connections of existing surfaces are still new or altered impacts to the City’s system and any surface water they drain to; they should be mitigated as new impacts. o Potential Impacts: Affects a very small number of applicants. • Key Change #2 – Removing Edmonds Way as a direct discharge basin o Old: Current code recognizes the Edmonds Way basin as a partial direct discharge basin with reduced requirements for LID (MR #5) and flow control (MR #7) o New: Proposed revisions remove all exemptions for the Edmonds Way basin, resulting in equal application of stormwater code requirements to the Edmonds Way basin. o Rationale: The Edmonds Way drainage pipe (WSDOT) is known to overflow to the Edmonds Marsh under certain conditions; since this demonstrates a capacity issue and discharges to a natural waterbody, the direct discharge exemption should no longer apply. o Potential Impacts: Small SFR projects will have a slight cost increase. Large projects triggering flow control (MR #7) will have a more significant cost increase • Key Change #3 – Increasing protection of Perrinville Creek o Old: Current code applies the drainage code uniformly to all areas of City, including the Perrinville Creek Basin. o New: Proposed revisions to increase the retrofit requirement for LID and increase the flow control standard within the Perrinville Creek basin (only). ▪ Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated surfaces to remain): 25% => 50% ▪ Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (i.e., King County Level 3 Standard) o Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by past development and needs enhanced protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past development impacts. o Potential Impacts: Minimal impact on large projects triggering flow control (MR #7) and on homeowners conducting retrofits. • Key Change #4 – Detention preferred over perforated pipes o Old: Current code adopted the Ecology BMP list for MR #5 and then added an Edmonds- specific detention BMP to the end of the list, making its priority less than that of a perforated pipe connection. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 21 o New: Proposed revisions elevate the City-specific detention BMP to be considered before a perforated pipe connection. o Rationale: Perforated pipe connections are only used when infiltration has been found infeasible for very specific reasons. When infiltration is infeasible, perforated pipes usually will not work well and they may well get proposed in undesirable locations where instability and failure could result. Our modeling comparisons have shown detention to provide significantly better outcomes. o Potential Impacts: Minimal cost impacts; vary depending on the size of project and volume of storage needed. • Key Change #5 – Allow source control inspections o Old: Current code requires source control BMPs and allows for right-of-entry. o New: Proposed revisions add to the Purpose, Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities, and Enforcement Procedures sections to more explicitly describe the upcoming source control inspection requirements for businesses and sites. o Rationale: The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City to start implementing a business/site inspection program by January 1, 2023. Code updates to allow this program must be adopted by August 1, 2022. o Potential Impacts: Minimal cost impacts to businesses; will vary depending on the types of actions that are required for compliance with source control requirements • Next Steps o June 7, 2022: City Council Meeting o No later than June 30, 2022: Effective date for required stormwater code changes Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the packet did not contain the minutes of the public hearing. She recalled former Public Works Director Mr. Williams indicated this should have been reviewed sooner than later especially related to Perrinville Creek and Shellabarger Creek. She was glad the City hired a consultant to work on this after the stormwater engineer left the City. She asked if there was time to hold another public hearing, noting the minutes include a lot of discussion about the watershed. This was a lot to comprehend in one night; she was familiar with it, but worried about other councilmembers who had not heard about it before. Mr. English answered it was too late to hold a public hearing at the June 7th meeting because two weeks’ publication is required, June 14th is committee night, so June 21st would be the first opportunity for a public hearing. The challenge with that date is the consultant is not available on June 28th so the decision would need to be made the night of the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged the issues with the stormwater engineer leaving the City. She recalled the Hearing Examiner said if the council wanted to pursue modifications, they had three months to do so; that was in March and now it was June. Her concern was the Perrinville issue, recalling Mr. Williams indicated City staff was planning to meet with Lynnwood regarding the upstream impacts. She noted Lynwood is causing the majority of the Perrinville problem. These stormwater changes can be implemented, but without an ILA with Lynwood, the stormwater problems will continue. Mr. English responded he would not put all the blame on Lynnwood; they are a big percentage of the basin, but Snohomish County is also an issue with the erosion occurring within the park. All the proposed changes are improvements to the code. It is up to the council whether another public hearing is needed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from former Councilmember Petso who filed the SEPA appeal. In reading the minutes of the public hearing, a lot of people have concerns and she was unsure why they did not provide comment. Some of the issues brought up during the public hearing have not been addressed such as the hard surface issue as well as Perrinville and Shellabarger Creeks. Councilmember Paine said she watched last year’s presentation. She asked staff to comment on their work with Lynnwood. She was pleased to see the hard surface ratio had been increased from 25% to 50% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 22 for the Perrinville basin as that would be very protective. She acknowledged there was erosion within the park, but that land will not be developed. Mr. English reported the former public works director and the former stormwater engineer began the conversation with Lynnwood last fall and had one meeting. When those two staff members left, that conversation came to a halt. A meeting was held with Lynnwood in the last couple weeks to begin that conversation again. Some of the discussion was informing Lynnwood’s public works director and staff about Edmonds’ project in the lower reaches of Perrinville Creek as well as learning what Lynnwood has done in the watershed. He recalled the 2011/2012 Tetra Tech study identified potential improvements that Lynnwood has done since then. That will be presented to the Council on June 7th with the ESA contract. The conversation with Lynnwood also included potential code changes and what Edmonds plans to do. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear that the conversation with Lynnwood had restarted. It was her suggestion to the previous director to inquire about Lynnwood’s code matching Edmonds’ code. She expressed support for the proposed changes, acknowledging a few tweaks may be needed. She asked if the wellhead map could be added to the critical area map as part of the review process or did that need to be added to the checklist in the critical area code. Mr. Lien answered the wellhead protection area has been added to the critical areas map. A consultant with Olympic View Water was informed that the City is checking that. It is not technically a critical area because the critical area code has not been updated, but when the critical area code is updated, it will consider critical aquifer recharge areas. He concluded it is on the map and considered at the time of development review. Councilmember L. Johnson was encouraged that staff had reopened discussions with Lynnwood and would like to have open, constructive, collaborative and fact-based discussions. A councilmember stated earlier that Lynnwood is responsibility for the majority of the Perrinville Creek problems. She asked if there was information that corroborated that. Mr. English answered Lynnwood is a large percentage of the watershed, but he could not confirm they were the main reason for the problems in Perrinville because a percentage of the watershed was also within Edmonds. One of the reasons for this code change is to address issues within Edmonds. He did not have any facts to support the claim that the bulk of the issues are Lynnwood based. He was basing the discussion on the percentage of watershed that is within Lynnwood. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated the importance of open and collaborative discussions as that would lead to the best outcome. Councilmember Tibbott commented this was new material to him and required a lot of catching up although he was not unfamiliar with the issue. It appears there has been very robust discussion leading up to both the development of the code, the updates by the state and ultimately a code that was accepted by the hearing examiner, including input from a previous public hearing. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Tibbott commented it does not seem that another public hearing would be necessary. He asked how the updated stormwater code would help inform a future ILA with Lynnwood and with Snohomish County, whether it would facilitate collaboration and a more robust conversation. Mr. English answered if the council adopts the changes that are recommended specific to Perrinville, that supports staff’s conversations with Lynnwood staff and encouraging them to consider including the changes in their development code. Staff has provided Lynnwood with the proposed changes, but it speaks louder when adopted by the council. Councilmember Tibbott commented it appears to be a robust code that has been vetted carefully which will help facilitate future discussions. He was very supportive of the proposed changes. Councilmember Chen inquired about the change to hard surface. Ms. Dugopolski answered Ecology added a definition for hard surface in the last permit update to include impervious surfaces, vegetated roofs and permeable pavement. Councilmember Chen referred to uniform treatment for all new connections, basically extended it instead of looking at case by case. Ms. Dugopolski referred to key Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 23 change 1, explaining instead of on a case by case basis, it would require new connections to be treated like new hard surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation. Each project would evaluate those impacts rather than the City evaluating them on a case by case basis. Councilmember Chen commented Perrinville Creek stretches from Lynnwood to the waterfront and asked if this change would apply to the creek in total or would different sections of the creek have different considerations. Ms. Dugopolski referred to key change #3 which applies to the entire Perrinville Creek Basin; both the retrofit requirement and the new flow control requirement would apply to the full basin within the City limits. Councilmember Chen pointed out different sections of the creek have different situations, and asked if it would make sense to apply different standards to different sections. Ms. Dugopolski answered typically standards are applied basin-wide to avoid any confusion with regard to boundaries. There can be confusion if part of the property is in one section versus the other; applying this basin-wide provides the most protection for the creek for both retrofits and flow control. Councilmember Chen commented a uniform standard makes it easier to apply, but different projects in different sections of the creek might have different situations. Ms. Dugopolski answered in cases where flow control is a consideration, it is related to the size of system and having different standards may be confusing to apply in a drainage review. Mr. English answered one of the problems is during larger rain events, the peak volume creates sedimentation and erosion. The goal is to have this code apply to development within the entire watershed area. Regardless of what part of the watershed development is within the City of Edmonds, the developments would have these code requirements. Picking and choosing would not result in application of a uniform standard to everything that potentially drains into the creek. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 18.30 ECDC ENTITLED, “STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,” IN ITS ENTIRETY. Council President Olson asked if staff had had time to review the emails received in the last couple days and to potentially incorporate them. She referred to an email from former Councilmember Petso that contained some interesting points. Mr. English said he had not had a chance to review that email in detail; some of it is related to the points addressed by Mr. Lien in the appeal. Council President Olson commented there was an expectation this would be discussed at two council meetings. To the extent staff was not ready, the maker of the motion may want to withdraw. She did not want to rush through approval without having an opportunity to vet issues raised by citizens and councilmembers. Ms. Dugopolski responded she reviewed Ms. Petso’s email, if the council chose to go that route, it would be diverting from Ecology’s language as some of the definitions are set by Ecology. It would result in differences that would not apply to other jurisdictions in western Washington based on vehicular use and other items. It would need to be considered carefully to ensure it did not differ from the intent of the state regulations. Council President Olson asked how a decision was made regarding the body of language that was incorporated into the code. Ms. Dugopolski answered it was based on the stormwater permit and Ecology’s SWMMWW so there is consistency with definitions and terminology to ensure it is evenly applied across western Washington. There are some City specific items, but in general, most of the definitions track with Ecology for consistency across the region. Councilmember Paine expressed support for adopting the ordinance. A lot of the comments by Ms. Petso were the basis of her SEPA appeal which has been thoroughly investigated. This is a complicated code with a huge manual that has been reviewed by Ecology Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO PASS THIS TO THE CONSENT AGENDA SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PULL IT IF STAFF FINDS SOMETHING THEY WANT TO CONSIDER INCORPORATING. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 3. APPROVAL OF THE 2023-2028 SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Interim Public Works Director Rob English recalled a public hearing was held last week. Staff is here to answer questions tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a project to fix the ferry lane on Dayton Street, commented she thought that was done last year. There are also funds in the budget to expand ferry lanes on SR-104. She asked what else could be done, recalling the lanes were expanded as much as they could be. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss answered WSDOT did a project last year, opening the lane on the eastern end of the ferry holding lane. The project was kept in the TIP in case more improvements are needed in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a lot of people complained because they could not turn right. Mr. Hauss said since that project was completed last year, the City has not heard any complaints even with the restricted right turn. There are several alternate routes to reach Dayton, either via Pine Street or Main Street. Councilmember Tibbott referred to PWT-38, Citywide Pedestrian Enhancement Project, on the spreadsheet provided at the PPW Committee. Mr. Hauss advised that project has been completed. Councilmember Tibbott relayed the spreadsheet indicates $10,000 for 2022 and no funding for citywide pedestrian enhancements for the next 5-6 years. Mr. Hauss said this TIP starts in 2023; the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project that included traffic signals and the HAWK signal was essentially complete earlier this year. Councilmember Tibbott asked where the non-motorized transportation projects the walkway crew is working on are listed in the TIP. Mr. English answered that is not part of the TIP; the crew does things like building ramps, short sidewalk segments, sidewalk panel replacements, etc. The projects on the TIP are larger than a 2-person crew can build. He offered to provide a summary of what the crew has been working on in the last couple years. Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in that, but was even more interested in the plans for the future. Mr. English explained there is an outline of work for that crew, but it is not a capital project that would show up on the TIP. Councilmember Tibbott suggested talking about the walkway crews’ work plan in committee. Councilmember Tibbott referred to Project 14, 228th St SW from Highway 99 to 95th Pl W, commenting that is an important east-west connector and seems ripe for either walkway enhancement, bicycle lanes, sharrows or both. It is not listed under walkway projects, but is listed under safety/capacity projects. He asked whether walkway enhancements will be included with that project. Mr. Hauss answered this project Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 25 addresses all modes of transportation; there will be vehicular improvements such as potentially 2-way left turn lanes as well as bike lanes and sidewalks. That corridor is a connection to the Mountlake Terrace transit center. Projects are included in one category even if the improvements are in different categories. The City was going to get a grant for the project a couple years ago from Sound Transit, but with COVID and funding issues, it will be reevaluated in a couple years along with downtown lighting and Pine Street Walkway. The City will continue to look for grant opportunities because that is about a $14 million project. Councilmember Tibbott commented it is a high priority east-west connection to the light rail station. He recommended the project description include pedestrian solutions. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for sending her the safety plan. She would like to have the top ten most dangerous intersections and streets identified so people can travel with caution. She referred to Item #13, 76th Ave W @ 220th St SW intersection, redesign intersection to reduce intersection delay, expressing interest in better pedestrian safety on that roadway and keeping intersection design consistent with stated speeds and finding ways to calm traffic so there is not another incident like the one that occurred a couple weeks ago where two children were injured crossing the street. She did not want to focus strictly on level of service and getting people through intersections, but also keeping safety in mind as well as better pedestrian access. Councilmember Paine referred to Item #16, Main St @ 9th Avenue, installation of traffic signal or mini roundabout, pointing out there will be a bus route on Main Street in 2024. She recommended the proposed project be evaluated with Community Transit in mind. There also need to be better walking paths to reach the new bus service on Main as well as new business service 196th and on 76th near the college and in other areas. She supported focusing on nonmotorized transportation and pursuing Safe Routes to Schools grants. Westgate Elementary has serious traffic problems and she wanted to ensure the traffic flow worked well. Councilmember Paine referred to the map provided last week, expressing interest in having a good geographic distribution of projects. She asked staff to provide additional information. Mr. Hauss responded a Safe Routes to Schools call for projects is due on June 6th; staff will be submitting 4 grant applications, including bicycle improvement at SR-104 & 100 extending the bike lanes from what is designed in the Citywide Bicycle Improvement program and 3 walkway projects in proximity to schools, 95th between 220th and 224th ¼ mile east of Westgate, 80th north of the high school between 212th and 206th which creates new connections to the high school as well as College Place Elementary and Middle School, and on Maplewood from Main to 200th which is close to Maplewood Elementary. Staff is also submitting 2 grant applications on May 30th, at SR-104 & 76th, north and south of the intersection on the Interurban Trail to create a multiuse path so bikes have a clear entry into the intersection; they are currently sharing the travel lanes. Recent counts found there are a lot of bikes using that intersection. The other grant application is for 236th from Highway 99 to 76th, adding approximately 1400’ of sidewalk on the south side of the street. Mr. Hauss explained the transportation plan update next year will potentially identify new projects in the walkway plan which will be added to the TIP in the future and funding sources will be sought for those projects. All the walkway projects in the existing transportation will be evaluated and potentially reprioritized. Councilmember Paine commented the Lake Ballinger neighborhood would appreciate having sidewalks and community pathways to reach the park. Councilmember Chen referred to Esperance which is unincorporated Snohomish County but it is on the edge of Edmonds. For example, he asked if the City or Snohomish County was responsible for traffic improvements on 76th Ave W. Mr. Hauss responded 220th & 76th project is in the design phase and staff will bring alternatives to the city council. The right-of-way line on 76th is the back of the sidewalk; to the west of the sidewalk on the west side is Snohomish County and the sidewalk and the street are in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 26 Edmonds. The same is true on 76th and on 220th, Snohomish County is the back of sidewalk so all the roadway and sidewalk is in Edmonds. Councilmember Chen requested adding a project to the list at the intersection of 224th & 76th, not just because his office is there, but due to multiple complaints about frequent car accidents at that intersection. He recalled a gentleman who brought him a stack of accident reports going back years. He requested adding traffic calming devices at the intersection such as flashing light so drivers do not run the stop sign. Swedish Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School are on 76th, drivers are rushing down 76th to Highway 99 and 228th to connect to Mountlake Terrace. That area is very busy and will get busier once the light rail station opens. Mr. English commented there is an annual program for traffic calming and traffic safety. It is not really a project that would be added to the TIP, but improvements could be funded through the annual program. Councilmember Chen said that location needs attention, whether through the TIP or the regular program. Mr. English said staff will take a look. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Item #13, which refers to LOS, relaying her surprise at seeing LOS as a metric. Former Councilmember Distelhorst helped broaden her thinking on this; it is a very car centric form of measurement based on the highest level of congestion on a roadway, even if it only occurs for a few minutes of the day. In 2013, California stopped using moving as many cars as possible as their metric and shifted to a more holistic metric that balances multimodal, pedestrians and bicycles. She hoped this was outdated language in the TIP and that the City has made that same shift or was in the process of doing it. Mr. English said the transportation comprehensive plan update will consider a multimodal LOS that would consider pedestrians and bicycles as part of the LOS calculation. 76th & 220th was a project that came out of the last transportation plan and was based on a vehicle LOS. Options for that project will be presented to council in June. In addition to capacity improvements at the intersection, it extends the bike lanes through the intersection and widens the sidewalk. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled a recent discussion regarding extending bike lanes and LOS was used as a reason for not having the bike lanes go all the way across the intersection. She hoped that would not be repeated, especially since it was a minor inconvenience for a few minutes of the day that impeded the ability in that instance to have complete bike lanes. She hoped other metrics could be used to help balance that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Tibbott referred to Item #38, Downtown Lighting Improvements, and suggested consideration be given to lighting improvements throughout the entire City. He suggested deleting “downtown” from the project title. Mr. Hauss said this was initially a Sound Transit grant to address access improvement to their transit center; that is why it was identified as downtown lighting improvements. He agreed it could potentially be expanded to the entire City in the future. Mr. English asked if that was direction to add a Citywide Lighting Improvement Project to the TIP. Councilmember Tibbott suggested either changing the title of that project or adding another project. Mr. English suggested including that in the motion if council was ready to approve the TIP tonight. Council President Olson echoed that point, noting the Ballinger neighborhood is particularly interest in lighting. Mr. English recommended adding Citywide Lighting Improvement project. The Downtown Lighting Improvements are related to the Sound Transit station. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADD A CITYWIDE LIGHTING PROJECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 27 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET TO APPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk advised the ordinance number for Item 9.1, BD2 Designated Street Front, was Ordinance 4262; Item 9.2, Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30) Update, was Ordinance 4263; and the resolution for Item 9.3, Approval of the 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, was Resolution 1491. 4. EDMONDS WATERFRONT ISSUES STUDY Due to the late hour, this item was not discussed. 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson referred to the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, at Robb Elementary. It was not shocking that there was another school shooting, but that we as a nation continue do nothing about it. As a parent, children should be going to school to learn, not a new fortress or compound. Texas has one million registered guns, but one million guns did nothing to protect those 19 children. If one million guns can’t save them, how many guns does it take to save them? We need to rethink what we are prioritizing. He hoped policy makers, elected officials, the federal government who to date have failed miserably to protect children in this country from gun violence can do more to prevent gun violence. All school shootings are preventable, but everyone needs to do their part to lobby, influence and pass local, state and federal legislation to do more to protect our children. Our love of our children needs to be greater than our love of guns. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Chen referred to temporary shelter, affordable housing and wraparound services for the populations that need it the most. Last week the council passed a compassionate enforcement ordinance, and Edmonds needs to do our share. He looked forward to getting some investment into this need. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for his comments regarding the shooting in Texas, commenting in addition to the children, one teacher was also killed. She referred to the statement made by President Biden similar to Mayor Nelson’s and said we need to figure out why and how these keep happening, finding it unfathomable. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the City has lost a wonderful person, Martha Orvis. Her husband, Dave Orvis, was mentor to her when she came on council, and she learned a lot about zoning, shadow effects, etc. from him. She was also sad to hear that Jim Wassell, a gentle giant who did accounting for seniors at the Waterfront Center and was a member of the Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, had passed away, relaying he will be greatly missed. Council President Olson thanked those who paid the ultimate price for our country. This Monday, Memorial Day, there will be ceremonies dedicated to those fallen soldiers; at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery at 11 a.m. and at the Edmonds Veterans Plaza at 1 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 28 Councilmember Paine said her heart goes out to the families in Texas. As parent whose children experienced violent acts at the mall several years ago, they were terrified and still talk about it whenever things like this happen nationally. As the mayor said, school shootings are totally preventable and do a lot of harm to the collective mental health. She wished there was a better solution rather than just talk. Councilmember L. Johnson said she struggled to find right words tonight and was still struggling. She has been active in the gun violence prevention movement. Her awakening was Sandy Hook when 20 first graders and 6 of their teachers were senselessly killed in an act so evil that like many, she believed the nation would come together and once and for all to actually do something. This December will be 10 years since Sandy Hook and shootings at schools, grocery stores, places of worship and more have only become more common. Today, 19 elementary school kids, 8, 9 and 10 year old children and 2 of their teachers were murdered 2 days before the beginning of summer break. Some have responded by saying don’t infringe on their rights to own a firearm. What is valued more, lives or guns? At the bare minimum, someone who chooses to own a firearm should be required to store it securely. In 2018 she was proud to support then-Councilmember Nelson’s efforts to mandate safe firearm storage in Edmonds. Unfortunately, even something as common sense as storing firearms out of reach of children was blocked. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated, what do we value more, lives or guns? We are a nation that by all appearances values guns over lives. There have been 28 mass shootings in the U.S. in the past two weeks and 27 school shootings so far this year. Some are still qualifying their comments with, well, I’m not against guns. She wanted to go on record saying she is against guns in the hands of anyone younger than 21, anyone without adequate safety training and a license, and anyone who is unwilling to safely secure a tool that is designed to kill. She is for going to school, to the grocery store, to houses of worship and concerts without the fear of being shot and killed. As Andy Richter said today, it’s either kids or guns. You need to decide which one is more important and vote accordingly. She urged the public to get involved, demand that those with the power to do something actually do it. And for the sake of our children, if you choose to own a firearm, store it securely, show you value lives over your guns. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.