Loading...
2024-03-19 Council MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 19, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Levy, Senior Planner Navyusha Pentakota, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Tibbott read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE AGENDA BY PULLING ITEM 7.4, JANUARY 2024 MONTHLY FINANCIAL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 1 REPORT, TO BE UPDATED AND BROUGHT BACK NEXT WEEK AS A RECEIVED FOR FILING AGENDA ITEM. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson requested Item 8.3, Council Rules of Procedure Section 3, be removed from the Consent Agenda and rescheduled on a future agenda. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Joe Scordino, Edmonds, spoke regarding the comprehensive plan update process, commenting the approach to this topic has gotten his Sicilian blood boiling. He and others are extremely tired of public meetings and surveys intentionally designed not to allow for public input. Citizens continually ask questions and make comments but it doesn't seem to make a difference; they see the same things repeated and most disturbing, never see them presented to the council. There are additional alternatives for the comprehensive plan update that must be included in the EIS. He recommended stop wasting time and taxpayer dollars dwelling on theoretical growth alternatives and get down to earth with the affected environment. He advocated for starting with an alternative to the comprehensive plan update that acknowledges that Edmonds is already over -developed in some areas and at the brink of overwhelming the municipal capacities in other areas and has a huge budget problem to address, without trying to put more burden on municipal operations. Mr. Scordino continued, best available science, not future growth theories, are clear that the devastating effects of environmental damage from this comprehensive plan will affect the health and well being of all Edmonds residents. Further, Edmonds is different than other inland municipalities in that most of Edmonds' watersheds are part of the larger Puget Sound watershed which the state has acknowledged has huge problems related to stormwater, sewage and other things due to urban development. There is a compelling need to address that while addressing other state requirements. He asked the council to stop the crazy and to begin developing at least one additional alternative for the EIS based on public input and the environment. He asked for assurance that it will be useful to attend public meetings and not a waste of time to make comments that go nowhere. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, Edmonds resident since 1960, commented on the size of tonight's packet, 769 pages, relaying her gratitude and respect for the council. She urged the council to support the coastal resiliency grant, Council Business Item 1, Planning Study for Edmonds Marsh and Estuary Restoration. She referred to the adage, if you want to know someone's character, look at who there friends are. Similarly if you want to know the value or importance of a grant, look who supported it. The grant applicant included nine strong letters of support from the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates, InterClimate Action Group, League of Women Voters of Snohomish County, Pilchuck Audubon, Sound Salmon Solutions, Mid Sound Fisheries, Port of Edmonds, Sno-Isle Sierra Club and Tulalip Tribes. Many of these organizations have worked with the city in other capacities and are eager to see Edmonds moving forward to gain the additional information this grant will provide. As the Mid Sound Fisheries' letter of support stated, the tasks described in the proposal are an important initial step toward reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound. The Tulalip Tribes echoed that and added the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh will provide the largest estuary and marsh habitat along the stretch of shoreline between Everett and Seattle. The opportunity to maintain and strengthen tribal treaty resources is consistent with the Tulalip Tribes' goal to preserve, protect, enhance, restore, and manage wetlands and their associated ecological services. The organizations who supported this grant are made up of people dedicated to preserving the natural beauty of the area. Approving this grant proposal will affirm the council is in good company. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, commented on the growth alternatives that will be analyzed in the EIS. The alternatives should represent a range of reasonable, achievable options, but both alternatives A and B ignore Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 2 the reality of the city's stormwater and sewer system capacities, the city's poor track record in receiving large utility infrastructure grants, and the slow progress the city has made with its own funding. For example, flooding in Perrinville was studied and remediation projects were engineered, but there are 11 years between the date of the study and when the last CIP project is scheduled to be completed in 2026. The cost of fixing Perrinville is three times the annual utility fund 422 receipts for the whole city. Distributed Growth Alternative B plans for 200 new housing units in Perrinville; she suggested walling off Perrinville from any future land use changes until the problems created by past development have been fixed. Shellabarger Creek has flooding every winter and she suggested that drainage be walled off from land use changes until the problems created by past development have been fixed. The mother of all stormwater management issues is probably the Lake Ballinger system; it is in the CIP for 2026-2027 and is underfunded by $2.5 million as all the funds have been spent on Perrinville and routine stormwater projects. Ms. Hollis continued, with regard to the sewer infrastructure, in last year's CIP presentation, the public works director told council the sewage treatment plant has about 10 years left. If the EIS alternatives have to be achievable, she suggest certain areas of the city be walled off from additional housing, sinks and toilets because there won't be funds available to expand sewer capacity during this planning period in those neighborhood. The funding policy on page 131 of the current comprehensive plan is that utility rates are the source of funds to replace aging water and sewer networks, not debt financing. She questioned whether that would work when the population grew by 30%. She recommended a focused growth alternative that prevents growth where the major stormwater and sewer problems are and allows growth where resources are already located. In 2017, an EIS was approved for the Highway 99 subarea with mitigations that required a lot of capital spending, but those capital investments were never made because the city did not have the money. She urged the city not to spend the next 4-5 months on this EIS process and get the same result; a citywide list of capital projects that the city won't be able to build. Diana Mesh, Edmonds, sad given the need to preserve farmland and open space, density is necessary but with density come these concerns among others: increased infrastructure both sewer and stormwater, maintenance of the green canopy, protecting the character of the community, increased concrete, asphalt and impervious surfaces that are counter to good living conditions. Visioning without estimates to guide us seems totally unacceptable. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, referred to the redlight cameras agenda item, applauding the EPD for their great presentation that included a lot of good factual data for tonight's discussion, not only accident statistics but monetary statistics as well. The continuing argument is whether red light cameras are a safety issue as presented, or to provide additional revenue due to the city's current finances. The presentations seem to stress it is about safety and if true, he proposed all red light cameras revenue be earmarked for the street funds, Fund 111 and/or 112, for street and sidewalk safety improvements, and not the General Fund. Doing so will highlight that the true purpose is safety improvements and not just a money grab for the General Fund. He hoped when the red light cameras come to council for approval, the ordinance states where the revenue will be deposited. He concluded the public was just looking for honesty and transparency. Roger Pence, Edmonds, an 8 year resident of Edmonds and former member and chair of the planning board, said he has been following the comprehensive plan process very closely. Any planning process of this magnitude needs to be grounded in facts; the numbers need to make sense as decisions are made. He has attended many comprehensive plan presentations by staff and most have included the statement that the city needs to grow by over 13,000 people between now and 2044, a number provided by regional planning authorities. Divided by 20 years, that equates to an average of just over 600 people per year. However, in looking at Edmonds' growth back to 2000, the growth rate has been an average of 140 people per year. He asked what was going on that would cause Edmonds to growth over four times faster than it has in the preceding two decades. He trusted the city's planning officials have validated the 13,000 growth estimate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 3 and can explain why that is a valid number. If that number hasn't been or can't be validated, he suggested finding another number to aspire to, one that is grounded in reality. Sam Bryan, Edmonds, spoke regarding Item 10.3, Comprehensive Plan Growth Alternatives. He commented on the lack of diversity in the proposed growth alternatives; there are technically two growth proposals that would allow for 4-5 story apartments in Edmonds in neighborhoods like Five Corners, Westgate, etc. At their core, the proposals are nearly the same in that they generally examine the same parcels for rezoning and there is no option to increase density in ways other than 4-5 story apartments so it is just basically a single proposal for increasing density. He understood Edmonds needs to meet certain capacity limits as mandated by the state and tall apartments check that box. He also understood there was a certain level of coherence with these proposals and recognized there was a single family housing affordability problem in the region that needs to be addressed. More analysis and options are needed to decide whether increasing density via 4-5 story apartments is necessary at this time. That question has not been answered by city planners in the current proposals. He suggested at least one option that replaces the 4-5 story apartments with 2-3 story apartments. This is a big decision and to make an informed decision, more quantitative analysis is needed and less qualitative benefits. With regard to the claims of what these 4-5 story apartments will do for the neighborhood, the basis of the benefits is the idea of a 15-minute neighborhood where most things residents need are within a 15-minute walk or bus ride of these "neighborhood centers" which are anchored by these tall apartments. He pushed back on that, pointing out on a busy night, Bar Dojo's parking lot in Five Corners is full and cars spill out onto 84t' which means people are driving to Bar Dojo. He did not envision apartments on 216' would result in people suddenly taking the bus. He recommended the city planners do more analysis and come up with more diverse ways to increase density; having more choices is not a bad thing. Amber Smith, Edmonds, a resident of Five Corners, echoed Mr. Bryan's comment. Option A, Focused Growth, which allows up to 5 floors of mixed use and multifamily versus Option B, Distributed Growth, which allows up to 4 floors seems very similar. It would be beneficial to have more diverse options to determine what makes the most sense in these neighborhood centers. She was concerned about the density in the comprehensive plan alternatives for Five Corners as the roads that feed the area are only two lanes and not major arterials. She was concerned about the impact a 5-story complex in Five Corners would have on pollution, noise, density, traffic and congestion. She encouraged the city to do more analysis and develop options with greater diversity than Option A and B which seem duplicative. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. MAYOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. COUNCIL ANNUAL WORK PLAN 2024 5. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE 4TH QUARTER 2023 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 5, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 2024 4. SUMMER MARKET, EDMONDS SPRINGFEST, EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL, 4TH OF JULY AND TASTE EDMONDS SPECIAL EVENT AGREEMENTS 5. EPOA COMMISSIONED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 1/1/24 - 12/31/25 6. APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION 7. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT FOR ON -CALL STORMWATER REVIEW SERVICES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 4 8. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH DEA FOR PHASE 12 & 13 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECTS 9. APPROVAL OF 2024 UPDATE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES 10. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 11. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 12. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2024 13. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2024 14. PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING PROPOSED TIME CHANGE 15. AMENDING ECC 5.04.010 -REMOVING RCW 66.44.291 AND RCW 66.44.320 16. AMENDING ECC 5.12.020-CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR 17. AMENDING ECC 5.34 -ADDING A NEW SECTION (ECC 5.35.010) TO CITY CODE FOR "COMPUTER CRIMES" AND ADOPTING SEVERAL PARTS OF RCW 9A.90 18. B&C CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — ARTS COMMISSION 19. B&C CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — ARTS COMMISSION 20. B&C CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 21. B&C CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT — HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA CODE AMENDMENT Mike Clugston introduced Planning Board Chair Jeremy Mitchell, and Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla. Mr. Clugston reviewed: • Summary o Currently no CARA regulations in Edmonds o Propose prohibition of new intensive uses in CARAs + buffers ■ Exceeds Department of Health (DoH) requirements, not required to regulate buffer areas o Propose monitoring of existing intensive uses in CARAs + buffers ■ Exceeds Department of Health (DoH) requirements, not required to regulate buffer areas o Stormwater management in CARAs + buffers ■ Exceeds Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements o Planning Board recommended approval of the code amendment with modification • CARA Ma Woodway Edmonds Esperance T, V —� errace 228th Street ellfield �`' ,' j WHPA ll Influenced by Deer Cree > j/ Hall Creek S rings \\ i 3 �.;•� Legend �`_- - LAB MMI^ TevolTme Zone _ ?iTdl• 1 - \\ \ Zone t (1 veer T w TM Zaul Zone2(5Veer Trevel Tme 2.) 2441^Street_\ Shor. -zooe3(ioveec Ta.e�Tma zoos) ��BWbrzone 2000' � �� ^ii:-�.J4 �. V• .9+ .. � � �.:i. ]aaananairmxuon nroes )o��ooeea aaM+irer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 5 Planning Board Chair Jeremy Mitchell explained the planning board worked collaborative with Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD). On behalf of the planning board, he thanked Bob Danson and Lora Petso for their time and commitment to nine meetings where the CARA code amendment was discussed as well as their assistance with the subcommittee to reach a recommendation. The planning board's initial recommendation changed based on legal guidance discussed in executive session based on a risk mitigation assessment. OVWSD is implementing their Watershed Protection Plan, as required by the state, based on the source susceptibility assessment which provides guidelines on protecting the aquifer, watershed and drinking water quality. As the city is not the water purveyor, a balance is necessary between protecting the water source and weighing the amount taxpayers pay for permanent infrastructure He reviewed: • Planning board recommendations (revised) o Moved approval of November 29, 2023 draft CARA code with two proposed changes o Modification #1 remove mitigation section in 23.60.030(d)(1)(c) ■ Change to be made o Modification #2 — Disallow any UIC wells — shallow or drilled — in the QVa areas of the Deer Creek aquifer but allow shallow UIC wells in the other areas of that watershed ■ On March 13, voted 3-1 (one abstention) to remove proposed modification Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla reviewed: • Stormwater Management in Deer Creek CARA o Meets the intent of the CARA - minimize loss of recharge quantity maintain the protection of supply wells to public drinking water and prevent contamination of groundwater o Without modification the stormwater management approach proposed by staff is more protective than required o Protects DoH wellhead areas AND buffer ■ Buffer protection not required by DoH o Meets and exceeds all DOE stormwater permit requirements ■ Some treatment required regardless of soil treatment capacity • More protective than DoH requirements ShoUbarkler Watershed _ _--___ Willow Gerk - 3 watershedEf' 22arHSrsw Watehhed 8 �• ---- t l i Ld—ds Way T. Wat.rshed, f Southia�l� ! sdmodd. A �„ • WaterYMd - 238Th ST Sw' Pu M Sound Watershed / . % u a r southwest Edmonds B _ '- Wet —hod vFs` --- WOQQWAYcDMOND95 -. lake BdlinQar �� Watanhod ro1.. arwenMe wr.-�or.•nn, s.ex n�e� Sao ov:xre i -M�a Ce BN Geaet RM, Dl:eurr e5-e Ceure WtW Cewe �A nn •... i OR>moe 3 1 !l. 64' f1! L�IMw.`xo� EDMOND�rj ! if Yeer Lane ! ifi fYDer tdw A 1N rm .xa• tt) L ieM•^e^• y_ _ v.er 2dM 2i t ,9 N L Ir'^"xe•� D M-*Z— 21 b ®�••�" Cityof Edmonds .aroMreeRemoea,no iRaeD Deer Creek CARA Properties February 2024 o Blue hatched area spans many drainage basins. o QVa is main recharge source for the aquifer and flows need to be maintained Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 6 o Comparison of what DOE requires and City of Edmonds requires ■ DOE's Technology Assessment Protocol Ecology (TAPE) program is a menu of technologies DOE has tested. IF reatment Required per DOE Soil Treatment Capacity Pollutant Loading High Medium Low Insignificant Insignificant Two -Stage Drywell Two -Stage Drywell Two -Stage Drywell Two -Stage Drywell ow Two -Stage Drywell Pretreament Pretreament emove Solids edium Pretreament Remove Solids Remove Solids Remove Solids i h Remove Oil Remove Oil Remove Oil and Solids Remove Oil and Solids "_A Required per COE Soil Treatment Capacity 77 Pollutant Loading High Medium Iow Insignificant Insignificant Low Pretreatment Pretreament eSolidsEMS Remove Solids ve Solids olids a Solids Remove Solids Remove Oil and Medium Solids Remove Oil and move Oil and Solds Solids Remove Oil and Solids Remove Oil and ,High Solids Remove Oil and move Oil and Solids olids Remove Oil and Solids Listen to video Prohibiting Shallow UICs in Qva in Deer Creek CARA is infeasible o Closed stormwater basins o Area lacks municipal stormwater infrastructure o Could lead to increased flooding at Deer Creek o Increased cost of compliance could lead to de facto moratorium within low -density residential areas in SW Edmonds o No federal or state standards exist for PFAS ■ If standards are adopted and contamination ever detected Olympic View would have to treat for it or buy additional water from another provider Mr. Clugston reviewed: • Staff recommendation o Take public testimony o Additional council discursion tonight o Potential action/adoption April 16 Mayor Rosen opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Bob Danson, General Manager, Olympic View Water & Sewer District, thanked the city for working with OVWSD on protecting the community's drinking water recourses by updating the CARA code. City staff has worked collaboratively with OVWSD to develop the recommended protections. He recognized the code has challenges due to the ramifications and although OVWSD supports a majority of the code update, they have some reservations. OVWSD has two shallow watershed wellhead protection areas that supply drinking water to the community. The reason for the buffers is because they are shallow and very susceptible to concern and OVWSD includes the buffers as part of the wellhead protection areas and designated in its Wellhead Protection Plan and requests they be include in the CARA. It is also one of the only sources in the area that is not part of the Seattle or Everett system so in the event of a catastrophic, this is potentially the water source for the entire community. Across the state, several sources have had contamination due to land uses which require at a minimum treatment which can be costly or the water source has to be abandoned. With regard to alternative sources, they are dwindling due to increased contamination; PFAS has eliminated several water sources as well as impacted salmon habitat. There is also the issue of overall growth and pressure from growth for the water resource. Drought conditions in recent years are the result Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 7 of the massive water resources in the mountain not being enough. Contamination of this critical resource could be very devastating and unfortunate. OVWSD's position has always been stormwater is a threat due to pollutants in stormwater and using infiltration of any kind in stormwater mitigation in the capture zones has potential for concern for the aquifer. The Qva layer is the water bearing layer and very susceptible to concern so OVWSD has major concerns with any infiltration which is why OVWSD recommends no UIC. OVWSD appreciates the efforts in the draft to only allow shallow infiltration and increase treatment requirements for infiltration options which will help with pollutants but is still concerned it will not stop everything such as PFAS. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, said Mr. Scardino left because he did not think the council was listening. She agreed with Mr. Danson's comments, noting she wrote about it in the newspaper. She recommended the council approve the planning board's original recommendation and not allow more digging. She pointed out the information staff provided was not visible to the audience. She referred to an email she received that said if the council sees science that convinces them more protection is needed, they will make the code more stringent. In her opinion, the council needed to protect the city's residents via a more stringent code and change the code later if science supported it. She urged the council to approve the code as recommended in December. With no further public comment, Mayor Rosen closed the public hearing. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding the shallow area is sand so anything around it transmits more quickly toward the wellhead. She recalled someone asking during last year's meetings if the CARA has been around so long, why wasn't it contaminated. At that time Mr. Clugston said it was due to low density single family. With the pressures for growth and creating more impervious surfaces, more runoff and more potential for contamination and overwhelming system, she asked whether these areas could be designated for less intensive development. If ways to protect the aquifer are developed in the future, possibly more intensive development could be allowed. She was leaning toward being more protective of both these water sources. Mr. Clugston answered with regard to future growth, the state has said there are things the City must do to provide more density. Even in single family zones, like the bulk of the CARA and buffer, more housing will be developed, but fortunately it is low density. In the past 100 years the CARA has been recognized, there have not been any chemical exceedances and it has been an extremely clean source of drinking water and he did not see that changing. CARA regulations have been in the GMA since early the 1990s, but Edmonds did not have regulations because the City did not know the CARAs existed until several years ago. As these are predominantly single family zones, if new uses occur, they will be duplexes or triplexes. Councilmember Dotsch commented duplexes and triplexes result in more impervious surfaces; it was her understanding gutters have PFAS. Fortunately the two CARAs in Edmonds are clean, she has read that 50% of the water in the United States is contaminated. Although the state's housing guidelines include protection for CARAs, a bill the legislature approved this year took that away. She asked how to balance something as precious as clean water. She wanted to do everything possible to prevent any contamination and if things change in the future, that could be considered. She was inclined to be as protective as possible. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding from the presentation that the CARA regulations as amended meet or exceed DOE's recommendations for a discharge area. Mr. Clugston answered that was correct. Councilmember Tibbott asked for a description of pretreatment concepts the City would prescribe prior to water filtration. Mr. De Lilla referred to the table that compares what DOE requires and City of Edmonds requires, explaining there are pollution generating impervious surfaces which according to DOE is any surface a car drives on. Non -pollution generating surfaces are roofs, sidewalks, and everything else. If the City were to use DOE's standard, non -pollution generating surfaces only require two -stage drywell (catch basin and pipe and infiltrate or put in a raingarden). For pollution generating surfaces, DOE requires Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 8 removal of solids which is water treatment such as rain gardens and a plethora of DOE tested technologies such as filter cartridges, water treatment boxes, etc. For example, the tree wells on Main Street between 5' and 6t1i contain water treatment facilities. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there are pretreatment options in the code. Mr. De Lilla agreed, advising PFAS is not regulated because no one knows what the standard should be yet. Councilmember Paine thanked the planning board for holding six meetings to address this topic. She asked what contamination, if any, has been found in the waters of Hall Creek and Deer Creek and what percentage of Deer Creek and Halls Creek supply water to OVWSD. Mr. De Lilla answered it was 0-40% depending on the time of the year. The majority of water comes from Seattle. Councilmember Chen said he was trying understand the difference between the planning board's original recommendation, eliminate all UIC wells, and the current recommendation to allow some. He asked the risks of contamination of the aquifer by making this concession. Mr. De Lilla referred to the City of Edmonds Deer Creek CARA Properties map, pointing out the blue crosshatched area is the Qva, highly sandy soil that the aquifer depends on to have water go into to be recharged. Every other place outside the Qva may go down a few feet, but eventually goes through the Qva. The planning board originally wanted to get rid of any UIC within the blue crosshatched area regardless of the fact that everything in the QVt also makes it to the Qva. If there cannot be infiltration and only rain gardens, there will be a lot more flooding and site conditions will make it difficult to have above grade facilities. Therefore the facilities need to be smaller which means development needs to be smaller, there will be localized flooding, drainage patterns change, etc. Only one technology is allowed within the blue crosshatched area to mitigate, but everywhere else has 26 other choices to resolve the situation which in his opinion was counterintuitive. Providing more choices and allowing adjustments related to the development is a good thing especially since all the technologies fall within the TAPE guideline. Qualitatively, there is no difference other than everybody can see a rain garden because it's above ground and infiltration is below ground. People think that anything underground is bad, but treatment occurs first, infiltration happens after. Councilmember Chen commented if UIC wells aren't allowed, would other tools like Green Streets, rain gardens, etc. to treat contaminated water purify water before it reaches the aquifer be allowed. Mr. De Lilla answered the technologies are all equivalent; with rain gardens, there is some piping underneath to help with drainage and dispersion, improve the efficacy and decrease the size of facility. If pipes aren't allowed, the facilities have to be much bigger and there are side factors to consider such as slopes, etc. Adding pipes allows much more to fit within in a smaller footprint. The majority of rain gardens have some level of piping; the current recommendation would allow pipes about 3 feet deep to help with dispersion and efficacy of the system. Mr. Clugston advised this item is scheduled to return to council for potential action on April 14. If further discussion is needed, possibly the 20 minutes allocated for that item could be extended to 30 minutes. Councilmember Nand asked if there is concern with PFAS from the pipe material used for shallow infiltration and whether there was any way to regulate the materials in rain garden pipes to address OVWSD's concerns. Mr. De Lilla said that would not be based on any best available science; PFAS is everywhere. It may be possible to use ductal iron pipe, but that breaks down. There are pluses and minuses with all materials and there are currently no standards related to PFAS. Councilmember Nand suggested considering other jurisdictions that regulate CARAs who have attempted to address PFAS. Mr. Clugston answered there are currently no state or federal limits for PFAS so no one is regulating it. Some jurisdictions around airports are having issues with PFAS from the use of firefighter foam. If DOE finds a treatment for PFAS in the future and their standards change, they will automatically Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 9 be incorporated into the City's rules. Mr. De Lilla summarized everyone is waiting for more information from the state and federal level. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. PLANNING STUDY FOR EDMONDS MARSH AND ESTUARY RESTORATION Public Works Director Oscar Antillon introduced Greg Ferguson, a volunteer involved in this effort, and acknowledged all the work of the volunteers to get to this place. He reviewed: • City received a NFWF/NOAA grant. • Request 1. Authorization to accept the grant 2. Authorization for staff time to work on the grant 3. Authorization to release RFQ Volunteers will do a lot of the heavy lifting related to the grant Mr. Ferguson reviewed: • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — National Coastal Resilience Fund 2023 o "Restore increase and strengthen natural infrastructure, to protect coastal communities while also enhancing habitats for fish and wildlife." o Edmonds is a front-line coastal community. Marsh restoration can add critical estuary habitat while helping reduce flood risks. • Main grant goals 1. Evaluate the impact that restoration alternatives have on reducing flood risks 2. Evaluate the risk to future landowners resulting from contamination and identify solutions 3. Define a process that can help the Edmonds community decide on a restoration plan • How It Works o An environmental services contractor and MTCA law firm will be hired to do technical evaluations and complete reports o The City will review the reports and administer the grant o Citizens will help provide data to the experts and support City grant administration Why do we need it and why now? o Site info is needed before ownership decisions o The start of a multi -year process Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 10 o Earlier studies did not consider Unocal fill excavation SR104 storm flow, or updated sea rise models o Timed well with Ecology final cleanup plan release o Helps obtain future grants Impactetl AreaxwM Shuctural FxcauaEon Limttrtlonz imp..ted Arta: tW art Sta .11y h0q. ffl —roam ee.a,aa St.,. Dre L­ — WSWTSt—.rta, Lma --sm B-1 r WILLOW CREEK �' `�� EDMONDS I � MARSH ♦ LOWER YARD �� ♦ WILLOW CREEK I � I I` I • 0 `♦ I • � ♦ I ♦ UPPER YARD POINT E DWARDSCON DOM I NIUMS •— --—— — — — — ——— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —• Funding o Total project cost $226,000 o Grant amount $135,000 (75% private) o Local Match ($91,000) ■ City cash $0 ■ Staff time in -kind match $34,000 ■ Citizen cash donation $35,000 ■ Volunteer hours $22,000 o Environmental consultant/law firm contract $170,000 1. Community 2. Site Capacity Assessment & 3. Final Design & 4. Restoration Building & Preliminary Permitting Implementation Planning Design Mr. Antillon reviewed: • Next steps o Accept grant o Authorize match funds (staff time) o Approval for the release of a an RFQ COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AUTHORIZE ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZE BUDGET AUTHORITY FOR STAFF TO EXPEND TIME AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BEGINNING IN MARCH 2O24 TO WORK ON THE STUDY, AND AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE RFQ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S PURCHASING POLICY. Councilmember Paine said she was excited to see this at committee. It is great to see the community come together and put together this amazing grant. As Ms. Sears noted, there are some power houses supporting this grant and it's exciting to see the community's support for this work. It brings the collaborative experiences, it is not just an Edmonds project, but a regional project and the largest restoration project on the east side of Puget Sound. There are challenges including the railroads riprap, the beloved dog park, etc., but everything will be considered. She expressed appreciation for the thought given to who needs to be included in the team and was glad to hear a MTCA attorney was involved. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 11 Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion, commenting he did not see any downsides. Councilmember Nand thanked Mr. Ferguson and the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates, recalling when Marj i Fields and Bill Derry showed the council the poster. She was awed by the amount of time, effort and energy the volunteers have put into advocating for the Edmonds Marsh. Councilmember Eck thanked Director Antillon and Mr. Ferguson, expressing her gratitude for the marsh champions. She was delighted and excited about the grant and the information that will be gleaned through this process, particularly the updated sea level rise model. She believed achieving a goal required a plan and a path to get there. Council President Olson expressed her appreciation for the work done by the volunteers. She referred to staff recommendation #2 in the packet that states matching funds for the grant will be provided by the march restoration and preservation fund. She asked if that is the citizen donation referenced in the presentation or a different amount. Mr. Antillon answered the in -kind amount is $34,000. Council President Olson said staff recommendation #2 states a second quarter budget amendment will be submitted to program the grant funding, local match, and expenditures in the stormwater utility fund. Mr. Antillon said he was not originally aware of the marsh restoration fund; so that is now the recommendation. Council President Olson asked if those funds will pay for staff time. Mr. Antillon answered yes. Council President Olson relayed there has been some concern and conversation about the timing and the expenditure when the City does not own the property. She agreed with the comments about due diligence and pointed out the flood risk from the different restoration possibilities is something the City needs to know regardless of who owns the property. She expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation to the marsh volunteers and all their work applying for the grant. Mr. Ferguson commented volunteer hours are shown at $22,000; it would likely be $220,000 by the time they are done. There are flooding problems, contamination, and potentially developing a plan to restore the marsh, all key points the community has been eager to address for a long time. Councilmember Chen asked what product the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation want to see. Mr. Ferguson said they have been specific about inputs and have very specific reporting requirements; reports the environmental consulting firm and the law firm produce will be submitted to NFWF. Councilmember Dotsch said she was trying to understand and get better clarity regarding the timing related to notification about cleanup and contamination. She understands why the City is interested and asked if this was just the beginning of a study that will take years. The current request is 6-7 months of staff time and she wondered if it would continue into future years, whether more grants would be applied for, more staff time, etc. Mr. Antillon answered the marsh will not go away and the process will probably take a decade and there will some level of analysis throughout that time. During that process there are decisions the state and the city will have to make; this is the start of the due diligence in order to be ready when it comes time to make a decision. Councilmember Dotsch observed there will be a second quarter budget amendment and asked if there will be future budget amendment requests. Mr. Antillon answered there will be requests as needs arise. DOE plans to release their findings and final cleanup plan this summer. If the state accepts that, it will provide good analysis and data and modeling to help the city make better decisions. Mr. Ferguson said there will not be additional funding requests for the period of this grant. A grant has not been submitted for Phase 2, awaiting how the first phase goes. Future grants will be necessary; whoever the land owner is will need funding support. When the project reaches the second phase, preliminary design, there will be another grant request which hopefully will be as favorable to the City as this grant, no cash, just staff time. The grants require some local match. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 12 Councilmember Dotsch commented the City has very limited staff. Mr. Ferguson said the intent is to limit staff time by the use of volunteers. Councilmember Dotsch asked if a specific number of staff hours had been allocated. Mr. Ferguson answered yes. With Ecology releasing information this summer and the work the volunteers and staff are doing, Councilmember Dotsch asked if there would be an overview of options. Mr. Ferguson answered when Ecology finishes the final cleanup, we will know precisely what we're dealing with. There will be a lot of direction after Ecology releases the final cleanup. It is important for the city to have input into that final cleanup. A public comment period is coming up where Ecology is asking for input. The City needs to be focused on what it wants done with the property. He acknowledged the city had a limited amount of influence but needed to understand that influence and make maximum use of it. Councilmember Paine commented the MOU with the state promised reports and she asked if those had been provided. Mr. Antillon said the state shared all the information they received. Mr. Ferguson advised WSDOT hired Landau & Associates to do an independent review of the cleanup who determined the firm doing the cleanup, Arcadis, is doing a good job. Councilmember Chen hoped the volunteers working on this project had adequate insurance to cover themselves. Mr. Antillon answered they are not doing physical work at the marsh. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 2. DESIGN UPDATE ON THE HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECTS — STAGE 3 AND STAGE 4 City Engineer Rob English commented it has been approximately a year since staff made a presentation to council. At that time council approved implementing WSDOT Complete Streets guidelines which included bike lanes on both sides along the entire corridor as well as improvements at 220' and 238th. He introduced Scott Sawyer, Project Manager, SO Alliance, Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed: • Scope of Improvements o Previous Projects ■ Stage 1 - Corridor Planning - Total cost $194 million in 2020 - Decision made to divide project into 7 segments. ■ Stage 2 - designed 2020-2021 and constructed 2022-2023 - Center Medians - HAWK signal - Gateway signs on both ends of corridor ■ Current Projects - Stage 3: 244th to -238th - Stage 4: 224th to -220' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 13 ■ Scope of project - Sidewalks - added buffer - Separated bike lanes - Landscape buffers - Stormwater treatment - Street / pedestrian light poles - Capacity improvements at signalized intersections (238th and 220th) - SR-104 Interchange Active Transportation Safety Improvements - Art opportunities - Distinct districts - Possible conversion to underground utilities Notable changes since start design phase o Items approved by Council at March 2023 Meeting ■ WSDOT Complete Streets Implementation - Added separated bike lanes along entire corridor ■ Improvements along 238th and 220th - Added bike lanes along 238t1i from Hwy 99 to 84th - Added active transportation path along 220th from Highway 99 to Interurban Trail / 70th Ave W (City of Mountlake Terrace) Mr. Sawyer reviewed: • Notable Environmental Stormwater Changes o Stormwater Treatment - Salmon and 6PPD-quinone ■ 2020: 6PPD-quinone identified as toxic to adult salmon, especially for coho - Dust from vehicle tires contains 6PPD-q - Stormwater runoff carries tire dust from roadways ■ 2022: USFW and NMFS requires formal consultation for the ESA (salmon), unless stormwater is 100% infiltrated - Previously, ESA for stormwater was usually informal and programmatic - Now, formal ESA consultations add -2 years to the timeline for NEPA ■ 2024: WSDOT is working with NMFS on new programmatic guidance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 14 — New programmatic agreements may help reduce schedule impacts — New stormwater manuals through Ecology potentially out in 2024 — Litigation likely between advocacy groups and US EPA — Designing stormwater facilities in accordance with expected guidance related to lower thresholds Mr. Hauss continued: • Highway 99 Corridor Districts o Gateway District ■ 244th to 228th o International District ■ 228th to 220th o Health District ■ 220th to 210th _ Health District o„s„wL__... s,s . International ~— District _Gateway District t`\� • Preliminary Schedule o Risks and Focus Areas ■ Endangered Species Act permitting — salmon 6ppdq ■ Right of way acquisition ■ Construction funding Milestones and Schedule Desi�W Final Design Environmental — I WE ARE HERE I — — — 1W Right of Way Construction Public Involvement inary Design Final Design Environmental Right of Way Public Involvement M • Right -of -Way o Facts and Figures ■ Existing width —100 feet ■ Proposed width —105 feet to 112 feet ■ Number of parcels — Stage 3: 18 parcels 6 parcels on west side of corridor 12 parcels on east side of corridor — Stage 4: 28 parcels 15 parcels on west side of corridor 13 parcels on east side of corridor Construction Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 15 o Preliminary Cost Estimate (planning level in 2022) ■ Stage 3: $2.4 million ■ Stage 4: $5.6 million 0 30% Design Level Preliminary Cost Estimate ■ Stage 3: $4.0 million ■ Stage 4: $9.0 million o Reasons for increase ■ Added width for Complete Streets (-1 foot to 9 feet) ■ Extended improvements along 238th and 220th ■ Added acquisition locations for art opportunities ■ Inflation and value appreciation Overhead Utilities o Aerial to underground conversion costs ■ Fully paid by certain utility companies (Comcast & Wave) ■ Paid by the City for other utility companies (PUD & Ziply) - With aerial to aerial cost credited to the City ■ In franchise negotiations with PUD, plan to increase contribution for aerial to underground conversion Overhead Utility Conversions o Preliminary Cost Summary ■ Stage 3 - Aerial to Aerial -$800,000 - Aerial to Underground (net City cost) $5.8 million Stage 4 - Aerial to Aerial $1.8 million - Aerial to Underground (net City cost) $8.4 million Mr. English reviewed: Stage 3 o Preliminary Cost Estimate $26.5 million ■ Design Phase $3.85 million ■ Right of Way Phase $4 million ■ Construction Phase $18.55 million (includes utility undergrounding at $5.8M) o Funding ■ Design & right-of-way phases - Connecting Washington $5.2 million - Move Ahead * * * $2.7 million ■ Construction Phase - Move Ahead * * * $18.6 million ***pending request to move forward Move Ahead WA Funds Stage 4 o Preliminary Cost Estimate ■ Design ■ Right of Way ■ Construction (includes utility undergrounding at $8.4M) o Funding Sources (Design & ROW Phases) ■ Connecting Washington ■ Federal Grants ■ Move Ahead * * * $35.7 million $4.5 million $9.1 million $22.1 million $1.6 million $4.2 million $1.3 million Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 16 Local Funds (local match) Traffic Impact Fees $3 million REET $1.3 million ***pending request to move forward Move Ahead WA Funds ■ Shortfall - ROW Phase $2.2 million - Construction Phase $22.1 million Next Steps o Decision to underground overhead utility lines o Pending legislative request to program Move Ahead WA funds earlier than 2031 ■ $4.3 million included in the supplemental budget for the 2025-2027 biennium and $18+ million in the 2027-2029 biennium, pending approval by the governor. o Amend SCJ Agreement to continue design work ■ New environmental / stormwater requirements ■ Design work for 238th St and 220th St extensions o Work on ILA with WSDOT regarding future Highway 99 overlay o Public outreach Councilmember Nand commented undergrounding was still a priority and she was hopefully it could be funded. She noted it seemed like there had already success with grant applications. Councilmember Chen referred to the funding shortfall for Stage 4. Mr. English explained Stage 4 is short $2.2 million in the ROW acquisition phase and no funds are available for the construction phase. That project is required to go through a biological assessment so it has a longer timeframe. Staff will look for opportunities to fund those amounts, but the timing is important because applying too early can create difficulties. Once the environmental phase of that project is completed, staff will invest more time in securing state and federal funds. Mr. Sawyer commented requirements associated with federal funds including environmental documentation, NEPA, and the biological assessment and opinion have to be completed and approved before ROW acquisition can start. Council President Olson recalled a delay in permits when 100% infiltration is not done. She asked if it was too cost prohibitive to consider an infiltration project and if other cities have done that for a major highway. Mr. Sawyer answered infiltration is not usually a yes or no based on cost, it is based on the soil parameters and whether the soils will infiltrate. Portions of Stage 3 and 4 are within the OVWSD wellhead protection zones so infiltration in those areas would not be feasible. He reiterated not using infiltration is not as much an issue of cost, but that the soils do not infiltration well enough to use it as a tool. Council President Olson summarized it had been considered and it was not an option. Mr. Sawyer answered that was correct. Council President Olson said she has put a great deal of time and effort into getting public art on Highway 99 corridor and was thrilled to learn that was a focus of this project. Art is a public benefit as well as a benefit to the property owner and she hoped instead of paying for ROW, the City could obtain a use easement instead. Mr. English answered there are ROW acquisition procedures the City has to follow, an easement could be a goal, but amounts and values have to be presented to the property owner. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT GROWTH ALTERNATIVES Planning & Development Director Susan McLauglin introduced Senior Planner and Comprehensive Plan Deputy Project Manager Jeff Levy, Planner Navyusha Pentakota and Kate Howe, Principal, VIA Perkins Eastman. Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • What Has Happened So Far? o Early Planning 2022 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 17 ■ Gap analysis - Highlights the gaps of the comprehensive plan associated with equity and climate change planning 13 Address equitable climate change adaptation 13 Recommends Equitable climate change mitigation 11 Promote equity in the economy Support equitable engagement ■ Waterfront Study - Identifies strategic updates - High-level recommendations o Visioning 2022 and Scoping 2023 - �t_.. F.9uitablc _ Engagement Premework Sept'22 Nov'22 June'23 Aug'23 Draft Vision Statement Equitable Engagement Community Kickoff Community fair @ PORCHFEST 2022 Framework @ Civic Park Opening @ Woodway High School ILI 61191 r 2022 2023 ■ ■ ■ I Aug — Sept '22 � Aug — Sept '23 Sept'23 Six -week themed focus on key Six -week EIS Scoping @ PORCHFEST topics found in the Meetaplanner Comprehensive Plan Wednesdays • Popsides in the park • Week 1 :Identity Thursdays • Week 2: Quality of life • Week 3: Economic Growth • Week 6: Environment • Week 5: Culture • Week 6:Livabilily&Land We 8,500 comments collected o Vision Statement ■ "Edmonds is a charming and welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts scene shaped in a way to promote healthy lifestyles, climate resiliency, and access to the natural beauty of our community." ■ Summer 2023 Engagement - Fun and interactive exercises to analyze the needs and wants for the next 20 years ■ EIS Scoping August - September 2023 - Seeks input from community, affected agencies, and tribes on what the EIS should focus on o Neighborhood Meetings (Dec 4-12, 2023 ■ Neighborhood meetings focused on: - Existing conditions Employment and economic development, land use and transportation, housing equity and climate resilience, growth targets - Preliminary observations - Goals & opportunities for future development o Respondents' Common Themes (Total Comments - Approx. 360) ■ Support mixed -use and multifamily housing ■ Improved safety and walkability ■ Protect and expand environmental assets ■ Support for ADUs and middle housing, but protect existing character ■ Green pockets for community activity/gathering ■ Better connectivity and transit ■ Grow mindfully and equitably Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 18 1e o Online Open House — early results (last updated 3/18) ■ Sample question/response For each of the following, please indicate how closely, our overall approach and proposed Growth Alternatives meets the intent of the vision statement? Strongly Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Improve access to the natural beauty of our Community: 57% 14% 11% 11% 3% 3% Preserve Parks and Open Space. Safe Streets: Design and manage roadways to prioritize the 37% 14% 14% 14% 6% 14% safety of all users. Promote Healthy Lifestyles: Emphasize mixed -use development 31% 26% 6% 17% 3% 17% within neighborhoods where residents can live, work and play. Promote Climate Resiliency: Prioritize pedestrian -friendly 31% 17% 9% 26% 3% 14% streets and improve transit connectivity. Support Thriving Arts Scene: Create opportunities for live -work 29% 17% 14% 29% 6% 6% in Arts District and Downtown. Vibrant Diverse Neighborhoods: Equitable distribution of 26% 17% 14% 11% 14% 17% housing affordability levels. Total Votes: 35 o Online Open House Comment Board Planning for Growth in Edmonds o Why Plan? ■ Enable housing choices & a mix of land uses. ■ Equitably distribute employment and housing. ■ Identify infrastructure needs & opportunities. ■ Protect environmentally critical areas & natural assets. ■ Foster economic development. ■ Promote cultural arts and community. ■ Generate revenue to allow for greater investments in city services. o Set the Stage ■ City of Edmonds' adopted plans and initiatives lend ideas on how to explore future growth (land use changes) in updated Comp Plan: - Pros Park Plan - Climate Action Plan - Reimagining Neighborhoods - ADU Code Updates - Citizen's Housing Commission - WA State House Bill legislation ■ Comprehensive Plan meetings in December 2023 discussed neighborhood level opportunities and challenges Understanding the process • Under the GMA, 20-year population growth is GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT projected at the county level. VISION 205D& MULTICOUNTY �� • PSRC 2050 distributes the growth to counties through "`A""'"°POLICIES policies, actions, and regional growth strategies. Snohomish County distributes growth based on Commerce and regional guidance. They also prepare the Buildings Land Report and CPPs (countywide planning and growth policies) providing a framework to each city. • Cities must accommodate these numbers based on State House Bills, such as HB 1110, 1337 & 1220, and state, regional and county legislature. _______Local1urisdictions plan for the County_ adopted_2044 targets ------ Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 19 o 2044 — Meeting Growth Targets Housing Units Per the Growth Management Act: • Edmonds is projected to grow by 13,000 people over ,i a,000 pp the next twenty years --- i r_---+� 5,000 • Edmonds currently has capacity for 2,500 jobs. o i L...... Capacity for 500 jobs must be added 15000 • Edmonds has 19,000 housing units and ca .. 100 5,000. It must increase unit capacity b 4,000 or a loom total of 9,000 s000 0 Existing Units Current Required Capacity Capacity Kate Howe, VIA Perkins Eastman, explaining combining these three bills focuses the collective attention on how to plan for more affordable homes near transit and jobs. These package of house bills passed by the state legislature is in response to a housing crisis that has been going on for some time. For the first time, it introduces a form of housing equity into the planning processes by asking cities to think more about the form of housing and how housing is affordable for different income levels. She reviewed: o House Bills Applied — Single -Family Zones Increases middle housing in single family residential areas At least two homes per lot Four per lot if located within a quarter -mile walking distance of a major transit stop (Like SWIFT BRT Stop or Amtrak station in Edmonds) Four per lot if one of the homes is affordable. Requires allowing 2 accessory dwelling units in all single-family zoning districts • Requires cities to differentiate between housing types, ties these types to affordability levels • Have sufficient capacity for each housing type (The capacity target by housing types is provided by Snohomish County Housing Requirements Report as per Dept. of Commerce guidance) o Edmonds — Higher Cost Community ■ High average sale price for middle housing unit (townhomes, duplex, triplex, quad) unit at > 120% AMI ■ Unit sales* in last two years in Edmonds average an estimated $720,000 with no sales below $590,000 ■ The sales prices would need to be below $400,000** to correspond to a rent or mortgage payment that would be considered affordable at <120% AMI *Costs are sourced from townhomes sold in Edmonds between March 2022 and January 2024, Redfin and realtors based in Edmonds with 47 data points. **According to the Department of Commerce recommended Fannie Mae calculator Complying with HB 1220 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 20 Complying with HB1220 Must be low-rise, or ADUs or low-rise, Middle housing or mid -rise apartments / mid -rise apartments/ any other type 9,069 Total Unit Capacity condos condos must follow this distribution: M• C20202010 Mo MN•utiem by Imam, city I 1.w .lAw-1]-202a MCI Due to Edmonds being a Higher Cost Community, the typology of 2,479 Middle Housing can only count towards 126 units. Setting 1s83 1987 affordability incentives or 1475 regulations will not change this. 977 Q ADUs can count for a large number of units, combined with low-rise, mid -rise apartments. 142 126 0yo-30% 3091 50% 50Ym80% 80q 100% 100q 120% >120% on-PSH PSH -Data Source_ The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County report has been Compiled pursuant to Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) HO-5 -Distribution of housing type to affordability level for high cost communities from the Departrb@nt of Commerce Guidebook for Applying HB 1220. o Complying with HB 1220 HB 1220 • Requires cities to differentiate between housing types per affordability levels • Have sufficient capacity for each housing type • (The capacity target by housing types is provided by Snohomish County Housing Requirements Report as per Dept. of Commerce guidance) a o Complying with All Housing Bills 4,207 Remaining Required o Our Assumptions 9,069 Total units 9.069 aDDrox. Total Unit CaDacit Must follow this distribution 23.6%ADUs or low-rise, -1.4% Middle housing or mid -rise apartments/ condos other type 75 % units must be low-rise, or 126 mid -rise apartments / condos Housing distribution by Area Median Income (AMI) Total units needed r — — - (Per Snohomish Countv growth tareetsll: 9.069 Existing Capacity per BLR I : 4,862 I — I — I Remaining Required : 4,207 I 1----I 4,862 Existing per BLR All these count towards low/midrise category (part of the 6,814 units bucket) Remaining 1,952 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 21 As discussed on the previous slide: 4,207 Remaining Units Required ADU Capacity filled by HB 1337 1,642 Capacity filled by HB 1110 + 42 Capacity filled by both combined : = 1,684 Approx. 2,700* units *Must be low-rise, or mid -rise apartments/ condos or ADUs Defining Centers and Hubs o What is a 15-Minute City? ■ This is a diagram that imagines cities where most daily necessities and services within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their homes ■ Many benefits for the 15-minute city model ■ Boosts to the local economy ■ Supports equitable, inclusive city with a stronger sense of community ■ Lower transport emissions providing better air quality ■ Develops people -centered streets ■ Creates inter -connected places ■ Encourages diverse and affordable housing o Centers & Hubs ■ Centers 1. Redevelopment to meet community goals + enhance public realm 2. Has retail and other commercial businesses 3. Moderate scale multifamily residential land uses 4. Increase maximum heights one floor by right, and possible two floors with incentives in some areas (5 floors max 5. Good multimodal access with existing transit service ■ Hubs 4,207 Units Daily Needs, Schools Amenities / Offices %-ZIA Walk / bike = facllibes IZ Outdoor facilities Open Spaces Businesses Activity spaces b� Services . Community spaces for events & gathering Downtown/ Waterfront Activity Center Five Corners i Meolica District Westgate i, I Highway 99 Subarea Firdale Village, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 22 1. Redevelopment to meet community goals + enhance public realm. 2. Smaller scale. Includes some mixed land uses, e.g. retail or commercial businesses 3. Low rise apartments or missing middle housing. 4. Increase maximum heights one floor by right, and possible two floors with incentives in some areas (4 floors max) 5. Good multimodal access with existing transit service. o Centers & Hubs Prototypical Descr 4 fl. Centers: • Allow up to 4 floors with ground floor retail/commercial. • Allow up to 3 floors entirely residential. • In Alternative A: Select locations with community benefit Incentives, allow 5 floor mixed -use. �r iption North Bowl Downtown/ , Waterfront Activity Center Firdale North',,.---) F -4 fl. Hubs: � r- �+� 3 fl. j--;--r� � • Allow up to 4 floors with ground floor retail/commercial. • Allow up to 3 floors entirely residential. Ms. McLaughlin reviewed Draft Conceptual Alternatives: EVE No Action This alternative is non -compliant with Washington State Growth Management Act requirements. Neighborhood Residential (Housing Bills Compliange) Middle housing: Duplexes. Triplexes. ADUs, townhomes, quadplexes (only with one affordable until, stacked Bats, cottage style and courtyard apart cents Dow„—i wm•monr . :��TranMl Rartaa Bus Stop High Capacity BBT goof. Perrinville t'; l East Seaview Highway 99 Subarea h` F �! o � HgM1wry% " „^"•, sugar•• t� r Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 23 Neighborhood Residential (Housing Bills Compliance) Middle Causing: Duplexes. Triplexes. ADUs, townhomes, quadplexes (only with one affordable unit), stacked flats, conage style and courtyard apartments •Neighborhood Center Mid -scale mixed use'. Apartments or condos with retail/ commercial/offices on ground floor In select locations •Neighborhood Hub Low -scale mixed -use: Apartments or condos with retalU commercial/ offices on ground floor in select locations Medical District Expansion ? 15 Minute Neighborhoods J Most daily necessities and services can be easily 34 Mile reached by a 15-minute walk• bike ride, or transit from any point in the neighborhood. �j Transit Oriented Housing Transit Routes connecting the Cenrers and Hubs Bus Slop - High Cnpacny RRT Route 4 Floors* Max. DowMownl WMMroM 3 Floors Max. AO Nky eemer 4 Floors* Max. *In select locations, Community Benefit Incentives will allow +1 floor for 5 Floors Max. are,.....: Medkal Din ict E p bn Fiv C i - Highway 99 subarea wl.rgam F'nd.. vllbge. Li` Transit Routes connecting are Centers and Hubs —eatimI "(.lL ilDs' Alternative B e Bus Stop - EpM�N -- � HlghCnpeclryBRTRoud ,/-`� Distributed Growth Neighborhood Residential (Mousing Bills Compliance) PelrmYme Middle housing: Duplexes. Triplexes, ADUs, townhomes. quadplexes (only with one affordable unit), stacked flats,-= cottage styleand courtyard apartments 111 i Neighborhood Center East 9eaview Mid -scale mixed -use: Apartments or condos with retalU 3 Floors* Max. commerciaFomces on ground floor In select locations Dowmownr— • Neighborhood Hub Wvt d M M°dKal oi,rrKr Exyansion j Low -scale mixed -use: Apartments or condos with retalU 3 Floors* Max. Acllvxy Center 1 Mn V r commenclal/ offices on ground floor in select locations •. Medical District Expansion 3 Floors* Max. T 3 15 Minute Neighborhoods - - ; T Hi9hwoY 99 `r• l Most daily necessities and services can be easily ,�„a a s°borax '• /4 MCIO• reached by a 15-minute walk. bike ride• or transit from any point In the neighborhood. - ^ wetgne j J\ Transit Oriented Housing *In select locations, Community Benefit Incentives will allow +1 floor for 4 Floors Max. r agile Harch /�'� = oA e Fhdelevolage' o How Do the Alternatives Differ? Areas of Change Alt A: Focused Growth Alt B: Distributed Growth No of Units No of Units Hubs Medical Center Expansion 1000-1I00 TOTAL 2700-3000 3000-4000 10101 tIUMOOrS TOf HII tl: VISIUDWOO UrOWI I fepireSenrS Unit COUn1 T AVUS af0 IIMMS?a 10 7 per lot Dasea On Hb 717U a Ho 7J:1 f InfefaCElOn. Perrinville, 11% Westgate, 17%' Seaview East IS% Firdale North, 15% 5 comers, A -910 NOFtb Bowl, S% Medical Center Peminville,b% O7Epan dical Center Expansion 5eawew East. xsion 18SO-2000 2% Firdale North, 2% Now' Bowi, 000-12 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 24 o Evaluation Framework 1. Be consistent with the GMA, PSRC Vision 2050, and Snohomish County countywide planning policies 2. Implement State Housing Bills 3. Create opportunities for the City to achieve Community's vision "Edmonds is a charming and welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts scene shaped in a way to promote healthy lifestyles, climate resiliency, and access to the natural beauty of our community." COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:25. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. • What's in an EIS? (Environmental Impact Statement) o The DEIS contains: ■ Information about the alternatives ■ Potential impacts ■ Mitigation o This information helps decision makers choose how to do the project o The FEIS may contain the preferred alternative and response to comments on the Draft EIS o The City's comprehensive plan can be adopted after the Final EIS is issued Finalizing the Alternatives for the Draft EIS o The EIS team needs bookends of "Pens Down" alternatives to analyze For Growth Alts" o April 13 "Pens down" I April 13-20 Transportation Final Alternatives ■ The EIS team will begin the analysis of Env. analysis environmental impacts ■ Any changes may result in additional I May - mid June Alternatives assessed for DEIS analysis delays in schedule and budget I by Herrera increases Mid June - July o August 22 DEIS issued by the City with a City to review Env. analysis discussion of potential impacts for the No DEIS Issued Action Alternative and Two Action i Alternatives Aug 22 - Sept 20 o The Preferred Alternative results from the i DEIS Comment period comments of DEIS DEIS Public Hearing Notice issued 10 days prior Final EIS in Nov with the final plan. Preferred Alternative based on comments. How Many Alternatives Does this EIS need? o Two Action alternatives plus the No Action Alternative are a good fit for this EIS process o There would be no benefit to adding a third Action Alternative o Adding alternatives does not always make an EIS "better," but more alternatives are always longer and more expensive Schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 25 April 13 Aug 22 ❑ Community Engagement or.a vl.n Izsuetl 9 9 Planning Board Meeting s ° ii, City Council Meetings April 13-20 Neighborhood Yhtuftent SEPA DEIS Plan Update TrarnvonaaonnnalaKe .t,. Meetlogs Vision mment Period • Transportation April 22 Online OEIS I.- 1,`" Open Rouse Trans portalion I Waterfront Vision Transportation Sept Outreach workshop Outreach l6 o 5 �e Haring Dec 20 JIIII-, Fier An. FElS lzsueG Oct OctApril 10 Sep 24 Alternatives assessed for City to review Imernal review of Review 8 address Review 8 etllt DEIS by Herrera draft DEIS Env. anaysis DEIS comments FEIS, Final Plan Transportation Transportation Finance program, Tr nvil Dein.,d Modeling Drafl Transportation Plen projects programs impact fee schedule Cwnurehen Pl Bemen t,- 11 Edmonds Online Open House open through April 12024 ht42s:Hedmonds2044. infocommuniiy. org Email us @ everyonesedmondskedmondswa. og_v For more updates, visit edmondswa.gov/everyonesedmonds Councilmember Nand commented she was excited by the hub opportunity because it distributes growth throughout the City and creates more opportunity for neighborhood identity and coming together, an important psychological aspect of housing. She asked if there was any opportunity in the development code or comprehensive plan to address resident -owned communities for manufactured homes. With concerns about building heights and massing, that could be a great way to get lower profile affordable housing that is also a home equity opportunity. Ms. McLaughlin responded that was discussed as part of the ADU legislation and a lot of work is being done in that realm. Once "pens down" regarding growth alternatives is reached on April 13, the effort will shift to discussing the housing element at a policy level. Once there is an understanding of where units will be placed, discussions will begin about to how to foster, reduce barriers and promote different types of affordable housing. Councilmember Dotsch said she is hearing from citizens that they do not feel they are part of the process. She attend the meetings in December where about 12 people at most attended other than the waterfront meeting. The idea of a 15-minute city, neighborhoods, and hubs is very abstract and high level thinking for people until it gets into the number of stories, density, etc. Her research regarding 15-minute cities found there are none, Paris isn't one even though it is used as an example. She felt the abstracts were trying to square peg Edmonds into a round hole and the people living in the neighborhood and nodes don't understand what's coming. She was hopeful the open house will help them understand. With regard to environmental impacts, Councilmember Dotsch said it her understanding of the April 13 date was once the draft EIS is begun, changes cannot be made regarding where density and housing goes. Ms. McLaughlin responded because the environmental analysis is complex, elaborate and takes quite a lot of time, things can't be moving during that process which is the reason for pens down. Once the DEIS comes out, things absolutely can change because all the impacts are transparently articulated and a preferred alternative can be shaped based on the information from the DEIS. Councilmember Dotsch observed that would only be for the ones that are shown; if a third or fourth alternative was not in the DEIS, it would not be considered. Ms. McLaughlin commented forums like this and like the open house and virtual open house, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 26 planning board meetings are intended to capture input regarding where people prefer to see growth throughout the City. Councilmember Dotsch asked if other alternatives come out of public engagement or the planning board, would they need to be developed by April 13. Ms. McLaughlin cautioned against a whole new alternative; their request was for people to provide specific comments which can be incorporated into the framework provided or consider how it can be analyzed in the DEIS. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding that Alternatives A and B are set and they will not be changed other than little nuances. She asked if there was opportunity to include lower profiles, not include Perrinville due to the watershed, etc. She was trying to understand how input could result in a different alternative. Ms. McLaughlin referred to area details at the parcel level that were included in the council packet for each of the growth alternatives. She recommended comments be as detailed as possible so changes can be considered. Councilmember Dotsch observed as of April 13, pens are down. She asked what that means exactly in terms of decisions that have to be made by April 13. Ms. McLaughlin answered the approximately 2700 units is the target that Edmonds needs to meet based on applying all the state regulations and housing projections. Anything studied in the DEIS needs to meet that number. Using Councilmember Dotsch's example of removing Perrinville would entail determining how many units that areas yields and where they could be shifted elsewhere in the City. Changes can be made to the alternatives based on input prior to April 13. Councilmember Dotsch asked how long the April 13 date has been known. Ms. McLaughlin answered staff has been transparent about that since the growth alternatives were first presented at planning board. Councilmember Dotsch noted this is the first time council has heard about it. Ms. McLaughlin commented this is the first time the growth alternatives have been presented at council. Councilmember Dotsch observed it seemed pretty late for council to make good decisions, just a month to get input regarding where to put growth, whether to have 15-minute cities, etc. before making a decision. She did not see anything on the extended agenda regarding further council discussion. She felt this was getting short shrift and little information was provided to make an impactful decision regarding land use for the next 20 years. As council is at the mercy of what staff presents, she was very disappointed with the limited time. She expressed interest in an extension and adding a study session for further discussion. Ms. McLaughlin answered staff would be happy to schedule a study session and she planned to reach out to Council President Olson. Councilmember Paine agreed a lot of people are talking about the alternatives. It will be interesting to see how the council's decisions, particularly regarding ADUs, are incorporated into the alternatives. If a block of the City's geography like Perrinville were removed, it would be necessary to consider how to equitably redistribute housing units across the rest of the City. It would be helpful to have study sessions to understand how all the elements of the GMA affect the comprehensive plan. She was interested in how the council will make a decision regarding ADUs. She wondered if Edmonds homeowners were queried, how many have existing, unregistered ADUs. Council President Olson asked why non-compliance is being included as one of the alternatives in the EIS, whether that was a waste of EIS resources and whether evaluating three alternatives that comply would be more useful, particularly since doing nothing is not an option. Ms. McLaughlin answered a no action alternative is standard in an EIS framework to provide a baseline, although it is not required. Antidotally she has heard that people like to see a no action alternative versus inclusion of housing units. Council President Olson responded it is usually included because it is an option. In this case, it is not an option and she did not understand why money would be wasted on that evaluation instead of a third alternative. Ms. Howe commented that was an interesting idea; she has not heard of an EIS without a no action alternative so some research would need to be done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 27 Councilmember Eck expressed appreciation for Ms. McLaughlin and her team's hard work. There are listening points coming up such as the online open house. She has seen in nearby cities how a 15 minute walkability to amenities is very helpful and seems to work. The alternatives should not place all the growth in the bowl or along Highway 99 and growth needs to be equitably distributed throughout the City in a way that makes the most sense. She relayed questions she has heard such as where does the 13,000 growth target come from and whether the City can push back to Snohomish County on that target. Another comment she has heard is that the alternatives do not show diversity in housing types. However, in looking at the plan in totality, it will create diverse housing types. With regard to diverse housing types, Ms. McLaughlin commented the alternates enable missing middle which includes 7 out of 9 typologies citywide. Even if the City zones for 3-4 stories, those missing middle options are still available to those parcels. To meet its growth targets, the City needs to show there is zoning to meet the higher densities. A developer could make a choice to develop townhomes instead of apartments. It comes down to the feasibility to redevelop based on land cost and density. Staff plans to unpack the 13,000 at Saturday's open house including graphics that show the numbers were provided by the state to the county and to the city. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:35 PM. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH VOTING NO. Councilmember Chen referred to the focused growth alternative for which appeared to propose upzoning to four floors versus three floors. He asked if that was for the entire City or select centers and hubs. Ms. McLaughlin referred to a map with four neighborhood centers, Firdale Village, Westgate, Five Corners, and the Medical District Expansion; those areas would have a base four floor allowance, it is currently three floors. Councilmember Chen asked if those locations were open to community input via the open house. Ms. McLaughlin agreed, noting there is more detailed analysis in the online open house materials and in the council packet. Councilmember Chen expressed interest in getting more input at the open house, noting there is a lot of talent in the community, and possibly regarding a third alternative. He noted ADUs will be very critical because that is a citywide policy rather than in just the hubs and centers. He looked forward to further discussions. Councilmember Nand acknowledged this draft was created with a lot of skepticism. She referred to packet page 629 which includes a proposal for mitigation steps in the Highway 99 community which is something that community has advocated for ever since the stepback controversy when she first joined the council in 2022. She commended the planning department for incorporating feedback about redistributing density to other places and making redevelopment more palatable to the residents of the community. 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERA LOCATION ANALYSIS II. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 pm. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 19, 2024 Page 28