Loading...
2024-12-17 Council Special Minutes BEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 17, 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 Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:59 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 Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Nick Maxwell, Edmonds, referred to Item Lb in the Language for Potential Amendments, Polices LU- 22.1 and 22.3, explaining the planning board unanimously recommended the highlighted language be added to protect the security of the aquifer. He hoped that language would be added as intended by the planning board. Robert Deigert, Edmonds, said he has heard the city is considering getting rid of the Edmonds Police Department and getting its police services via the Snohomish County Sheriff and asked if that was true. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 1 Mayor Rosen advised this is an opportunity for the public to provide comment, not have a conversation with council. Mr. Deigert advised he has also heard there is $12 million hole in the budget which is the reason for getting rid of the Edmond Police. That would be a huge mistake because the Edmonds Police are very special and residents do not want to get rid of them, especially to get services from the Sheriff's department instead. When he calls the Edmonds Police, they are at his home in five minutes; if he calls the Sheriff's Department, he has to call repeatedly and they may or may not come at all. The most important features in a small city like Edmonds are the police, fire, and maintenance which all support the city. A city worker who inspected a water project he was doing was driving a $100,000 Ford electric truck. He questioned why anyone working for the City of Edmonds was driving a $100,000 truck. He also heard the city planned to put $2 million into the Boys & Girls Club, 15% of the budget deficit. He recommended getting rid of the fluff, and keep the good stuff like the police and fire and cut back on the $100,000 trucks. Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, asked the council to postpone the decision on RFA annexation until all options are fully investigated rather than spending money and resources on a special election. If the annexation fails, there will need to be another option and further investigation will put the city ahead of the curve in that scenario. The option of annexing into South County Fire dramatically increases residents' taxes, conveys taxpayer owned real estate, provides no control over future increases, provides no representation for personal taxation, and accountability and transparency of dollars will not be forthcoming. Edmonds struggles with funding capabilities to recreate its own fire department and sustain it for the long run, although she believed that would be the preference and should be considered. There are a lot of unknowns and long term expenditures including paying out pensions. She suggested delving into the option of having the City forming its own RFA to give taxpayers and the city local control over taxes and representation. While this city -owned option has similar expenses, it is taxed separately from the city and has the option of involving more cities than just Edmonds. She urged the council to investigate an option to share an RFA with Mukilteo whom she believed would be very open to the conversation and possibly Everett. Ms. Strong continued, this would allow sharing expenses of personnel, pensions, equipment and overall costs. Each city would have a representative on the board and have input. Tax hikes would be put to the people who would have taxation with representation and transparency and accountability would be more likely to occur. She urged the council to consider this option as a long term solution and extend the current contract until this could be put in place. The city has a unique law only allowing campaign contributions of $500 maximum per candidate in each election, presumably to keep representation of the people and disable elected officials from being bought out. The SCF fire union circumvented this with independent expenditures of $7400 to Councilmember Eck and $4000 to Councilmember Paine in last year's elections. She believed they had an ethical responsibility to recuse themselves from any discussion or vote regarding the RFA annexation. The council's job is to represent the people of the city, not the unions. Bill Krepick, Woodway, anticipating the council would vote on the RFA annexation tonight, wondered what the council was contemplating in making that decision. He relayed the following questions: 1. How can the council continue to label the RFA as the preferred and low cost alternative? The cost originally proposed in Fitch's consulting study was $17 million, but whether it was $17 million or $19 million makes little difference because he heard a couple weeks ago that the tax levy will be $21 million which seems like a very large amount when comparing alternatives such as the city establishing its own fire department. 2. Has the council actually reviewed the three cities, Placentia and Sunnyvale, California, and Watertown, New York, who have managed to implement their own fire and EMS departments, saving in excess of 30% versus the RFA type regional authority? 3. How can the council reach a decision when the RFA has not provided any cost information and only provided monopoly pricing? 4. The RFA has not actually optimized their staffing to reflect what is happening in the marketplace, 85% medical calls and only 10% fire calls. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 2 He recommended at least two councilmembers needed to recuse themselves from the vote due to taking significant contributions from the firefighters' union. He requested the council answer his questions before voting on the RFA annexation. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented if anyone is trying to watch on TV, the broadcast is the December 10 council meeting. He hoped the council was considering the comments he has made previously, recognizing the council has a difficult job and the public appreciates what the council and mayor are doing looking out for the city. He hoped the council could end today and enjoy the holidays. He wished all a Merry Christmas. Mayor Rosen advised the broadcast had been fixed. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE. TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: CREATIVE DISTRICT GATEWAY ART PROJECT ARTIST APPROVAL 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADOPTION OF 2025-2026 BIENNIUM BUDGET ORDINANCE Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe relayed she was here to answer questions. The council packet contains the ordinance along with 2025/2026 budget and a reconciliation of the General Fund taking into consideration the amendments made throughout the deliberation process. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR THE 2025-2026 BIENNIUM. Councilmember Paine commented we survived, everyone did a remarkable job. She anticipated more changes would be made during the coming year. Councilmember Chen added his appreciation for staff s hours of hard work in putting the final budget together. Even with the adoption of the budget, there is much more work to be done in the coming year. With regard to the $6M interfund loan from the utility fund, he expressed appreciation for Ms. Dunscombe's email that clarified the payment schedule and plans to pay back the loan within the 3 year timeframe, no payment in 2025 and payment of $3M in principal plus interest in 2026 and 2027. He reiterated his appreciation for all the hard work, anticipating the council will roll up its sleeves and work even harder next year. Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Chen's comments complimenting Ms. Dunscombe and the finance department. She made a statement of solidarity with the 20+ City employees who will be losing the job in the new year. She thanked Mayor Rosen and his administration, consultant Mike Bailey and the acting director for their degree of financial transparency and education to the public in explaining how the City government ended up in this very unfortunate place. She hoped future councils take the lessons the council had to bitterly learn this year forward in times of plenty and are more circumspect with their spending so they don't have to resort to dozens of layoffs to balance the books. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 3 With regard to the interfund loan repayment, Councilmember Dotsch observed the $3M payment in 2026 is within the biennial budget and asked how that would be reflected in the budget. Ms. Dunscombe answered the interfund loan will be paid back $3M in 2026 and $3M in 2027 which is outside the biennium. There will be a debt service page in the budget book when it is produced in January and she will show the second payment in the strategic outlook. Councilmember Dotsch said she was asking about the first payment. Ms. Dunscombe answered the 2026 payment is part of the adopted budget. The exhibits that are part of the ordinance show appropriation authority by fund. The full budget book is not produced again until January. Councilmember Dotsch asked for assurance the $3M plus interest was included in the numbers for the ending fund balance. Ms. Dunscombe advised it was included in 2026 and 2027. Councilmember Dotsch asked if an ordinance was required for the interfund loan. Ms. Dunscombe advised the budget ordinance sets the appropriation authority, an interfund loan resolution or ordinance will need to be passed in January. The timing is being discussed with Mayor Rosen and she also wants to talk with Mike Bailey about how funds are drawn from the loan before presenting the resolution or ordinance to council. Councilmember Dotsch commented it would be nice to do that as soon as possible for planning next year. Ms. Dunscombe advised that will be an important piece for the January close. Councilmember Eck commented while she realized everyone was glad to be putting closure to this, she wouldn't say there was backslapping on council. She emphasized the thanks that other councilmembers shared; the directors have done a ton of heavy lifting through this process. She expressed her great appreciation for the work directors have done to dig deep and find money we didn't think we could find. It is painful to make staff cuts and the community likely will feel the difference in service and the experience, but those cuts were necessary. Moving forward, to have a truly balanced budget it will be important to make gains on revenues, not just taxes. A long list of other revenue options was created and all options need to be considered as quickly as possible. She thanked Ms. Dunscombe and all the directors. Council President Olson said historically she has made a point of not piling on when everyone else says thank you and just agreeing with what everyone else said, but she can't pass up the opportunity this time because it has been such a herculean lift particularly by Ms. Dunscombe and her department. The department heads, the committee of city staff that reviewed all the budget by priorities, etc.; there has been so much done by so many to make this budget come together. As others have said, there is also a lot to be sad about in this budget, but she appreciated the effort and work that went into it. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with his fellow councilmembers' appreciation of staff and also thanked the public who were very involved with the process. This budget is an agreement with the residents of the City regarding how public funds are spent. The council takes this deliberation very seriously and couldn't have done it without the public's input. As Councilmember Chen mentioned, the council will be rolling up their sleeves on some remaining work. For the most part this budget sets the course for the entire year; unlike a business, the budget cannot be changed every month. The budget is an agreement regarding the City's focus; the council has learned some important values and priorities from the public and he thanked the public for their involvement. Councilmember Dotsch observed the packet shows the street fund in the red in 2025 and up to $500,000 in the red in 2026. She asked if it was legal not to balance that fund. Ms. Dunscombe answered it won't end that way; there is a plan in place to ensure the street fund ends with a positive balance, it wasn't necessarily represented in this budget. The state auditor's take on that would be as long the City demonstrates there is a plan to get the street fund back in the positive, they wouldn't issue a finding. There are definitely conversations occurring to ensure the street fund ends with a positive fund balance. It will require some work, but there are currently five vacancies which are not part of the amended budget and those positions will remain vacant to ensure positions are brought on in a way that allows the street fund to do its work and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 4 end 2025 in a positive position. Councilmember Dotsch observed streets are a big desire of the residents and she was unsure how $500,000 would be found. Ms. Dunscombe advised it will be an ongoing conversation in 2025 to ensure that work is supported to the level it needs to be. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the assumption of a $6M levy lid lift and asked if there had been discussions about the type of levy lid lift or was that unknown. Ms. Dunscombe agreed that is one of the hard parts about including it in the budget is not having an idea or plan regarding the flavor of the levy lid lift. That will tackled early in 2025 to position it for either the August or November ballot. The work is not over yet and in some respects is just beginning. Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone for all their work, recognizing this has been a very heavy lift that continued late into the year. The challenge with this process was creating a budget that the public could understand and she was unsure the public understands what was included/not included in this budget. She recognized there was a lot of unknown data and dollar variables to balance the budget such as the RFA annexation and the levy lid lift, whether that is one year or multiple years and could be much as a 53% tax increase. Councilmember Dotsch continued, relaying her preference for a more fiscally conservative approach that did not assume two big value numbers in the budget. She understood the challenges with that, but felt the council could have been more fiscally honest about the fiscal impacts if one or both did not pass. One of things to look forward to in 2025 as the council continues to work on the budget in a fiscally responsible and revenue appropriate fashion is the imbalances still need to be addressed so the council is not asking the taxpayers for money in an irresponsible way to fund programs and staffing. It will be important to add metrics regarding what success looks like such as KPIs. She supported what has happened and a lot of the work that has been done, but she will not support the budget. Ms. Dunscombe expressed appreciation for the council's comments and looked forward to working with the council on some other really hard decisions that need to be made in 2025. She welcomed any ideas for reporting throughout year as part of finance committee meetings to make things more transparent or clear as the council continues its discussions throughout the year. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. 2. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning & Development Director Shane Hope introduced Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston. She recognized the council has gone through a large process as part of the comprehensive plan update. Work began over two years ago including gathering public input with the aim of adopting the comprehensive plan update by the end of 2024 as required by state law. In the last several months that effort has ramped up. She reviewed: Items in Tonight's packet o Agenda Memo o Draft Comprehensive Plan with: ■ Transportation element as preliminary approved ■ CFP and CIP projects as preliminary approved o Ordinance for plan adoption o Letter from Dept. of Commerce o Review and response to Dept. of Commerce's letter o Planning Board recommended changes o Draft amendment language from staff Housing Capacity Tally Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 5 Housing Target 9,069 Medical District Expansion 1,152 Westgate 1,185 5 Corners 461 Firdale Village 294 North Bowl 216 East Seaview 219 Perrinville 116 West Edmonds Way 33 South Lake Ballinger 70 Maplewood 203 Low Rise/Mid Rise Apartments (new) 3,949 ADUs 1,973 Middle Housing 42 Existing Capacity 4,226 Total 10&0 • Explanation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Correction o Existing comprehensive plan designates a large area as master plan development (light pink hatched o New FLUM identified an area of the Master Plan Development as Open Space (area identified in red) ■ Making that change without any policy discussion raises issues ■ Recommended map be changed to return to the existing FLUM that leaves that area as Master Plan Development Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 6 City of Edmonds_ Future Land Use Map �j r %IN/ /%/ Edmonds Marsh rn.. �.d u,. ....... ...../ G ... ................. 3::::: Ha«hm .........� • FLUM as amended above City of Edmonds Future Land Use Map FWve Land Use Designat— and Uazcriptinns rod- W, I I �--- � r'i ill. • .. i t �5tr�t�t` • �.w,te.ttr i Laneuaee for Dotential amendments by tonic for council consideration on December 17 The following amendment ideas are shown in three groups: La Recommendations already included in Council's agenda packet Lb Missed Planning Board recommendations 2. Recommendations from Dept. of Commerce 3. Optional suggestions that either remove a neighborhood hub or provide clarification. In addition, individual councilmembers may want to propose other amendments not listed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 7 I.a. Recommendations already included in Council's agenda packet NOTE: All of the following recommended amendments are already in the Council's agenda packet and include Planning Board recommendations. These could all be proposed in one large group by moving to: Amend the Plan to include all proposed recommendations from staff that are contained in the Council's agenda memo for the Comprehensive Plan. For Marsh and salmon passage: o Amend Policy LU-10.3 to add, at the end of it, the phrase "and, at the property known as the Unocal property, provide an open channel that will allow fish passage to Puget Sound." o Amend Policy LU-24.4 to add the word "expand", so that it reads: "Seek opportunities to restore, expand, and enhance the Edmonds Marsch as an estuary." For Planning Board recommendations: o Amend the Plan to include all the Planning Board's recommended edits, as included in the City Council's December 17 agenda memo, excluding Item 4 from the Planning Board regarding Policy LU-10.3 for fish passage, which is being superseded by another amendment to Policy LU-10.3. For Climate Element: o Remove the Climate Element section title that reads "City of Edmonds — Leader in environmental stewardship" and replace it with the following language: "City of Edmonds — Mission to lead in environmental stewardship". For transition zones: o Revise Policy LU-15.1, by removing the current reference to transition zones and revising the policy to read: "In low and medium density residential areas, encourage walkability, a vibrant public realm, and appropriate city neighborhood character." For groundwater recharge: o Revise Policy LU-22.1 to add the term "and materials" so that the policy reads: "Limit land use activities and materials that would negatively impact groundwater recharge." For PROS Plan, Shoreline Master Plan, and Highway 99 Subarea Plan: o Add a new Policy LU-19.3 under Goal LU-19 that reads: "The adopted Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and its policies continue to be in effect." o Add a new Policy LU-10.4 under Goal LU-10 that reads as follows: "The goals and policies of the City's Shoreline Master Program are an element of the Comprehensive Plan and continue to be in effect." o Add a new Policy LU-13.4 under Goal LU-13 that reads: "The Highway 99 Subarea Plan continues to provide information and guidance for revitalizing this special area." COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS IN 1.A AS DESCRIBED BY DIRECTOR HOPE. Councilmember Dotsch asked if this included the planning board's recommendations. Ms. Hope responded it does. Councilmember Dotsch referred to a public comment that not all the planning board's recommendations were included. Ms. Hope commented that was a misunderstanding, they are all included. Councilmember Nand referred to packet page 549, relaying she did not see a numerical breakdown of the proposed amendments. Ms. Hope responded the list she displayed and described is identical to the list in the packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 8 Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the way this is presented in groupings. These proposed changes include language related to the marsh and salmon passage, the planning board recommendations, climate element language, information about transition zones, ground water recharge, the PROS Plan, Shoreline Master Plan and Highway 99 subarea plans. She thanked staff for making this so easy. AMENDMENT CARRIED 6-0-1. l.b. Supplement to l.a. NOTE: Regretfully, the following recommendations appear to have been missed from the original packet. Staff recommends that a councilmember move to amend the comprehensive plan to include them. o Revise LU-22.1 to read: "Limit land use activities that would negatively impact groundwater recharge, unless such activities protect against contaminating the aquifer." o Revise LU-22.3 to read: "Encourage projects that actively enhance aquifer recharge, such as artificial recharge basins, managed aquifer recharge (MAR) systems, and restoring natural recharge areas, unless such projects risk contaminating the aquifer." Ms. Hope advised Lb included items that some planning board members thought were missed in the packet. However, as staff reviewed the amendments in La, all had been included so council can skip the amendments in 1.b. She continued her review of proposed amendments: 2. Recommendations from Department of Commerce NOTE: The following recommendations are based on the Department of Commerce letter, which is included in the Council agenda memo. Each is shown as bulleted language by topic. Any of them could be proposed as a separate motion from a councilmember to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Wildfire requirement: o Add to Goal LU-1 a new Policy LU-1.12 about wildfire risk, so that the new policy reads: "Reduce and mitigate wildfire risks to life and property by using land use planning tools and through wildfire preparedness and fire adaptation measures." Essential public facilities: o Add to Goal LU-1 anew Policy LU-1.13 about essential public facilities, so that the new policy reads: "Use the Snohomish County Tomorrow process as needed to provide for the siting of essential public facilities." Property rights o Add to Goal LU-1 anew Policy LU-1.14 about property rights, so that the new policy reads: "Evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions as appropriate to assure that such actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property." Capital budget decisions o Add to Policy CF-2 a new phrase at the end of the first sentence so that the revised first sentence reads: "Establish a clear set of criteria to prioritize capital projects based on urgency, impact, and alignment with the city's strategic goals and to implement the comprehensive plan." Barriers and actions to achieve housing availability o In the Housing Element, add a new subsection called "Barriers and actions for housing availability" right before the section entitled "Edmonds Housing Targets," which shall state: "One of the barriers to achieving more housing availability in Edmonds has been development regulations that precluded duplexes, cottage housing, and townhomes is most areas of the city. To address this barrier, Edmonds has begun preparing to revise its development code to allow middle housing and some new opportunities in designated areas for multifamily housing, consistent with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AS LAID OUT IN THE HANDOUT. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO REMOVE THE FINAL STATEMENT, "ONE OF THE BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING MORE HOUSING AVAILABILITY IN EDMONDS HAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PRECLUDED DUPLEXES, COTTAGE HOUSING, AND TOWNHOMES IS MOST AREAS OF THE CITY. TO ADDRESS THIS BARRIER, EDMONDS HAS BEGUN PREPARING TO REVISE ITS DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW MIDDLE HOUSING AND SOME NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN DESIGNATED AREAS FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, CONSISTENT WITH THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." Councilmember Nand explained while she is supportive of implementing middle housing and distributing home equity options throughout the City, the council in a 6-1 vote made the correct move to signal to the state that the council was in favor of retaining local control in its opposition to bills such as HB 1110, 1220, etc. She recognized the City was required to revise its comprehensive plan, but strongly believed local government needed to have a voice and a seat at table in local land use decisions. Councilmember Tibbott recalled in discussions about housing typology, there is an opportunity to choose from a variety of housing types and asked if those typologies would be comprehensive enough to include what the state is suggesting be added to the comprehensive plan. Ms. Hope responded the state is recognizing that there is nothing that says there have been barriers to providing those housing types. This would formally recognize that those housing types haven't been provided in the past and that the City plans to do it differently in the future. Councilmember Tibbott said this recommendation from the Department of Commerce is just admitting there were some barriers. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Tibbott found this a rather technical set of amendments and this was a technicality he could embrace so he will support the original motion. Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Councilmember Nand that this statement is not correct because the City has been told by the Department of Commerce middle housing is not affordable housing. Ms. Hope clarified the statement says to achieve housing availability, not affordability. Councilmember Dotsch commented a single family house could be just as affordable as a townhouse in some parts of Edmonds. She agreed that statement is not an accurate portrayal of anything that has prevented housing and expressed support for the amendment. Councilmember Paine said she understood the rationale for the amendment to the amendment, but was not able to support it at this time. Having a breadth of housing options is important to recognize where the City came from and where it is headed. She appreciated the language offered by the Department of Commerce. Councilmember Eck said she had no problem with the language proposed by the Department of Commerce. It is more of a technical issue, just addressing something they have asked the City asked to address. She did not support the amendment to the amendment. Councilmember Nand relayed her belief that preemption of local zoning and land use decisions by the state was a mistake and something to which the community is vigorously opposed. She did not think the council should memorialize a statement that is contrary to a position strongly held by a large majority of the council and a large portion of the engaged public. Even if the amendment fails, she is very much in favor of local control and against state preemption in land use and zoning decisions. Council President Olson said she is also for local control and against state preemption, but reading the sentence, she did not see that it did anything other than acknowledge the fact that the City is following the law as it now stands. She read the sentence proposed to be deleted, "One of the barriers to achieving more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 10 housing availability in Edmonds has been development regulations that precluded duplexes, cottage housing, and townhomes is most areas of the city. To address this barrier, Edmonds has begun preparing to revise its development code to allow middle housing and some new opportunities in designated areas for multifamily housing, consistent with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan,." commenting the inclusion of this statement is only agreeing to the law and what is laid out in the comprehensive plan. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS NAND AND DOTSCH VOTING YES. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Hope clarified the first set of amendments removed Perrinville as a designated hub. She continued her review: 3. Optional suggestions that either remove a neighborhood hub or provide clarification NOTE: The following suggestions relate to other ideas from one or more Council members. Any of them, if desired, could be proposed by motion of a councilmember. Maplewood as Neighborhood Hub o Remove all references to Maplewood being included as a Neighborhood Hub at this time. Modification of North Bowl Hub o Modify the North Bowl hub in all places necessary in the Comprehensive Plan to limit building types within the North Bowl Hub to those that only support residential uses and have no greater height than allowed on all previous RS-zoned lots that are either: 1) south of Puget Drive or 2) west of Olympic View Drive and do not directly abut existing commercial zones. Modification of Westgate Center o Modify the Westgate center in all places necessary in the Comprehensive Plan to show the designation of the parcels at 22805 & 22811 100th Ave. West as Mixed Use 3, not Mixed Use 4. Reassurance about downtown building heights o Revise Goal LU-7 related to Downtown and add the phrase "including its low -scale building heights and pedestrian -friendly environment" so that the revised goal reads: "Strengthen the unique identity of Downtown, including its low -scale building heights and pedestrian -friendly environment." o Salmon and streams o Amend Policy LU-24.1 by adding a phrase after the word "resources", so that the revised policy reads: "Improve water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife resources, including to protect streams for salmon habitat, consistent with adopted state and federal standards." Ground floor retail in neighborhood hubs o Add a new Policy LU-4.5 for Goal LU-4 that reads: "Encourage neighborhood oriented commercial uses, including ground -floor retail, in neighborhood hubs and centers." Community character in relationship to HB 1110 for middle housing o Amend Policy H-1.2 by adding a new phrase at the end so that the revised policy reads: "Promote middle housing types to create greater equity and diversity, while meeting community standards, such as for setbacks, lot coverage, and tree canopy, consistent with requirements of HB 1110." High -capacity transit o Amend Policy H-2.4 to add the phrase "high -capacity" for considering possible parking reductions, so that the revised policy reads: "Consider the reduction of parking requirements for residential developments in areas proximate to high -capacity transit service or based on planned occupancy (such as seniors, affordable units) to reduce construction costs and to promote affordability of residential development." Wording of Goal LU-2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 11 o Amend Goal LU-2 by striking the language between "environment" and "residents" so the revised goal reads: "Maintain and grow a welcoming environment for residents, visitors, and businesses. "Marsh and estuary o Add to the end of Policy LU-24.4 the word "salmon" before "estuary" so that the revised policy reads: "Seek opportunities to restore, expand, and enhance the Edmonds Marsh as a salmon estuary." Councilmember Eck recalled she brought up LU-18.1 land use open space and recalled there was also a staff recommendation for that policy, but she did not see it in the list of amendments. Ms. Hope offered to look that up. While she was doing that, she suggested considering changes to the hubs first. Councilmember Eck referred to the first amendment in this grouping, "Remove all references to Maplewood" and asked about the reasons for that amendment. Ms. Hope answered that hub has potential capacity for about 200 units; the thought was it may not fit with the neighborhood context. Councilmember Dotsch explained with regard to GMA capacity numbers, although it say 200, only 40 units in that area can be counted. It was not in the original centers and hubs plan presented by the previous director and it does not currently have any commercial or retail; all the other centers and hubs are based on existing commercial/retail. Another reason is the intersection above Puget Drive on the west side which is where development would likely be proposed would add public safety issues to an already weak intersection. She also learned that further west on Maplewood on the north side is a hazardous slide area which is above the North Bowl hub and the houses below. Councilmember Eck asked about counting only 40 of the 200 unit. Ms. Hope said Councilmember Dotsch believes she heard that in the past, but in checking with staff, staff feels the 200 was correctly countable. Councilmember Eck relayed her understanding if a developer applied to build in an environmental sensitive area such as a landslide hazard area, that would be considered by staff and the permit potentially not approved. Ms. Hope responded any proposed development project would go through a review to ensure there are no environmental sensitive area or if there are, that the impacts can be mitigated. For example if there is a slope, but the developer does geotechnical work that meets the professional standards, it could possibly proceed if it was still financially feasible. There would be individual site analysis and all environmental regulations would be incorporated into the consideration of a project. Councilmember Eck asked how much buffer approval of the amendments related to Perrinville, Maplewood, North Bowl and Westgate would leave. Ms. Hope said it would still be within the approximately 9,000 units the City needs; the total in those areas would not exceed 1,000. Councilmember Eck commented developers would not build exactly that number of units in those areas. Ms. Councilmember Nand asked the justification for removing Maplewood as a neighborhood hub, observing it is proposed for 3 stories and 200 units, and there could be potential for ground floor retail which would expand the City's tax base. Ms. Hope responded the items in this third set of potential amendments are not ones that she necessarily endorsed, but she did not feel they were harmful and would still fit within the overall numbers and provide more opportunity for that kind of housing. Councilmember Nand asked Councilmember Dotsch for justification for removing Maplewood as a neighborhood hub. Councilmember Dotsch answered there is a big church parcel there which is where most of the unit capacity was counted; however, GMA does not allow that to be counted. She recalled there was an asterisk in previous versions due to state law regarding church properties and that church parcel is the biggest lot in that area. In addition, there is currently no retail or commercial there which was the reasoning for the centers and hubs and likely why it was not in original plan proposed by the previous director. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 12 anticipated retail would not be feasible there because no one could stop and turn going down that incredibly dangerous hill. Councilmember Nand referred to a statement in the packet related to ground floor retail and neighborhood hubs, add a new policy for LU-4.5 or goal for LU-4 that states, "Encourage neighborhood oriented commercial uses including ground floor retail in neighborhood hubs and centers." She asked if that would be addressed in the code update if Maplewood were added as a hub. Ms. Hope answered yes, explaining "encourage" does not mean "require," it means to provide opportunities where feasible. That would be a code decision. Councilmember Nand commented there are opportunities for commercial and third places with retail and restaurants that can cement a neighborhood's identity and create opportunities for commercial activity which increases the tax base and hopefully helps cure the structural budget gap. She favored retaining Maplewood as potential hub and to see if development could occur that was sensitive to the issues Councilmember Dotsch raised but would still allow potential development in the future. Councilmember Paine commented she knows this neighborhood quite well as it is near where she lives; she was not in favor of removing it as a neighborhood hub for the reasons Councilmember Nand cited. Retaining it as a hub means there are potential opportunities for the future. The City needs diversity in its neighborhoods and hubs that offer a variety of commercial opportunity. There are some law firms and a dental office in that area; it is not a bad spot to have a small store or other retail/service opportunities. She wanted to retain Maplewood as a hub and was not in favor of removing all references to the Maplewood hub. Councilmember Chen recalled hearing Ms. Hope mention that Perrinville was removed as a neighborhood hub, but he did not see that mentioned in the documents. Ms. Hope said removal of Perrinville was already included. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE OPTIONAL SUGGESTIONS THAT EITHER REMOVE OR ALTER A NEIGHBORHOOD HUB OR PROVIDE CLARIFICATION, BUT REMOVING MAPLEWOOD AS NEIGHBORHOOD HUB. Council President Olson relayed it seemed most councilmembers were in favor of these amendments, but not the one related to Maplewood and this amendment saves the time of going through each one. She was in favor of other proposed changes and assuming the removal of Perrinville was reflected in the document, so she supported the motion. Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff: APPROVE CLUSTER #3 WITHOUT MAPLEWOOD HUB OPTION. Councilmember Dotsch did not support the motion, reiterating Maplewood is a very odd place to think of as a center or hub because it is literally on the highway that takes ferry traffic down the hill. To the east there is plenty of opportunity for multifamily and commercial over the crest of the hill and beyond where it is safe to turn. Most of the Maplewood hub is to the west and is very dangerous with an intersection that is LOS D going to E. A very small number of the units, only 40 or so, could be counted. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND TO REMOVE ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HUBS FOR DISCUSSION, MAPLEWOOD, NORTH BOWL, AND WESTGATE CENTER AND ALSO THE AMENDMENT RELATED TO HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT FROM THIS PACKAGE AND CONSIDER THOSE FOUR SEPARATELY. Amendment to the amendment as displayed on the screen by staff: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 13 AMEND TO REMOVE ALL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD HUB OPTIONS AND HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT OPTION. Councilmember Paine anticipated the council could reach agreement on the bulk of these, but the ones related to neighborhood hubs and high capacity transit option deserve more discussion. Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for making this motion, realizing she had not flagged the high capacity transit amendment, She acknowledged some housing will not include what she and others consider adequate parking and she appreciated the opportunity to have a separate discussion on that and will support the amendment. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE THE AMENDMENT FOR THE MAPLEWOOD HUB. Councilmember Tibbott commented the council has had quite a bit of discussion on this amendment. There is already multifamily housing in that area, some of which could be redeveloped over the 20 year period. He was supportive of the idea of commercial in that area and would prefer to see that hub remain in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Eck expressed support for the amendment. She heard valid concerns expressed about traffic and the dangers of increased traffic, noting as a hub it would get priority attention because the transportation plan is in sync with the centers and hubs Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: TO KEEP MAPLEWOOD HUB IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Dotsch commented the transportation plan for that intersection is right turn only so there would be zero access from 196 b southbound and north on 88th going across to Seaview, making it a very difficult area to get in and out of. This is a valid concern related to not including Maplewood as a hub. Councilmember Nand asked if the council's previous vote addressed removing the Maplewood as a neighborhood hub. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the vote the council took was to separately consider the three hubs, Maplewood, North Bowl and Westgate, and high capacity transit; those four aspects of cluster 3 were pulled out by the council's motion for separate consideration. Councilmember Nand recalled a previous motion made by Council President Olson to remove Maplewood as a neighborhood hub so she thought the council already voted to retain Maplewood as a hub. Mr. Taraday explained the motion adopted Cluster 3 minus the four items he just identified. Councilmember Nand clarified this a vote to affirmatively add Maplewood back in as a hub. Mayor Rosen clarified approval of this motion would keep the Maplewood hub in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott said he was equally confused; his intention was to retain the Maplewood hub in the comprehensive plan. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND TO MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 14 Council President Olson said this one stood out to her in terms of it not being a good fit. There have been discussion canyoning in other parts of the city and this will place four story buildings on both sides of Puget Drive which has one of the lovelier views into the downtown bowl. This would affect view not only for the residents, but also people driving through town. The way this is worded it takes away the entire section south of Puget Drive and leaves sections on the other side, but takes out Grandview and Euclid Streets which are very narrow so the idea of multifamily on those streets was not necessarily a good fit. Additionally, it is a very developed single family residential area with a lot of newer, grand houses. Having multifamily on the few parcels that aren't developed does a disservice to the people who invested under the previous zoning. This was very carefully worded with the help of planning staff to allow a little expansion of the business aspects, but in a way that keeps it adjacent to what is already business or already taller and easily fits within the excess units and will make a big difference to both residents and visitors. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3 Councilmember Paine said she would not support the motion for several reasons. It is a major bus stop for the neighborhood for the route that goes across Lynnwood and to the light rail station and it is already a multifamily hub. She lives a six minute walk from the intersection and there aren't new houses there; there are some big houses, but they aren't new. Some of the multifamily in that area is close to 50-60 years old and may need to be refreshed at some point. The height incentive is not as described, for the existing commercial, as stated on packet page 522, there are options for 4 floors with the community benefits incentive. She anticipated it would enhance the opportunity for other commercial development in that area in addition to the existing school, hair salons and restaurant. Councilmember Paine continued, on the north end of Puget drive, if there was redevelopment there would be an opportunity for a 0' floor. It is currently three floors and that likely will continue in the future. Removal of these little bits and pieces from the comprehensive plan will end up limiting future uses in the City and the neighborhood hubs. This is a really great little neighborhood hub, ideally situated to support local businesses and create a very walkable community. She urged the council not to support modification of the North Bowl hub. Councilmember Nand said she was not very familiar with this neighborhood and asked if there was already commercial within walking distance. Mr. Clugston answered at the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive, there is the Olympic View Deli and the gas station on one corner, on the other side of the street is primarily the school and some residences, and a small commercial strip on the west side of Olympic View Drive. Councilmember Nand recalled the council chose Alternative B for this hub which would allow a 4th floor with incentives. She asked if the incentives would include public amenities like parks, street trees, etc. Ms. Hope answered that has not yet decided, but those are the kind of things that have been discussed. That would be addressed during the code amendment process. Councilmember Nand observed Council President Olson's amendment would exclude all commercial and limit heights to three floors. Council President Olson answered only in certain areas. It has been very carefully worded so it is the sections south of Puget Drive near the school and areas down Grandview and Euclid, but not anywhere that is current multifamily or commercial. Nothing was being changed from what was proposed in either of those areas and it would even be expanded based on this wording. Councilmember Nand asked how many units this amendment would reduce from the proposed 210. Ms. Hope answered it was hard to say, technically with any of these hubs, even if they were totally eliminated, the City would still reach its target. It is just a matter of whether it makes sense for the neighborhood and how it functions. Councilmember Nand found the potential for redevelopment around the elementary school exciting, allowing young families to afford to live in Edmonds and send their kids to the local schools which are experiencing a decline in enrollment that is affecting the state's funding allocation. While she appreciated Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 15 the sensitivities that Council President Olson brought forward, she was in favor of retaining the proposed language in the current draft comprehensive plan. Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Council President Olson's assertion of that area. She referred to the map on page 47 that shows a creek running through the north side and single family lots that have access to the creek, commenting the idea that those are ripe for redevelopment up to four stories is a disservice to the creek. She recalled during a previous presentation Urban Planner Navyusha Pentakota said there is already multifamily to the north, but it is actually single family currently. The way it is worded still allows commercial and mixed use. She expressed support for the amendment. Councilmember Chen said he was trying to picture how this was divided up and asked if there was a map to help illustrate it. Ms. Hope offered to display the map of what is included in the comprehensive plan now, packet page 116. The North Bowl currently allows three floors, bonus floor height with incentives. The amendment would remove some of the parcels from multifamily or more than two stories in height. Councilmember Chen observed the single family zoning is currently 25 feet. Ms. Hope said this would keep the same height for those parcels. Councilmember Chen observed the hub concept would allow 30 feet. Ms. Hope agreed 3 floors would typically be 30 feet. Councilmember Chen commented with the 5 foot green building incentive, buildings could potentially be 35 feet. Ms. Hope agreed that was possible although this area hasn't been considered yet for that type of incentive. Councilmember Chen observed the single family homes to the southeast of that area potentially have views. Ms. Hope displayed the map of the North Bowl hub in the draft comprehensive plan on page 116: North Bowl 3 Floors, Bonus floor height incentive allowed Mr. Clugston explained the parcels in red are currently neighborhood commercial which would be retained. The parcels south of Puget Drive and north of the existing commercial space would become North Bowl hub. This is the proposal the council approved in concept. The amendment being discussed would remove the parcels south of Puget Drive and a couple more to the northwest, leaving 1-2 parcels adjacent to the existing neighborhood commercial. Council President Olson reiterated the council has been very consistent in avoiding the canyoning effect in other neighborhoods every time that has come up. She encouraged councilmembers to do that here for that reason alone if not for the other reasons that have been stated. Councilmember Eck commenting getting back to basics with regard to hubs and centers, it is also about placemaking. Speaking to the concern about creeks, they are regulated by the critical area ordinance. She heard the concerns about a canyoning effect, but the proposal is to expand on the businesses that are already Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 16 there, creating a full hub with walkability and amenities. She noted multifamily can take many different forms and shapes. She was unsure she could support the amendment. Councilmember Nand appreciated the sensitivities Council President Olson referenced related to canyoning and view blockage. Some residents have expressed concern they are being taxed on their water view and if something blocks their view, that's not fair. If something were built there that blocked parcels zoned as view properties, she asked if that would be adjusted in the code or their tax assessment. Ms. Hope answered it gets complicated and she could not predict exactly how the county assessor would look at that. Typically if there are prime views on a property, the owner pays higher property taxes. If that view were lost, she assumed the property taxes would be lower. Councilmember Tibbott said he was trying to get handle on what this motion would do. He has brought up his concern in the past about parcels close to the creek and was not confident they could be developed due to being in a critical area so he would be just as happy to remove them. He asked the maximum height in that area with this amendment. Ms. Hope answered 3 floors, possibly 4 floors with an incentive (incentives have not yet been determined). With the amendment, those parcels would still be subject to the current height limit, 25 feet or approximately 2 stories. Councilmember Tibbott observed there is already a 3-story apartment on the west side. Ms. Hope clarified the amendment was to not allow 3 stories. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND TO ALLOW FOR UP TO 3 STORIES IN THIS AREA, BUT NOT 4 STORIES WITH AN INCENTIVE. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his support for removing the properties along the creek, but saw some potential for 3 stories in the commercial zone. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment up to 3 stories like the existing buildings. There are plenty of examples of creeks in this neighborhood and others; it is not impossible to construct multifamily in an area with creeks and some houses have streams going through their property including waterfalls that block salmon passage. It is important to allow the potential for redevelopment for commercial and residential near the school and the preschool. She could see the area being developed very responsibly in the future and being an amenity for the entire community. Amendment to the amendment as displayed on the screen by staff: TO NOT ALLOW A 4TH FLOOR BY INCENTIVE IN THIS AREA. Council President Olson said it was not her intention not to allow three floors in the areas shown in red on the map or in the area between Olympic Avenue and Olympic View Drive. It was the section over by Edmonds Elementary where she thought, even if that were multifamily which she did not object to, there should be a 2-story limit due to the canyoning effect and residential and drivers' views. Residents have the potential to have their views blocked by 3-story buildings, but 2-story buildings would be the same height as the existing residences. She wasn't trying to avoid multifamily, she was trying to avoid the 3-story height which she reviewed as a detractor for the area for both visitors and residents. She suggested if this fails, perhaps the main amendment could be reworded to be clear two story multifamily is welcome in the area south of Puget Drive. Councilmember Dotsch commented another thing to think about is having a 4' story adjacent to a state highway and kids trying to cross where there is no crosswalk. Visibility and canyoning is a challenge at the Olympic and Puget Drive intersection where there is a crosswalk. Drivers often drive very fast down the hill, especially ferry traffic. She summarized the south side remaining two stories would improve safety and visibility for students. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 17 Councilmember Nand expressed support for the amendment to the amendment. She lives in a 3-story multifamily property and doesn't think it's particularly obnoxious when it comes to blocking views. She was excited for the opportunity for young families to live within walking distance of the elementary school. She appreciated the council's conversation that displayed sensitivity to local concerns. She was in favor of this compromise. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff: MODIFY NORTH BOWL HUB AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3 AS AMENDED TO NOT ALLOW 4Tx FLOOR BY INCENTIVE. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding the North Bowl hub will remain in the comprehensive plan with this one exception. Mr. Taraday explained the pending motion would be to use the North Bowl language in Cluster 3, add the amendment that was just adopted, stating there would not be an opportunity to have a 4 b floor by incentive in this area. Councilmember Paine asked if that was Councilmember Tibbott's intent. Councilmember Tibbott responded his intention was to allow 3 stories on all parcels except for the ones that would be removed along the creek. He recalled raising this as an issue in previous discussions. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding the south side of Puget Drive would remain as proposed in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott answered yes, but limited to 3 stories. Councilmember Tibbott suggested an amendment could be made to leave the hub as proposed in the comprehensive plan, except limit it to 3 stories which would restore the possibility of building along the creek. He noted part of the problem is deciphering the modification in the council packet, it is not simple enough compared to what is currently in the comprehensive plan. Council President Olson asked if the cleanest way would be for the council to vote and if the amendment failed, make a new amendment. Mr. Taraday said that is certainly an option. He understood Councilmember Tibbott's suggestion to be voting down the modification because 3 stories would be the result if the modification was voted down. Council President Olson said the original amendment was amended from 4 stories to 3, but there was an amendment to remove some areas. She asked if the areas would still be removed. Mr. Taraday said not until the motion was approved. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO CALL THE QUESTION. Mr. Taraday advised five votes are required to end debate. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, TIBBOTT AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE WORDS "TO THOSE THAT ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES." MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Paine said she seconded Councilmember Tibbott's motion and believed if the council votes on this now, there will need to be a new motion before voting on the main motion. She supported voting now with the understanding there will need to be a motion to discuss this section further. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 18 Councilmember Tibbott said he was having a having a hard time with the modification as worded; however, he believed 3 stories was the right height limit on both sides of Puget Drive. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO AMEND TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK. Councilmember Eck said she supports keeping the North Bowl hub in the scope of the comprehensive plan and capping the height at 3 floors. She reminded creeks are regulated by the critical areas ordinance. Amendment to amendment displayed on screen by staff: TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK AREA TO REMAIN AS PART OF THE HUB. Councilmember Nand observed the North Bowl as described on packet page 522, the no action lists neighborhood commercial as it is currently zoned. If the council adopts this modification as worded, she asked if it will eliminate the neighborhood commercial and limit future development to only residential. Ms. Hope answered that would not be the intent. She commented packet page 522 was an explanation of the analysis of the hubs and centers, but the hubs proposed to be included in the comprehensive plan are on packet page 116. Councilmember Nand asked if it is accurate to say these lots are zoned neighborhood commercial, but this modification would eliminate that as a future zoning option. Ms. Hope answered the intent is to keep the commercial. The original issue was height and not limiting height more than would be normal in a hub except on the parcels occupied by single family housing. Now the conversation has progressed to whatever is there can only be up to 3 stories. Councilmember Nand said she still struggled with the phrase that she proposed removing. Councilmember Chen suggested voting down the amendment and making a new one because this one is getting too complicated. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3) COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND DOTSCH, AND COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO NORTH BOWL HUB AS PROPOSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OTHER THAN THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff: MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO LtM!T- BUILDING TYPES WITHIN THE NORTH BOMLL HUB To THOSE THA ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES AND HAVE NO GREATER HEIGHT THAN ALLOM ON ALL PREVIOUS RS ZONED LOTS THAT- ARE EITHER± 1) SOUTH OF PUGET DRIAIE 0 2) WEST OF O YMPIC VIEW DBE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY ABUT EXISTn�r� Councilmember Paine commented the two amendments will maintain the neighborhood commercial mixed use aspects and will allow it to blend in nicely with the neighborhood. Councilmember Nand found this amendment confusing and time consuming and she did not support Councilmember Paine's amendment or the main amendment. Councilmember Dotsch commented due to what exists there now, if three stories are allowed, it will not be affordable housing but view housing. The idea that this will become an affordable hub is not a realistic Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 19 goal. There are a lot of mature trees on the north side near the creek; she was in favor of Council President Olson's original motion to protect the area to the north. Amendment to the amendment displayed on screen by staff. AMEND AS SHOWN IN THE STRIKE THROUGH. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES. Amendment displayed on screen by staff: MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO LIMIT BUILDING TYPES WITHIN THE NORTH BOWL HUB TO THOSE THAT ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES AND HAVE NO GREATER HEIGHT THAN ALLOWED ON ALL PREVIOUS RS-ZONED LOTS THAT ARE EITHER: 1) SOUTH OF PUGET DRIVE OR 2) WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY ABUT EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONES AS AMENDED TO NOT ALLOW A 4TH FLOOR BY INCENTIVE IN THIS AREA AND ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK AREA TO REMAIN AS PART OF THE HUB. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO MODIFY THE WESTGATE CENTER IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SHOW THE DESIGNATION OF THE PARCELS AT 22805 & 22811 100TH AVE. WEST AS MIXED USE 3, NOT MIXED USE 4. Council President Olson recalled the council discussed this previously when a neighborhood submitted a petition asking for a transition zone. It was said at that time, which she fully supported and understood, that that could be accomplished via the development code in the future. Since there are excess units, there was no reason not to implement it via the comprehensive plan process to guarantee that that happens and it affects only two parcels. Councilmember Nand said while she appreciated the neighborhood activists mobilizing, plenty of neighborhoods have asked for transition zones, particularly Highway 99 where single family zoned neighborhoods will potentially be impacted by 75 foot buildings with no transition zones and no councilmember has proposed this level of granularity in the comprehensive plan. She found it inappropriate to attempt to do transition zones via the comprehensive plan when it would be more appropriately delegated to next year's code update process. She was unable to support the amendment and did not think the council should be responding to activists from one neighborhood while ignoring the pleas of activists in other neighborhoods. Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the amendment, noting there have been changes in the comprehensive plan for other neighborhoods such East Seaview, a single family neighborhood that was removed and essentially downzoned as well as the addition of transition zones in that area. She agreed the two lots identified in the amendment are not necessary to meet the City's growth target. The comprehensive plan still has 1000 units in excess and this is a reasonable ask. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: TO MODIFY WESTGATE AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3 Councilmember Paine did not support the motion for the reasons stated by Councilmember Nand. The only reason there is excess capacity and the reason the City's housing target is as low as it is, is the prior Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 20 comprehensive plan provided close to 5,000 extra units. Although she appreciated the advocacy from the neighbors, this carve out isn't appropriate and it interferes with comprehensive land use planning. Councilmember Eck agreed with the previous comments, noting part of the goal of the comprehensive plan is equity and spreading growth throughout the City in hubs and centers. She did not support the amendment. MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. Ms. Hope advised the next potential modification would amend H-2.4 to add the phrase "high -capacity" for considering possible parking reductions, so that the revised policy reads: "Consider the reduction of parking requirements for residential developments in areas proximate to high -capacity transit service or based on planned occupancy (such as seniors, affordable units) to reduce construction costs and to promote affordability of residential development." COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE MODIFICATIONS. Councilmember Dotsch explained this was originally discussed in relation to transit stops which exist throughout Edmonds. The intent of HB 1110 was related to high capacity transit and this modification is consistent with the HB 1110 language. Opening all of Edmonds to reduced parking due to a nearby bus stop that runs every hour and not on weekends is not a feasible form of transit that people without a car can rely on. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: TO REMOVE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT LANGUAGE FROM THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS. Councilmember Paine expressed support for removing this from consideration entirely. This a 20-year plan and there needs to be enough capacity for all sorts of different housing. Removing the necessity of parking on each parcel and for each housing unit impacts affordability. Councilmember Nand asked if Councilmember Tibbott's intent was to remove the proposed amendment, to not add "high capacity" when considering possible parking reductions. She relayed her understanding of Councilmember Tibbott's amendment was to promote the removal of parking capacity for affordable units and senior units. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that Councilmember Tibbott wanted to strike the insertion requiring high capacity transit, but keep the rest of language. Councilmember Nand said she would generally be in favor of retaining parking as an option for affordable and middle housing. She did not think Snohomish County had sufficient public transit to support the community's need for transit and to entirely remove parking from properties. Councilmember Tibbott explained his intent was remove the high capacity reduction language as this would be better addressed in the development regulations. Ms. Hope agreed it could be addressed in the development code; this language is only to "consider," and that consideration would happen at the code stage. Councilmember Tibbott said that is his intent, that it would be addressed in the code. Developers are the ones who will put forward a plan for development and he wanted them to have maximum flexibility which removing this modification does. Mr. Taraday reminded the council did not need to make a motion on an amendment just to vote it down. These are not yet included in the draft comprehensive plan. If the council didn't make a motion, they wouldn't be included in the comprehensive plan. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 21 AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. Council President Olson relayed a question regarding the removal of the Perrinville hub which Ms. Hope indicated had already been done. In the draft comprehensive plan in the packet, Table 3.4, Figure 3.7 and the map on page 116 all include Perrinville. Ms. Hope said it hasn't been changed yet, but the proposed amendment in the packet says remove Perrinville. Council President Olson asked if the council already voted on that at a previous meeting. Ms. Hope said changes are not being made to the comprehensive plan at each meeting, that will be done as part of the final draft. Council President Olson observed the Perrinville units would also be removed from the tables, figures and maps. Ms. Hope agreed. Council President Olson referred to the Lb recommendations, and asked to be directed to the page where those were already incorporated. Ms. Hope referred to the planning board's recommended amendments in the packet, LU-22.1 is revised to read, Limit land use activities that would negatively impact groundwater recharge unless such activities protect against contaminating the aquifer and LU-22.3 would be revised to read, Encourage projects that actively enhance aquifer recharge such as artificial recharge basins, managed aquifer recharge (MAR) systems and restoring natural resource areas unless such projects risk contaminating the aquifer. She noted the original land use policy was briefer and it was expanded. Council President Olson relayed her understanding that what the council approved included this. Ms. Hope agreed, what the council approved in Recommendations 1 included the planning board recommendations in the packet. Mr. Taraday relayed the planning board recommended amendments should be assumed to be part of the comprehensive plan even though there was not a motion on it. Ms. Hope said the motion was to include all the recommendations in the packet and that was already in the packet. Mr. Taraday said the one that was not in packet was the hatchery map. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS IT PERTAINS TO THE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EDMONDS WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS MARSH AND ADJACENT TO THE UNOCAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES THE FISH HATCHERY. Ms. Hope said the 2020 comprehensive plan shows the hatchery property as Master Plan Development. There was no policy discussion about changing that designation as part of the comprehensive plan process and could be discussed as part of a comprehensive plan amendment docket next year. Due to some legal issues related to such a change, she recommended retaining the existing designation for the fish hatchery parcel. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: NO CHANGE TO HATCHERY MAP (REMAIN AS SHOWN IN EXISTING PLAN (MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION)) AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Hope recalled Councilmember Eck raised a question about LU-18.1. She thought it was included in the amendments, but it didn't quite make it. The proposed amendment would be to add the words "and private" so it would consider both private and public property for potential open space. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO LU-18.1 TO ADD "AND PRIVATE." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 22 Councilmember Eck commented she did not want to limit the City to considering public property for open space. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: ADD THE WORDS "AND PRIVATE" TO LU-18.1. Councilmember Nand expressed support for the motion, recalling Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser has been very successful in identifying properties and approaching the property owner to inquire about dedicating it to park space. This is an appropriate addition to the comprehensive plan. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND THE FIVE CORNERS CENTER TO REMOVE THE RED HATCHED AREAS WEST OF THE BROWN MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WEST OF SUMMIT AND NORTH OF BOWDOIN FROM INCREASED CAPACITY. Councilmember Dotsch recalled there was a lot of public comment about Shell Creek right below that area and these are the closest parcels that aren't already multifamily. This would create a buffer on those lots to protect the creek which is already rerouted and is impacted by storm events. The less density and hardscape the better to prevent sediment. Staff displayed the map of Five Corners and Mr. Clugston identified the parcels Councilmember Dotsch was referencing north of Bowdoin: Five Corners 3 Floors Councilmember Nand did not support the amendment, finding parcel specific amendments too granular for the comprehensive plan update and anticipating such modifications would be better addressed during the code update that will occur in 2025. Amendment as displayed on screen by staff: MODIFY FIVE CORNERS CENTER TO REMOVE THE RED CROSS HATCHED AREAS WEST OF THE BROWN MDR AND NORTH OF BOWDOIN. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO EXTEND THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2025. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 23 MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 3. DISCUSSION/POTENTIAL ACTION OF FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS; ANNEXATION TO RFA, NEW CONTRACT, OR OTHER Mayor Rosen explained Council President Olson will provide a brief introduction for context, SCF Communications Director Christie Veley, Fire Chief Bob Eastman, and Commissioner Ed Widdis will outline the changes made to the documents, followed by council questions, hopefully a motion as stated in the packet followed by a round robin deliberation on the motion. Council President Olson provided history, explaining the City last had a fire department in 2009 when the City entered into a contractual relationship with the entities that have evolved into the South Snohomish Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. Many of the former Edmonds firefighters and paramedics became firefighters and paramedics with what is now SCF and some are still there. The City has been happy with the services it received from the organization. When the contract was terminated in accordance with the contract clause that allowed either party to terminate with two years notice, the City began vetting options for the future. While the City's budget crisis does not drive the situation, it is a factor in considering the attractiveness of one option versus another as running a fire department is demanding on other City departments and like cities themselves, benefits from having healthy reserves which the City does not have. Council President Olson continued, on December 3 and 10, 2024, the council discussed documents related to the annexation option. The RFA commissioners discussed additional changes and concessions at their meeting and the documents in tonight's packet were approved earlier tonight by the RFA Commission. The RFA team will review the changes made by the commission and councilmembers can ask questions of Chief Eastman, Commissioner Widdis, Communications Director Veley and/or members of the Edmonds team. Once all the questions are answered, she will make a motion framed as approval of the updated RFA Plan Amendment and Pre -Annexation Agreement and directing the city attorney to draft a resolution placing RFA annexation on the April 25, 2025 ballot. All discussion of future fire options in the round robin debate will be germane to the motion because the alternative is do something different which would be supportive of a councilmember's no vote. Chief Eastman advised there are not a lot of changes between what the board approved tonight and what was in the council packet. He reviewed the amendments: RFA Plan Amendment ➢ Note 4 in Appendix B - added "in the event the City of Edmonds were to de -annex from the RFA, both stations would be transferred back to the city for no concessions." City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented in the interest of clarifying the record, the statute uses the word withdraw instead of de -annex and he wanted everyone to be on the same page regarding what de -annex means. Chief Eastman said they mean the same thing. Pre -Annexation Agreement ➢ Updated the approval date to December 17, 2024 ➢ Section 4.1 related to Stations 16 and 20 - deleted "in the event the RFA ceases to use either station as a fire station" ➢ Quitclaim deeds for Station 16 and 20 - added "if the city de -annexes from the RFA, no concessions will be paid to the RFA." Temporary Services Agreement Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 24 ➢ Third Whereas - changed RFA effective date to June 1 (from August 1) to be consistent with the other documents. ➢ Section 3.4 Changes in LOS - section deleted. Based on conversations with the city's team, either additional language needed to be added or the section removed. ➢ Section 10.1 - added "provided that such agreement is reached no later than September U' ➢ Section 11.3.1.c - deleted "with concurrence of the RFA" and added "for example if a fire engine/ambulance were stationed at Station 17, the city may purchase the fire engine/ambulance from the RFA." ➢ Exhibit A, contract payment - added "the City's expenses in 2026 for the following: 1. The City's fire related payment obligations which it pays to SNO 911 in 2026. Councilmember Nand asked Chief Eastman to restate the first amendment to Exhibit B related to disposition of the fire stations if Edmonds withdrew. Chief Eastman advised it was in Notes section of Appendix B to the amended and restated RFA Plan, "in the event that the City of Edmonds de -annexes from the RFA, both stations would be transferred back to the City of Edmonds for no consideration." He explained the stations are being transferred to the RFA to follow the fire service, if the City withdrew or de -annexed, the stations would follow the City who would be providing fire service. Councilmember Dotsch asked if it would be possible to get what Chief Eastman was reading from, commenting it was very hard to follow the changes. Council President Olson requested Chief Eastman email the changes to her and she will forward them to council. Council President Olson summarized the changes, advising the biggest recent concession was regarding the fire stations, if they return to the City for use as fire stations, there would be no consideration. If the City remains annexed and a station is not being used by the RFA, the station would come back to the City for some other use while the City is served by some other station in the RFA. In that case, there might be some small consideration because the City would get full credit for the market value at the time it was transferred and pay market value at the time it comes back less the amount when it was transferred and adjusted for inflation. Basically that is to protect the capital investment that may have been made in the interim. Councilmember Chen referred to packet page 601, the quitclaim deeds for Stations 16 and 20, states, "...title and ownership of the Property shall, in the sole discretion and option of the City of Edmonds, as evidenced by a written notice letter from the City to the RFA, revert to the City of Edmonds upon payment of fair market value of the Property as determined by appraisal..." which is contradictory to what Chief Eastman just described in that the stations would revert to Edmonds with no consideration. He asked for clarification. Mr. Taraday explained there are two scenarios that are both reflected in the reversionary paragraph. In one scenario, the City de-annexes/withdraws from the RFA; in that scenario the stations would come back to the City without any payment. Mr. Taraday continued, there is another scenario does not involve the City withdrawing from the RFA, but the RFA no longer using a station presumably because they have built a different station on a different property. In that scenario if the City wanted the old station property back, that is when the fair market value language would apply. The rationale is in that scenario, SCF has purchased land somewhere nearby and built a new fire station on that property that would serve Edmonds. In that scenario, given the investment made on a different property, the RFA would not return the old property without payment as called out in quitclaim deed. The City would still get credit for its equity interest in the property and likely only pay for improvements made to the station by RFA. Chief Eastman agreed with Mr. Taraday's explanation. Though it is fair market value, the calculation would include the City's equity stake. Councilmember Chen commented in the event SCF RFA merges with another fire authority and through the strategic planning which is not the will of Edmonds citizens, citizens would not be responsible for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 25 fair market value of reverting. Council President Olson explained the City would be not paying fair market value, it would be paying fair market value minus the credit for fair market value at the time the stations were transferred and adjusted for inflation. It would be a rather small amount unless there had been a large capital investment in the station. A building that has had a lot of refurbishment or in the case of Station 20, completely rebuilt, obviously it would come back to the City as a much more valuable asset than it was when it was transferred to the RFA. That is what that reflects, fairness to both entities. Assuming there wasn't a large capital investment, the amount the City would end up paying to reacquire that asset to use for a different purpose or to sell would be quite nominal. Councilmember Chen welcomed the change related to if the City withdraws, the assets will revert to the City at no cost. He asked Mr. Taraday to describe the process for the City to withdraw from the RFA. Mr. Taraday answered the statute that governs withdrawal from an RFA is RCW 52.26.110; Subsection 2(A)(ii) addresses the scenario of the City seeking to withdraw its territory from RFA, "The withdrawal of an area is authorized upon: (ii) adoption of a resolution by the city or town council approving the withdrawal, if the area is located within the city or town...", essentially adoption of a resolution is all that is needed to withdraw the City from the RFA. Councilmember Chen observed it doesn't require approval of the RFA. Mr. Taraday agreed it did not require a vote of the citizens or a vote of the RFA board; it is entirely the city council's decision. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine referred to Section 11.3. Lc in the Temporary Services Agreement on packet page 614 related to RFA Owned Rolling Stock that was deleted with the concurrence of the RFA, and asked the impact of removing this section. Council President Olson explained the RFA doesn't have the right to say the City can't have rolling stock. It was previously with the concurrence of, and now reverts to the term in the current contract that states if the City is providing fire service on its own, the City can buy the rolling stock. Chief Eastman agreed that was a big issue, it started with concurrence, but now the City gets to choose if it wants to purchase engines or medic units. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE UPDATED RFA PLAN AMENDMENT (EDMONDS ANNEXATION) AND PRE - ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION PLACING THE RFA ANNEXATION ON THE APRIL 2025 BALLOT. Council President Olson referred to comments have been made that she would like to address in terms of why she supports this motion. For starters, it has been said that the citizens don't have representation as members of the RFA. That is not a true statement; the City would have at least one commissioner it could influence that came from the City of Edmonds and probably Edmonds residents in two different districts and citizens would vote for all the RFA commissioners. Additionally, the upfront investment, whether that is rolling stock, equipment or personnel, would be unwelcome right now. In addition, a significant capital investment is required for Station 20 in the near term. This investment can be made more cheaply by the RFA than Edmonds because they have reserves or if they choose to finance, would get better rates than the City would right now. Council President Olson continued, with regard to the alternatives that have been mentioned such as starting another RFA, she wanted it to be clear that under state law all RFAs are under the same model of assessed value and benefit charge. In the example mentioned during audience comments about forming an RFA with Everett and Mukilteo, while Mukilteo might have higher property values than Edmonds, Everett's property values are low in comparison and lower than Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. The situation that some want to avoid by being the high assessed value city is not met via that example. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 26 Council President Olson continued, the council is often criticized that options haven't been fully vetted. The fact is the other options take a lot more time and money in the short term and she didn't believe they would end up being better solutions. With the City's financial difficulties, the short term expenditure is a bad thing; the sooner the City has to spend the money, the worse situation it would be in. As a councilmember who voted no on the landmark project all three times it came to council, she did not need to know whether the landmark project was a good idea because the City was super broke which made it a bad idea. At this point in time, the City starting its own fire department is a bad idea and it would likely take 12-20 years to break even from the upfront costs, but it is also asking for additional peril. She summarized she is 100% in favor of putting annexation on the ballot. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion. Up until now the council has heard mainly one narrative from one part of the community centered around costs and how revenues are generated. Yet there are at least two narratives and now is an opportunity to hear the rest of the story. He was confident that the agreement addresses many of the requests that the negotiating team raised, especially that the buildings come back and being able to buy rolling stock. Those were important issues the negotiating team asked for. At the same time this agreement preserves the equity relationship with all the other partner cities. Edmonds is the last city to potentially join via annexation and should be equal partners with the other cities. One of the most attractive parts of annexation will be the continuation of the great service the City has been receiving, the levels of service will be maintained which includes emergency preparedness and planning for development happening across Snohomish County; the RFA continues to look at the future of the region which is very important for mutual aid. He was confident the City would be well served and now there would be time for the rest of the City to hear both narratives and for voters to decide. Councilmember Paine thanked the negotiating teams, recognizing it was a long haul. The council has heard a lot of comments about public safety in the community including the police department and fire services. As Councilmember Tibbott said, this is the continuation of same service citizens have been getting with some tweaks. The fire service personnel won't change; it will impact citizens' tax bill if the voters approve annexation as it shift costs to the taxpayer. The City is very fortunate its public safety providers provide excellent service, particularly the fire service. She summarized this is about public safety and it is critical to look at it that way. Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Paine's appreciation for the negotiating team, the fire commissioners, SCF team and the union firefighters who have been engaging with the City. To the comments about union firefighters' interactions with elected officials, she emphasized there is absolutely nothing wrong with union members who serve the community wanting to interact with their elected officials and choosing to donate to their elected officials. People who are opposed to annexation are constantly talking to councilmembers and donating to councilmembers' campaigns.. The RFA is one entity, the union is something else entirely. She could not let comments attacking union firefighters who are risking their lives to protect the community pass unnoticed. She thanked the RFA team for being here during this very long meeting and showing their dedication to serving the public. Councilmember Eck relayed her thanks to the negotiating team. She could say without doubt that all the choices for Edmonds have been thoroughly vetted. For all the reasons Council President Olson said, the other options just did not make sense financially or from a timing standpoint. She was thrilled to receive the same level of service from SCF that the City already receives. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for the negotiation team, SCF, the commissioners and everybody working together. He was confident once this is on the ballot, the council, city and RFA will be transparent in providing all the information the public has been asking for including the financial impact to individual homeowners. He acknowledged costs will go up, there is no sugarcoating that, but the parties will be transparent about providing information. He encouraged the public to ask questions so there can be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 27 down to earth, transparent conversations. For public safety, this is of optimal importance to the community. It is the council's job to ensure public safety comes first. Councilmember Dotsch commented although she is in the minority, she appreciated all the work that has done by the negotiating team. The council and citizens value firefighters and the service they provide. She had hoped to pursue an extension first due to the variables that put taxpayers on the hook for joining the RFA during a budget crisis with no specific numbers as to why the cost nearly doubled. The RFA has promised lower costs and taxes if grouped with other cities, but she did not see that realized with the RFA's proposal. She would have preferred to see language stating a benefit charge would be pursued to offset property taxes. The numbers haven't been provided to show how the costs in the contract got so out of alignment with what the contract that was updated a few years ago. Councilmember Dotsch continued, the RFA vote along with the levy lid lift will be a 135% tax increase for property owners. To the question of whether that is a reasonable amount to ask for, it will be up to voters to decide. The fiscal oversight is essential gone for the City and its residents. Electing a commissioner is not the same as the City having bargaining power and oversight. She would have liked to see more fiscal restraint shown by the RFA negotiating team with regard to what Edmonds residents will be charged. It also would have been encouraging to see a statement from the RFA regarding online commenting that disparaged Edmonds residents and the City. For those reasons, she will not support the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. On behalf of the RFA, Chief Eastman said Edmonds has been part of their organization since 2010 and for some like him who have been with the RFA for 28 years, have been serving the residents of Edmonds since the City began contracting with Districts 11 and 1 and he was glad to be able to continue that relationship. He recognized the heavy lift is yet to come, but they are ready to do it. 4. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2025 City Clerk Scott Passey relayed the City code allows the council to select a council president and council president pro tem at the last meeting of the year when the council makeup will not change in the following year. He reviewed the process: he will call for nominations; nominations do not require a second. After all nominations have been made he will declare nominations closed. Councilmembers will then be allowed to speak in favor of nominees. He will then call for vote in the order nominations are made. As in the past, he will not ask for no votes to spare councilmembers from voting against each other. As soon as a nominee receives four votes, he will declare the council president elected and no further votes will be taken on remaining nominees. The same process will follow for election of council president pro tem. He called for nominations for council president. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT AS 2025 COUNCIL PRESIDENT. With no further nominations, Mr. Passey closed nominations. Councilmember Chen commented the council just passed several heavy decisions for the coming year including the biennial budget with many, many what -if scenarios embedded in it and placing annexation into RFA on the April 2025 ballot. There is much more work to be done and the council needs a council president with experience and time. Councilmembers will have to roll up their sleeves and work toward common goals in the coming years. NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 28 Mr. Passey opened nominations for council president pro tem. COUNCILMEMBER NAND NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AS 2025 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. With no further nominations, Mr. Passey closed nominations. Councilmember Nand commented Councilmember Paine is a pillar of the community and has deep experience in public service dating back to her time as president of the school board during a time of financial distress for the Edmonds School District. She has shown great compassion toward the City workforce and vulnerable members of the community and will work well with a fiscal conservative like Councilmember Tibbott to provide a balanced prospective as city government goes forward in 2025. Councilmember Eck commented Councilmember Paine has shown steadiness and deep work for every meeting, always coming extremely prepared and thoughtful. She agreed this would be a balanced leadership for the council and she supported nomination. NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone for all their work, recognizing it has been a heavy lift this year which will continue next year. She looked forward to the new council leadership to guide that work. She thanked everyone who participated by email, speaking to the council, and participating in early meetings regarding the comprehensive plan. She wished the public had been brought along better in the processes, especially the comprehensive plan. It was unfortunate the process was sped up at the end. She thanked Ms. Hope for her work on the comprehensive plan. She wished everyone Happy Holidays and Happy New Year. Councilmember Nand thanked Council President Olson and Councilmember Chen for their very hard work serving as council president and council president pro tem. This was a terrible year to be in council leadership and they both handled very difficult decisions with grace and compassion for the City workforce and the community. Councilmember Paine agreed this has been a really big year that has flown by. She wished everyone Happy Holidays and to enjoy their friends, family and neighbors. Some of the big unfortunate changes include heavy hits for staffing and volunteers on boards and commissions. She thanked this year's council leadership, recognizing it had been big and tough year. She wished all a great set of holidays, to shop local and to enjoy the season. Council President Olson said she will be out shopping in Edmonds and hoped people would say hi when they see her because she hasn't even started her holiday shopping which she was sure was true for other councilmembers. Councilmember Tibbott thanked the council for entrusting him with council leadership in 2025, it is an honor to serve in that way. He commended the council for setting a pattern for healthy debate; this has been a remarkable year with so many decisions, and councilmembers have a lot of differences, but had healthy debate. That is something he wants to continue and believes the council can continue. He looked forward to working with Councilmember Paine, commenting they have discussed many issues over phone and he looked forward to continuing that working relationship and bringing good collaboration to the agendas. He wished everyone Happy Holidays and suggested looking for him at restaurants downtown. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 29 Councilmember Chen wished everyone Happy Holidays and suggested the council forget about the budget for a couple days and enjoy the holidays. This year has been tough, but next year will not any easier. He thanked the public for sending emails and coming to council meetings to let their voice be heard; the council hears their concerns. He recognized there was more work ahead and urged the public to continue to support the community we all love. He was confident the City will overcome the difficulties ahead and have a better future. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES TO 10:35. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Eck thanked Council President Olson and Council President Pro Tern Chen for their leadership this year. She had nothing to compare it to, but from her own experience she knew it had been a tough year. She relayed food banks, particularly Edmonds Food Bank, need food now and also after the holidays as donations drop off in January and February. She urged the public to keep the Edmonds Food Bank in mind after the holidays because there is a genuine need across the country. She wished everyone a lovely holiday regardless of how they celebrate and hoped everyone had a lovely time. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen said today is his 352 day as mayor and as Councilmember Chen stated, the council brought closure to the first biennial budget, the first budget by priorities process, adopted a comprehensive plan which charted a course for the City's future, started a process to ensure the public gets the best possible fire and EMS service and have a comprehensive emergency management plan, took action to save some money, and elected a new council president and council president pro tern which he summarized was not a bad night. He echoed the comment that the way the council works together, with him and with staff is exactly as he hoped it would be and reflects their commitment to working with the community. He looked forward to working with the new council president and council president pro tem. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:32 pm. C5:� SCOTT PASSEY, CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 30