Loading...
Cmd092220EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 22, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief Linda Coburn, Municipal Court Judge Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Uneek Maylor, Court Administrator Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Councilmember Olson requested Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2020, Item 7.1, be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 1 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2020 was added as Agenda Item 8.3 following the public hearings. PRESENTATION MUNICIPAL COURT ANNUAL REPORT Municipal Court Judge Linda Coburn said she typically gives her annual report in March, but 2020 has been unlike any other year, so the report was rescheduled to September. This annual report will be a little different as it will include some changes that have been made this year, especially since she anticipated this will be her last presentation to the Council and that the City will have a new judge as she transitions to the Court of Appeals following the November election. Judge Coburn acknowledged some Councilmembers may be familiar with the information in her presentation, but this presentation is not just for the Council and Mayor, but for all the citizens, an opportunity for the court to educate them about what the court is doing and the importance of the court. She noted since she submitted the information for the packet, she updated some information in the PowerPoint and she provided and updated copy to City Clerk Scott Passey. Judge Coburn provided the state of Edmonds Municipal Court 2020: Court Team o Kevin (security officer), Samantha (video in -custody clerk), Dillon (clerk), Sherman (probation officer), Omar (probation officer), Judge, Uneek (court administrator), Amber (lead clerk) and Julie (clerk and currently acting lead clerk) Courts are an important part of our Community because: o They protect our Constitutional rights and due process under the law o They provide access to justice U 1 I1Cy KGCP- lA5 SQ1C anU Rell p US llldlll lalll Gl V Illly Edmonds Municipal Court Mission Statement o "Providing the community access to justice with respect and integrity." 2019+ Investments and Improvements o Paperless (Light at the end of the tunnel) ■ Process diagram ■ Online Infraction Written Hearings • Jury Questionnaire/Request for Hardship ■ Petition for Legal Financial Obligation Relief ■ Criminal forms/processes ■ Electronic Filing Portal ■ Past seven years cost of forms averaged about $2,500 a year. In 2019, court spent $329 on forms. Reduction of about 82% Protocols for hearings — have continued to have hearings o Chairs separated 6-feet apart o Masks required o Temperature taken o Photograph of clerk's desk with video screen that can be raised/lowered when court not in session ■ Thank you to Thom Sullivan and team for installation o Probation (Double the service) — 2 FTEs ■ MORAL RECONATION THERAPY (MRT) —3 groups — 58 successfully completed to date (program started mid-2017) — As of 9/22/20: • Zero DV convictions after completion date (WA Judicial Information System) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 2 I new conviction after completion date (Reckless Driving) MRT suspended from 3/18/20 to 5/11/20 because of COVID-19. Resumed via Zoom • Expanded Pre -Trial Services • Paperless Project coordination o Edmonds Municipal Community Court ■ Six -Month Pilot Began January 6, 2020 at Swedish Edmonds Hospital ■ Our Goal is to Provide HEART - Healthy connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and health providers. - Easy access to Court for the indigent. - Alternatives to jail. Facilitate contact between defendants and nonprofits willing to provide community service opportunities. - Reduce recidivism. - Transitional connections. Facilitate contact between defendants and social service agencies who help the indigent transition into temporary and permanent housing. • Auditorium Meeting Rooms -Fourth Floor - Signage was placed in both main entrances to provide direction to Community Court • Court Provided Security - Everyone attending had their bags checked and were checked for weapons. - First day, 18 defendants appeared • Court Room - Probation officers, Prosecutor, Judge, Court Clerk, Public Defenders lz Transition between Resource Room and Courtroom - Vendors present: Snohomish Health District SeaMar Evergreen Recovery St. Vincent de Paul Square One 211 ■ Vendors Set up at Tables around the Edge of the Room - In addition to providing handouts for other services, they provided: 15 hygiene kits Snacks 3 pairs of socks 19 bus passes 18 $10 gift cards (McDonald's) • Community Court suspended after two months because of COVID-19. • Interaction between Defendants and Vendors - Chairs were set up in the middle of the resource room where defendants could sit and wait for their case to be called. They also could sit and wait in the courtroom as well. • Court in action - Court staff was able to access court system remotely. Sitting around a table together - much like tribal courts --created a more congenial feel to the proceedings. • Success Stories - Easier to get to (relied on bus instead of unreliable "friends") - Scheduled assessments/appointments (locally and in King County where defendant's insurance was valid) - Completed all paperwork for assessment The Numbers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 3 o A couple years ago she stopped referring to the money that the court takes in as revenue because the court is not revenue generator and it sent a wrong message to the other branches and the public." The court does take in money (intake) but that is not its sole purpose and mission. o Expenditures Item Appropriation Expended Balance Percent Used 2019 $1,123,348 $1,001,060 $122,288 89% 2018 $1,035,031 $995,469 $39,562 96% o Comparison Year to Year Total Filin s 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 7,763 7,919 6,325 7,809 5,826 6,294 . 6,097 6,967 9,931 7,348 Civil Filings 2010 12011 12012 1 2013 1 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 6,152 6,401 5,034 6,494 4,795 5,387 5,171 1 6,119_1 8,992 16,363 Criminal Filings 2010 12011 12012 12013 12014 12015 2016 2017 2018 2019 1 1,611 1,518 1,291 1,315 1,031 907 923 1 840 1 939 985 Tye 2018 2019 Difference % Change Infraction Traffic 4,477 2,803 1,674 -37% Parking 4,486 3,522 964 -21 % o Intake (revenue taken in by court) ■ Graoh Comparing Year to Year Intake K Other Revenue I. 2018 12019 1 2020 Passports 1 $21,570 1 $22,780 1 $5,325 Note: COVID-19 caused court to close front -clerk's window and restructured staff to have fewer people in the office while some worked at home. Thus, court has not processed passports since March. o Overall Intake Annual Intake 2018 2019 Difference % Diff Gross total $1,237,510 $923,057 $314,453 -25% Net Total $766,200 $666,309 $99 891 -13% Note: E2HB 1783 went into effect June 7, 2018 (prohibited courts from imposing costs to the statutorily indigent, provided more ability for people to seek relief and eliminate interest except for on restitution regarding outstanding legal financial obligations. For people with a balance, they can petition the court and that interest is required to be waived. That is reflected in intake.) Criminal Intake 2018 Actuals 2019 Actuals Difference Public Defender $30,729 $16,629 -46% Recou ment The court cannot impose public defender recoupment cost to those who are truly indigent. Blazina o Courts are Not Revenue Centers By statute, '[t]he court shall not order a defendant to pay costs unless the defendant is or will be able to pay them.' RCW 10.0 1. 160(3). To determine the amount and method for paying the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 4 costs, 'the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of costs will impose.' --State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827, 838, 344 P.3d 680, 685 (2015) • E2HB 1783 o Will see over time as people exercise their rights under the law to seek relief allowed under this bill, will continue to see adjustments regarding the amount the court takes in • Statutory Authority "The legislature shall prescribe by law the jurisdiction and powers of any of the inferior courts which may be established in pursuance of this constitution." Article IV, Section12 of the Washington State Constitution • Paperless Court Court Improvement Fund Balance Balance End of 2018 $61 310- 2019 Contributions: $16,250 $77 560 2019 Pa erless Court Expenditures: $3,030 $74,530 2020 Contributions to date: $12,114 $86,644 NOTE: The original decision package for the paperless court project was $70,821. The court has spent $47,703 thus far, leaving a balance of $23,118 the court anticipates spending in 2020. Separation of Powers 4Checks and Balances o Legislative o Executive o Judicial Judge Coburn commented on remote hearings, some where there has not been a single failure to appear (FTA) which rarely happens. Remote hearings allow people to appear from their job, from treatment, from all over the state, as well as assist people who do not have money for the bus or a driver's license. There are still calendars with FTAs, but the ability to appear remotely when needed is making a difference. She has told stakeholders that this not just a COVID-thing, this is a wakeup call that courts need to look at how they do business and how they provide access to justice. Judge Coburn said even when the court can go back to doing business the way it used to, it will still provide the opportunity to appear remotely because of the great service it provides to all parties. She acknowledged that was her thought, but she will likely not be the judge beginning in 2021. The Mayor will have the ability to appoint the next judge with confirmation from the Council and she had not doubt there would be an amazing group of candidates to choose from. She will do her best to provide a clear handoff and if the Mayor and Council select someone in timely manner, provide some training and educate the new judge on the amazing work that has happened at the court so they can continue those good practices. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for her passion, energy and compassion. He asked if she would continue community court on a more permanent basis if she was not leaving. Judge Coburn answered that is a big question and depends on the state of world. If we get through this pandemic and get to the place where we were, she would absolutely want to do it, whether at Swedish Edmonds or another community health center on Highway 99 that was interested in talking to the City about continuing community court after the pilot at Swedish Edmonds. Whether they will be in a position and feel comfortable hosting it will be a bigger question because due to the pandemic, they have to restrict access and ensure people are safe. While there are a lot of benefits to remote hearings, it does not provide those people any easier to the resources they need. Access to resources is even more difficult, group sessions are conducted via telehealth and MRT via Zoom. Even if community court cannot be held at Swedish Edmonds, Judge Coburn said she would consider bringing the vendors to the courthouse once a month if there was no other choice. The benefit of providing one stop shopping to the defendants is so great and not only for defendants, for every member of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 5 community. We want those people to get better, to be functional, have a home, to work and to recognize their underlying issues and address them; the sooner they get to that place, the better it is for everyone. She hoped community court would live another day. It was held twice, January and February, and in that short time, people who were skeptical at the beginning were brought around. She noted Council President Fraley- Monillas attended both community courts. There were no disasters at any community court sessions, none of the defendants caused a ruckus because there were parameters in place for safety. If she was the judge, she would continue community court as it was a mission she supports. Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated Judge Coburn's efforts related to COVID, recalling meetings when parameters were established with the Health District and all the court stakeholders. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo to Judge Coburn and that she will miss her. The Council needs more presentations like this, she is so positive, brings good news, and she agreed it was all about the people and trying to make everybody better. She congratulated her on MRT, noting there were 58 success stories and asked how many were in the program. Judge Coburn answered people come in and out; there are approximately 33 people in 3 different groups and there is a wait list. When there is space, they take people from other jurisdictions who pay a $100 assessment. The Edmonds court also has people in MRT in other jurisdictions when the location is closer. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the HEART acronym. She thanked Judge Coburn for the wonderful packet, wished her all the luck, and said the City will miss her experience and enthusiasm. Councilmember Paine asked how long it will take to get through the backlog. Judge Coburn answered they are starting to get caught up; the first remote hearings were really big. It's difficult to predict because part of the backlog are now people who have warrants, due to FTA. There can be weeks where five people are picked up and the video -in -custody is crazy and weeks where only two people are picked up. Edmonds is in a much better position than a lot of other courts. Edmonds is ready for trial, two were set for confirmation today, one ended in a continuance and the other was an FTA. Two are set for confirmation for the next trial hearing. Protocols have been adjusted; letters have been sent to jurors and an FAQ has been added to the wcwhhc Lk) asscuhJuhvhs vi saichy Picwcci� such as uhcy wuh never uc closer than v icch to vuich peOpic, masks are required, deliberations will occur with everyone 6 feet apart versus the traditional deliberation room, and check -in procedure where jurors text when they arrive so they are brought in at a pace where they are not bunched up in line. Judge Coburn said unfortunately due to space issues, there are fewer people for the first jury selection in the courtroom so there is a need for a second space for overflow so a second group can go through jury orientation. If the first group gets to where it will be a mistrial, the second group can be brought in to continue with jury selection. The last thing the court wants to do is put in all this work and have a mistrial. Court Administrator Uneek Maylor has been in communication with the Mayor's office about options. In the past, the Plaza Room has been the backup space, but that space will be used for the City's program to provide assistance with online schooling and childcare. She recognized Ms. Maylor and other single parents who are juggling full-time jobs, parenting and being a teacher. The court hopes to work out the details of a second space. Councilmember Paine was sorry Judge Coburn was leaving the City, commenting she has always enjoyed Judge Coburn's presentation, both, before and after she joined the Council, and loved the passion she brings to her work. She was excited to hear Judge Coburn's passion about providing access to justice. She congratulated Judge Coburn, wished her good luck in her next adventure, and thanked her for the strong team she has created. Councilmember Olson said she will definitely miss Judge Coburn. She is not only a dynamic, wonderful personality, but also a fantastic manager and a great mentor of her team. The legacy she has built will continue to serve Edmonds for a long time. She expressed her appreciation for that and thanked Judge Coburn on behalf of the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 6 Councilmember L. Johnson said out of curiosity, she attended one of the remote hearings in late May and was very impressed with how organized it was and specifically, Judge Coburn's interaction with everyone. Even doing it remotely, her firmness and compassion came through. She truly appreciated the creative and outside the box thinking that comes with the programs she has implemented. Her statement about not giving up on humans comes through in those programs and they are both inspiration and encouraging. The one stop shopping of community court is exactly what those who work in social services recommend for removing barriers. She commended Judge Coburn and the court for the great job they do. She congratulated Judge Coburn, commenting she was excited for her but she will be missed. Councilmember K. Johnson added her congratulations and said she was happy with work done by the community court. She recognized the success of that program and looked forward to having it again in the future. She explained the Council is considering a fireworks ordinance later on the agenda that will change the fine from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor and greatly increase the cost. She asked Judge Coburn to weigh in on administering such a system through the court system and address what happens if a minor receives a misdemeanor infraction. Judge Coburn answered anyone that commits a misdemeanor, a criminal crime, except for driving related offences, has to be 18 year or older to appear in the municipal court; under 18 years has to be go to juvenile jurisdiction. The municipal court does not have jurisdiction over minors for a criminal offense unless it is a driving related offense which by statute, 16 or older can be charged and appear in municipal court. If the Council decides to make fireworks a misdemeanor by City ordinance, that does not change the authority of the municipal court. She assumed he City had researched how other jurisdictions handle minors. The ordinance can apply differently if a person is under 18 with regard to the penalty and punishment. Councilmember K. Johnson said the proposal was presented by Mayor Nelson; he drafted the legislation even though it was up to Council to pass it. Judge Coburn said she was not sure whether city ordinance violations were heard at juvenile jurisdiction. Ms. Maylor answered in her experience, said all city ordinance violations were driving related 16 years and older. Judge Coburn said civil infractions differ from criminal; it was her understanding the ordinance would make it a criminal infraction. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed, it was currently a civil infraction. Judge Coburn said it was very common for fireworks to be a civil infraction. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers stick to the agenda topic; Judge Coburn was here to present her annual report. The ordinance related to fireworks is later on the agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it has been a lot of work against all odds to move forward with the community court. She was happy it worked so well and provided one stop shopping. She also thanked Ms. Maylor, commenting she and Judge Coburn as a team created an opportunity for people to appear in court that may not have the privilege of having a vehicle. Creating the community court was a long process with a lot of pushback and she was glad it turned out well. Judge Coburn has left a legacy in Edmonds and she looked forward to the court continuing to implement that legacy. She thanked Judge Coburn for everything she has done over the years and said the City will miss her. Mayor Nelson said it has been a pleasure and a privilege working and serving with Judge Coburn both as a Councilmember and now as Mayor. He hoped to be able to see her in person before she leaves the City in her capacity as judge. He wished her all the best as a Court of Appeals Judge. Judge Coburn assured she will continue working as the Municipal Court Judge for a while. She loves Edmonds and serving the community and thanked the Council and Mayor for their support. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (httns.-Ilzoom.us/s/42577525251 Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 7 There were no public comments. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MELAKU 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (H11PS:IIZOOM.USIS14257752525) 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN I" FOR 21 PROPERTIES WITHIN A BLOCK LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH AVE N CAROL WAY IOTH AVE N. AND AN UNOPENED ALLEY BETWEEN GLEN ST. AND DALEY ST. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Comprehensive Plan amendments generally can only be done once a year with minor exceptions under state law. The reason, in both state law and the City code, is so that all the amendments are considered together rather than piecemeal throughout the year. However, because Comprehensive Plan amendments can be complicated and cover a lot of subjects, they are often considered separately durine the year with a final decision made at the end of the year when all the amendments have been considered. The one exception is the Capital Facilities Plan which may require slightly different timing. Ms. Hope explained there are basically two types of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the first and most common are City -initiated amendments which usually come from staff and are things like the annual Capital Facilities Plan amendments, map amendments such as Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan map amendment, text amendments or a subarea plan amendment. With City -initiated amendments, prior to a public hearing, the amendments are introduced to Council. Ms. Hope explained the second type of Comprehensive Plan amendment is one that is submitted by a private party who completes an application and pays a fee. By submitting that information and completing the process, the applicant is guaranteed a public hearing by the Planning Board and by the City Council, a process that is established in the City code. At the public hearing, the proposal is reviewed, the applicant has an opportunity to speak to the proposal and the public has an opportunity to weigh in. The reason there is not an introduction prior to the public hearing is because typically the applicant speaks to their amendment. Ms. Hope explained if review of the proposal cannot be completed in one meeting, the public hearing can be continued to another meeting. The Council's decision, whether at that meeting or a future meeting, is only a preliminary decision as the final decision occurs after all the amendments are considered. Tonight the Council will hear about two applications, the rationale behind them, and issues that arose during the Planning Board's review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 8 Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained tonight there will be public hearings on two private -initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 26, 2020 and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council. Final action on all 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments will occur simultaneously at the end of the year. The first amendment, AMD2019-0007, is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from `Single Family —Resource' to `Single Family —Urban 1' for 21 properties totally 7.2 acres. The subject properties are current developed primarily with single family residences and are located approximately one mile from the downtown core. The Single Family — Resource designation is adjacent to the Single Family - Urban 1 designation so there is some continuity. If the amendment is approved, any of affected properties could apply for a subsequent rezone, a process that includes a public hearing at a later date. Mr. Shipley reviewed: • Compatible Zoning Classifications Plan Map designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Units/Acre Single Family, Resource Single family RSW12, RS-12, RS-20 <4 Single Family, Urban 1 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 ■ Map of Zoning Designations — RS-12 and RS-6 • One of reason for Single Family - Resource designation was to protect critical area o Critical Areas Map shows few critical areas other than erosion hazards which occur citywide • Erosion hazards require erosion to be controlled during development of the site o Property is outside of the buffers for Hindley Creek and Shell Creek and away from any potential landslide hazard areas • Review Criteria 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? o Proposal is compatible with surrounding area o Limited public interest in the proposal 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? o Not detrimental to public health or safety o A lot of comment letters were submitted opposed to the proposal, most addressed the larger proposal which staff is recommending denial. The comments expressed concern about access to Glen Street, increased traffic, safety, visibility and protection of views. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? o No shift in balance of land uses o The requested comprehensive plan designation allows the same use as currently exists, single family residential 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? o Glen St. is mostly private and does not meet Engineering standards for access widths. ■ Ten properties currently take access from Glen Street o Table of Street Standards Zone Number of Lots or Units Minimum ROW Width Pavement Width Curbs Gutters Dead End Requirements RS-20 10-20 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac RS-12 10-15 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac RS-8, 6 10-1 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac o Photo of Glen St. existing conditions ■ Limited ability to widen street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 9 o Potential short plat option for applicant's property that does not add to the number of lots accessing via Glen St. (lots with access from 9"' Ave N) • Staff Recommendation A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban l" for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for the two parcels, 522 and 530 - 9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the last time the zoning was changed in this area. Mr. Shipley answered the Single Family - Large Lot designation was changed to Single Family - Resource in 2000/2001 based on decisions made at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) regarding whether the City met the minimum density of four units per acre. If critical areas hinder the ability to meet the four units per acre, that designation would be allowed. Since then, the GMHB has taken a different approach and the four units per acre threshold is not considered the same as it once was. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the biggest issue between Single Family - Resource and Single Family - Urban 1 is that Single Family - Resource can go up to RS-20. Mr. Shipley agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was interesting how Single Family - Urban 1 is on one street and then suddenly there's the Single Family — Resource designation. Councilmember Olson relayed she will recuse herself and abstain from the vote from this agenda item based on its proximity to where she lives. t—ouncii rresident rraiey-momilas said that was ner question, whether Uouncilmember Ulson planned to abstain from the discussion since she received notification and lives across the street. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether it was the intent of the individuals who submitted the citizen - initiated amendment to rezone all 21 properties or only the lot they own. Mr. Shipley answered they first approached the City wanting to subdivide their property, but did not have enough lot area. He informed them a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, if they were applying for an amendment, it made sense to evaluate it for the entire block versus just two properties. Based on the advice of the City, the property owners approached it that way. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Carolyn Mangelsdorf and Bob Grimm, applicants, owner of 530 9"' Ave N for 23 years, explained their plan was to subdivide their large lot and build a smaller house in back and sell the property in front. At the public hearing for the 21 lots and the 2 lot solution, there was a great deal of public objection. To determine whether the objection was to the larger rezoning of the neighborhood or the two lots, she canvassed 23 households in the neighborhood; l 1 were against the 21-lot rezone, 9 were neutral or no -comment, 3 were for. Only one household was opposed to the 2-lot solution, 13 were neutral or no comment and 9 were for. The objection is clearly to the larger rezone, largely because of concerns with increased density, traffic and protecting Glen Street. The Planning Board's objections were primarily that changing the zoning for two lots creates inconsistency in the City plan. In researching the actual size of lots in the area bordered by 9"' Olympic, Sprague and Edmonds Elementary, she found there are no fewer than 9 lots beyond the error variance in terms of less than 12,000 but still over 11,000, and 27 lots are less than 11,000. She summarized there actually isn't consistency in lots even though there is consistency in the plan. They feel this change reflects the City's bigger goal of increasing housing while maintaining the spirit and charm of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 10 neighborhoods without upsetting neighbors in general, not straining limited resources, and protecting natural resources. Barbara Chessler, Edmonds (resident on Glen St), strongly supported Ms. Mangelsdorf's comments. She feels strongly the City needs to look at more housing and this is a simple, easy way to do it. Anne -Marie LaPorte, Edmonds, said while she appreciated the prior comments, she disagrees. She appreciated the desire to rezone and build additional housing, she grew up here, moved away and came back and now is raising her 11-year old daughter in Edmonds. She enjoys the green space and the neighborhood feel and is very concerned with what feels like arbitrary changes. She appreciated the City looking at the entire area to consider a change to the Comprehensive Plan instead of doing these one offs. She was particularly concerned with equity and inclusion issues; arbitrary, one-off decisions move away from the direction she has seen the Mayor and Council moving. She encouraged the Council to vote no, commenting she was well aware the proposal was for two properties. When one drives down 9"' Avenue, at Daley Street, the grade of the hill changes which is the reason for the shift in the zoning and there is a safety issue coming off 9"' toward that hill. She encouraged the Council to take a fuller, strategic look instead of making spot zoning decisions, and to make a decision with a lens for equity and inclusion. Lorena LaPorte, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to deny the application for the several houses or for the two. She has lived here for 41 years, it is a fabulous place, very walkable, and they love their neighbors, the yard and the privacy. If exceptions are made, she feared they will happen more frequently and the area will get denser. While she appreciated that people want to live in Edmonds, one of the nice things about Edmonds is the nicely sized lots. Charles LaPorte, Seattle, said his mother and sister live in Edmonds. He clarified although Mr. Shipley implied the Planning Board was in favor of rezoning these two lots, he attended their meeting and the Planning Board voted 6-1 against. One of the reasons was their interest in equity. The topography is such that Glen Street cannot be rezoned so it will essentially be doing a special favor for one family. Although he had nothing against the family for applying to upzone their lot, it was not a policy decision, but rather favoritism. He was uncertain why Mr. Shipley did not mention that the Planning Board voted 6-1 against the proposal. He summarized he was opposed to favoritism and wanted the City to have consistent policies. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, relayed she watched the Planning Board meeting and said it was unfortunate the Planning Board's decision was not highlighted in the presentation. The Planning Board referenced spot zoning and was opposed to rezoning just two lots. Although she no longer lives in the neighborhood, she walked it every day on the way to school as a child; 9t" Avenue is a hill and to the east, Daley is flat, there is a dead-end that is flat and then there is a slope toward Holy Rosary. Walking down the hill on Daley, you can hear water rushing regardless of when it last rained which may be the reason for the larger lots. She was opposed to the rezone of the two lots for environmental reasons due to the slope, benefits of large lot sizes, to avoid setting a precedent as well as due to the work the Housing Commission is doing. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Shipley referred to the issue of spot zoning, explaining spot zoning is often thought of as a zoning classification change for 1-2 properties. That is not quite what it is; spot zoning is done to benefit a lot or a parcel in a way that is incompatible with the surrounding uses and the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal does not necessarily meet the definition of spot zoning and similar proposals have been approved in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were plans to do any rezoning review of the area above 9t" Avenue, noting there are many different zoning classifications in that area. Mr. Shipley asked if she meant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 1 l if the City itself was looking rezoning. Councilmember Buckshnis said some of zoning has been the same since 50s and 60s and she was surprised some of the zoning had been changed in 2000. Twenty years later, she asked if there were plans to sort of master plan the neighborhoods above 9"' Avenue in the bowl area. Ms. Hope said there are no current plans for that. If the Council went with the Planning Board's recommendation over staffs recommendation, Councilmember L. Johnson asked what options the property owners had. Mr. Shipley answered if it is not approved, they would have no options. If approved, they would go through another public hearing during the rezone process. Ms. Hope said the code allows the City Council to accept the Planning Board's recommendation, modify, or deny so there is some flexibility. If the Council denies all of it, that probably is the end of the road. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she was struggling with the term spot zoning which seems like a negative, but if the priority of some was to allow residents to age in place and increase infill, such proposals need to be considered going forward and there may be more proposals like this. Ms. Hope said people sometimes get confused about what spot zoning is; it has to do with favoritism to a particular party without consideration for the surrounding land uses and other factors that should apply. If a change benefits a particular property, but it is also reasonable for the surrounding land uses, the environment can be protected, applicable regulations are observed for stormwater, etc., then it is not necessarily spot zoning. With regard to public benefit, Councilmember L. Johnson said a case could be made that allowing residents to age in place and increasing infill was a public benefit. Councilmember K. Johnson said another option in the future would be to build a 1,000 square foot or less accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for seniors to age in place without going through rezone and without subdividing the property. That is a possibility in future if the Housing Commission makes that recommendation and the Council approves it. il.___"ent T___1___ 11 ,1___'71__ ATTT_ _-__ _1-____1__ _11______1- il__ TT____'.__ /�_.__ _ ____..1_'.__ I.VUlllal rlcJluclu i'Itl1Gy-1V1V11!I LAlJIJJ d1G cL11GQUy 411uwcu, LIIG L1UUSllI�' wunnlsJtun lS W<)IKIng Un detached ADUs (DADU). She asked if that would be part of the Housing Commission's recommendation. Ms. Hope said the idea of DADUs will come up, the Housing Commission has not provided a recommendation yet, but it is expected by year end. If that is their recommendation, the Council would consider it in 2021 and potentially go through a zoning amendment. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope's comment that by the end of year, this request could be a non - issue. Ms. Hope answered if the applicants are satisfied with an ADU and are not interested in a full size dwelling, that may work for them. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the recommendations from the Housing Commission will not be submitted not until the end of 2020 at the earliest and it will take time to implement/act on their recommendations. That seems like a fairly lengthy horizon compared to what was presented tonight by City staff. He appreciated Councilmember L. Johnson's comments about looking at how the City can help promote diverse housing options that are consistent with adjacent properties. Councilmember Paine asked whether the Housing Commission has talked about allowing a non -compliant lot for the purposes .of having a smaller dwelling and the potential for a -flag lot. Ms. Hope answered the Housing Commission has not considered that issue specifically. The Housing Commission's job is to develop policy recommendations which are at a higher level than looking at the details of a flag lot. She was confident that the Housing Commission's recommendation would address DADUs. The Housing Commission is also looking at, although she did not know what they will recommendation, whether there should be transitional areas where different, smaller scale development such as duplexes, triplexes could be considered. The specifics regarding that type of development would occur at the code stage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 12 Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that the Housing Commission was not considering ownership opportunities. Ms. Hope said there has been an idea proposed by some of the commissioners regarding providing an ownership opportunity via smaller lots or even duplex options. Councilmember Paine said she was curious about the ownership option. The current proposal does not sound like a duplex. Ms. Hope pointed out duplexes or townhomes can be condominiumized which provides an ownership option. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council's responsibility is not to figure out what the property owners will do in the future if this is denied. The City needs to look at the regentriiication of areas in a thoughtful manner which could include changing the zoning to allow duplexes and triplexes. She was uncertain whether the public hearing should be continued, but she was ready to follow the Planning Board's recommendation. She is old -school and views this as spot zoning. Consideration needs to be given to areas in the City where major rezoning could occur, downsizing if necessary to RS-8 or RS-10. She felt this request was just a bandaid on a bigger issue and feared there would be more requests if this was approved. The City needs to look at the entire housing mix and stock and consider different housing styles such as cottage, duplex, triplex. She preferred to focus on the code, zoning and housing stock before looking at something like this. She was ready to vote or to postpone to a future meeting. She expressed appreciation for the complete packet and the information from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope requested a tentative decision whether to approve or deny or continue, noting no final decision would be made tonight. Mr. Shipley said it would be helpful to know what specific review criteria the Council was basing their decision on. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FOLLOW THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE REQUEST. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order and asked if Council President Fraley-Monillas' motion was regarding the 21 properties or the 2 properties. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified her motion was regarding the 21 properties, not the 2 properties. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO DENY THE 2 PARCELS PER THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS, 522 AND 530 9TH AVENUE NORTH. Councilmember Paine asked if the Council voted today, would the applicants lose all their options or if something came up in 1-2 years that opened up options, would they have an opportunity in a more comprehensive post -Housing Commission application. Ms. Hope answered they could certainly reapply if they wanted their area or a variation of it reconsidered, but that would likely be 1-3 years in the future. Another possibility is if the City had a large scale reconsideration for properties meeting a certain criteria, but that would be 2-5 years or more in the future. area. The Council's decision tonight is tentative until the Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinance process is completed later this year. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that there was no immediate option in a shorter horizon. Ms. Hope agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested holding onto this until the Housing Commission's planning process was completed because that may resolve many of the issues. If even the 2-lot amendment were approved, it could be contrary to the Housing Commission's recommendations. She preferred to sit on this until the Housing Commission makes its recommendation in 4-5 months. Councilmember Olson said although she recused herself from the vote, as a general comment, she disagreed there should be vote the same night as the public hearing. She suggested the Council consider the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 13 information provided, allow the public to provide input and revisit this in two weeks as there is no Council meeting next week. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be possible to table the proposal for six months until the Housing Commission makes its recommendation and the Council has an opportunity to consider it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the Council has already made a tentative vote to deny the application which would need to be reconsidered if Council wanted to do something different. This is a 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment application so there is no problem with delaying it as long as it is not tabled past the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan ordinance. He was unsure the Housing Commission would complete its work before the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinance needed to be adopted. Ms. Hope said the Housing Commission will not finish its work until the end of the year. The next time a Comprehensive Plan amendment could be considered would be at the end of 2021 as Comprehensive Plan amendments can only be done once a year. Councilmember K. Johnson concurred with Councilmember Olson regarding delaying a decision for two weeks. As Mr. Taraday pointed out, the Council has already made half of the decision. She offered to make a motion to postpone if it were seconded. Councilmember Buckshnis said this was split into two separate things and the Council voted on one. She was willing to extend the public hearing for two weeks. She was willing to withdraw her motion or reconsider the previous motion. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council, but if the Council wanted to leave the public hearing open, it may as well be left open for all aspects of the application so that anyone who wanted to comment could do so on any aspect of the application. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION. Mr. Taraday clarified if the Council wanted to keep the public hearing open for the 21 parcels, there needed 40 1-c orlon to s a LV Vl� 0. 111V L1V11 LV 1c1 V11J luc . Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in the 21-lot amendment, but was interested in the 2 lots. She preferred to table a vote on the 2 lots to a future date. Councilmember Paine said the vote to deny the 21-lot option was 6-0 so how would it be reconsidered. Mr. Taraday explained with a unanimous vote, anyone can make a vote for reconsideration because all Councilmembers were on the prevailing side of the vote. Ms. Hope clarified that could be done if the Council wanted to, it was not a requirement, The Council could move to have both options on the table or just the 2-lot option. Mr. Taraday agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in the 21-lot option, but was interested in holding the 2-lot options to await the Housing Commission's recommendation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO HOLD THE 2-LOT APPLICATION UNTIL THE HOUSING COMMISSION'S ENDING RESPONSE. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out that cannot occur because this is A Comprehensive Plan change and it needs to occur before 2020 yearend and the Housing Commission's report will not occur until about the same time so it is not a reasonable target date. Ms. Hope answered it would be problematic because the Housing Commission is not making its recommendation until the end of 2020 and it will not be considered by the Council until 2021, so the Comprehensive Plan change would not be considered until the end of 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 14 Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if the Housing Commission's recommendation would supersede other Comprehensive Plan amendments moving forward. Ms. Hope said there is no exception to the once a year process for Housing Commission recommendations. Mr. Taraday agreed, unless it is done in the context of a subarea plan which he did not think the Housing Commission was working on. He did not know what the Housing Commission will recommend; it is possible there will be things that can be implemented by the City Council via merely text amendments to the Zoning Code that will not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He clarified it is not a given that whatever the Housing Commission recommends would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Council President Fraley- Monillas asked what the proper motion would be to not take action tonight. Mr. Taraday said a motion to table would be appropriate because it can be removed from the table at any time. He interpreted the words "to hold" in Council President Fraley-Monillas' motion as a motion to table. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Ms. Hope saying it will take 4-5 years to do the code; she hoped it could be done sooner rather than later. The Housing Commission will provide a recommendation but it is still the Council's responsibility. Mr. Taraday clarified there are several different ways to postpone something. The problem with a motion to table is it is non -debatable and the Council is having debate. He suggested the motion be restyled as a motion to postpone indefinitely which would allow Council to continue its debate. Council President Fraley-Monillas restated the motion: TO HOLD OFF ON THIS MOTION. Councilmember Distelhorst said procedurally there is a code in place, property owners applied following the existing code, and the Housing Commission is looking at a wide variety of options that are simply policy recommendations to Council. Their final recommendations are unknown and it will be up to the Council to evaluate them and to implement what the Council and the community see fit for the City. The City is not doing its duty if it is not processing applications that are submitted under the current, legally valid code, and that in his opinion, that does not serve Council or the residents well. He supported reviewing the application for two lots at a future meeting and following the code that is currently in force. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Distelhorst's comment reminded him of language in the code that requires action within a certain amount of time. If the motion is to postpone indefinitely, it still needs to be acted on within the timeline required in the City code. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Taraday was suggesting she pull her motion. Mr. Taraday responded the motion is fine as long as it comes back for further action within the timeline required by code. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE FOR THREE WEEKS. City Clerk Scott Passey said the next opportunity to add something to the agenda would be November 2nd as the agendas for October meetings are full. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION. Ms. Hope suggested the October 6t" meeting as Comprehensive Plan amendments had been tentatively scheduled on that agenda. Mr. Passey agreed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO POSTPONE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 2 LOTS TO OCTOBER 6TH. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 15 MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY." Associate Planner Brad Shipley relayed this Comprehensive Plan amendment, AMD2019-0008, submitted by a private citizen is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from `Neighborhood Commercial' to `Multi Family — Medium Density.' He displayed an aerial map, identifying the property north of the northeast corner of Perrinville. He displayed a Comprehensive Plan Map that identified designations in the area including Neighborhood Commercial; the parcels are surrounded by Single Family — Resource and there is Single Family — Urban 1 and Multi -Family — Medium Density on 76"' Avenue West. Mr. Shipley reviewed: * Compatible Zoning Classifications Plan Map designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Units/Acre Multi Family — Medium Density Multi family RM-2.4, RM-3.0 <18 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial BN or equivalent based on Neighborhood plan • Existing zoning in the area is primarily BN o BN promotes strip mall type development with large setbacks and parking in front and maximum heivht nf'7S feet • Proposal is for Multi -Family - Medium Density • Previous Similar Proposals in area o Perrin Village rezone (across the street to the south), 1985 • Rezone from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre parcel on 76th Ave. W o Post Office rezone, 1987 ■ Rezone from "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) to "Neighborhood Business" (BN) was approved for a 1.2-acre to allow for expansion of Post Office + New Development in Area o Perrinville Townhomes * 42 fee -simple townhomes under development in Lynnwood Review Criteria 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? o Comprehensive Plan does not outline a specific vision for Perrinville o Residential goals and polices state that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets - ■ Map of functional classifications of streets in the area - Subject site fronts on a collector street with minor arterials south and east from the Perrinville intersection 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? o Subject site was rezoned to `Neighborhood Business' in 1962 o Land containing subject site annexed in 1982 o After nearly 60 years, the site remains undeveloped o Opportunity to build `missing middle' housing types Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 16 ■ Existing BN zone allows for RS-6 development ■ Applicant envisions 6-7 townhomes o Opportunity to provide needed improvements to the existing streetscape Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? o Total shift of 1.04 acres from commercial to multi -family residential land use o Shift of land use General Land Use Acres Percent of Total Parks 67 1.2% Commercial 105 1.8% Multi -Residential 229 3.9% Open Space 1 418 1 7.2% Mixed Use 1 667 11.5% Single -Residential 1 4324 74.4% o RM zoning allows office 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? o Preliminary plans show six to seven fee -simple townhomes o Recent upgrades to Lynnwood sewer system in area provide enough capacity to handle new development o Potential developer working to avoid the slope • Staff Recommendation o Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family —Medium Density." Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the homes were expected to be regular income homes, low income or MFTE. Mr. Shipley said he did not know, but HE expected they would be market rate housing; without any incentives to do otherwise, most developers build market rate housing. Councilmember Olson appreciated the well -prepared packets for both public hearings. She referred to conclusions for this proposal that were based on something other than the proposed project; the project description in the geotech report on packet page 292 is three single family homes. If the Council was relying on that report in its decision, she suggested having Ages Engineering update that report. Mr. Shipley advised those reports will be updated at the project level. If there is a proposal for 6-7 townhomes, an updated geotech report would be provided. A critical area report is not required for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. Councilmember Paine said she also reviewed the geotech report, and although she did not imagine much to change, there are changes in the environment. The western toad is listed and there are other important things happening which makes it hard to do a Comprehensive Plan map change without a subarea plan for that area. There is a salmon and trout bearing stream, Perrinville Creek, that is threatened in part due to a neighboring city's planning that wiped out the stream with the stormwater flow which complicates things. She loved the idea of addressing the missing middle but the framework is being put together with hooks and ladders. She asked about not having the framework going through Comprehensive Plan review, the environment degradation of Perrinville Creek, and the actions of the neighboring city. Mr. Shipley answered critical areas will be considered at the project level in the future. The RM zone has maximum lot coverage of 45% which the BN zone does not, so the proposal would actually be better for environment than it leaving as is. Councilmember Paine asked if that excludes the critical area, the slope. Mr. Shipley answered if the geotech report says the slope is stable enough to build on, building on the slope could potentially be approved but he did not see that occurring, especially with commercial. Ms. Hope said any development that occurs, whether commercial, townhomes or other, has to meet all the stormwater standards and critical area requirements. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEPA determination of non -significance. She questioned why the proposal for the subject site was not residential RS zoning which is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Shipley answered they could develop to RS currently but it would likely have more impervious surface than typical multi -family development. If that was the product that the applicant wanted to provide, they could have done so, but they want to do a different product. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if residential was allowed in a business zone. Mr. Shipley answered it could be developed with RS-6 today. Ms. Hope said there also could be residential above commercial. Councilmember Buckshnis said when Planning Board Member Monroe asked that question, he received a different answer. She was concerned about Perrinville Creek and the environment in the area and has received a lot of inquiries about this. She noted there were numerous emails submitted and she hoped those people would provide comment during the public hearing. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Councilmembers' thanks for all the information included in packet for both public hearings. He pointed out the existing property owner could currently develop the property in a number of ways. Mr. Shipley agreed they could do small scale commercial or RS-6 single family. Councilmember Distelhorst said the Comprehensive Plan amendment is for a different type of housing for this property and it would still go through permitting and reviews whether it was developed RS or RM. Mr. Shipley answered yes. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a 25 year resident of the Seaview area, a member of the Sierra Club Sno Isle Group Executive Committee and chair of the Political Committee, said although lie was speaking on behalf of himself, it was more than likely that the executive and political committees would think similarly. He was also a former steering committee member of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat group whose goal was `- proi7note'---I----""� I--I-'`UL --'-----`I---- UCLWV--- t-----`- `-, pUck -` torest area- and. obtained �VQI WiLJ LV �11 V111V LG U[LGKy[LlU L1Q.U1LQL GVllllCG L1VLIJ UCLWGGII 1Vl CJLJ dllU l.JVGKCL lUI GSL Q.IGQJ 2lUU UVL'An1GU community backyard habitat status as well as Tree City recognition for the City. Perrinville Woods is one of these forest habitat areas; without forests and pocket forest areas, which are disappearing at a rapid rate in Edmonds, the benefit of backyard habitats is significantly reduced. Birds, squirrels, chipmunks, coyotes, deer, and toads as well as salmon in Perrinville Creek do not know where the South County Park ends and Perrinville Woods begins so it is up to citizens to speak on their behalf. Mr. Senderoff said the recommendation for a Comprehensive Plan change did not originate with Council or the Planning Department but with a developer who purchased the property having full knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan and code requirements for its development. He was tired of developers purchasing property knowing the requirements and then pressuring and sometimes even extorting or trying to extort the City to loosen Comprehensive Plan requirements and development codes so they can collect a windfall in profits resulting from the change. What is happening in Perrinville Woods is no different than what happened at the old Safeway property for over 25 years, the Harbor Square property, the Pt. Edwards property after new owners took over and even similar attempts for the downtown post office property. They should not be allowed to turn to the City and expect or be given a windfall product and the Council has the power to stop it. If fact, all the current Councilmembers.and the Mayor ran for office as a supporter of open space and environmental sustainabi I ity. It will now be evident whether those values are truthful. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 40+ year Edmonds resident and retired fishery biologist, said this parcel is located in the Perrinville Creek Watershed which studies dating back to 1998 indicate has serious problems with excessive stormwater. Any further action in this watershed without considering its impacts would be improper. Streambanks are eroding, properties at the lower end of the stream are threatened with flooding, and fish habitat is being eliminated. He recommended before amending the Comprehensive Plan, stepping back to consider what should be happening in the Perrinvi Ile Watershed. One of the criteria is whether it is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 18 in the public interest or determinantal to the public interest. The answer to both is obvious; it is not in the public interest to continue deteriorating the Perrinville watershed or to continually destruct fish habitat. The background material did not reference the consequences of a change in the map designation and how the change would affect the environment. Without such information, the Council would be making a decision in the dark. The Council needs to know the differences and consequences and whether the change to the map designation will make things in the watershed worse or better. As it is not in the public interest, he recommended Council the deny the amendment. Hans Korve, applicant, said these issues were not brought up at the Planning Board and the Planning Board voted to approve the amendment. This project meets the Comprehensive Plan planning policies as listed in the packet and presented, particularly commercial policy A2 which states land that was previously zoned for commercial use which basically has been identified as unnecessary or inappropriate for commercial use should be reclassified. This property has been listed as commercial for 60 years and due to its elevation, it has not been developed for commercial purposes. No one wants to put a commercial building 8 feet above the street. Single family homes could be constructed on the site, but the impact of that would be developing the hillside which is allowed by code. They do not want to do that, it is expensive and it is destructive to the hillside. This proposal stays off the hillside and provides the missing middle, a housing type that is not available in Edmonds. Most of Edmonds is single family; people like yards, big houses and there are a lot of beautiful craftsman -style homes, but there are no townhomes, residences that people can afford to own without caring for a large yard. One of the Planning Board members said she would love to live here because she cannot find missing middle housing that she can afford and has the amenities she is seeking. He was uncertain how the Perrinville Woods comes into this; their proposal preserves approximately half of the site. With regard to the watershed and excessive stormwater, the subject site is located on the opposite of the creek, their proposal does not impact the creek or its banks and their stormwater will be addressed in accordance with the stormwater manual. The post office is across the street and the creek is in a pipe. He requested the Council support the Planning Board's recommendation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested postponing to October 6t" due to number of comments she has received. In looking at the SEPA and the comments, a Perrinville master plan may be needed like was done for Five Corners, Westgate and Highway 99. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO POSTPONE A DECISION UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH Councilmember Paine asked if postponing to October 6"' would give the City or the applicant adequate time to provide more information about stormwater controls and how the proposal would impact Perrinville Creek. She was interested in not allowing any work on the steep hillside slope as it would be damaging and although this proposal may be less damaging, the Council was working in a vacuum as Mr. Scordino stated. Ms. Hope said it would provide more time and then on October 6"' the Council could decide whether they had enough information. Mr. Shipley said these are usually looked at on a project level basis, not necessarily for a Comprehensive Plan amendment which is a non -project level. He pointed out no additional development could occur as a result of a Comprehensive Plan map change; a rezone would still be required. The updated stormwater code addresses many of the historical issues along Perrinville Creek. If this is an environmentally sensitive proposal, he was unsure two weeks would be enough time to have an assessment of potential development. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to amend to postpone until November. The proposal will add 14 more people and vehicles. She has received a lot of information since Sunday when people became aware of this via the media and she there were a lot of environmental issues she wanted to research. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 19 Councilmember Distelhorst said he was ready to take action on October 6"'. He appreciated the information staff has provided and reminded himself what decisions are made when and what decisions are made at this level. He appreciated staff s reminder regarding when various issues are taken into account during the process for these types of applications. Councilmember Olson said staff has embraced the Mayor and Council's priorities with regard to the environment. She expected via the permitting process that issues would be carefully vetted, particularly the issues raised during the public hearing that need to be mitigated. The Council may be distracted by the fact that the parcel is currently undeveloped and development may look like bad thing for the environment. In fact, the site can be developed today under its current Comprehensive Plan designation; the Council has the opportunity to consider what the Comprehensive Plan designation should be, all things considered. From what was in the staff report and the presentation, the proposal would be as environmentally friendly if not more so than the other options allowed under the current Comprehensive Plan designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:20 P.M. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the Council has been online since 6 p.m. and extending to 10:20 p.m. can easily go to 10:40 p.m. She believed the Council should bring its work to a close and continue the remaining issues until next week. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out the agenda includes a study item for CARES Funding, waiting until the next meeting is two weeks and would push back something that is very time sensitive as there is a finite amount of time to use the money. She was in favor of extending the meeting. Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded there is no meeting next week as it is a fifth Tuesday; the next Council meeting 1J VVLV VII V Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the Council could not meet on a fifth Tuesday if there were items that needed to be considered. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered three, potentially four Councilmembers were out of town next week. There are very few fifth Tuesdays and there is not another one until March. Councilmembers have flights booked and have planned trips out of town next week. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was unavailable next week; he has not had a vacation until August 2019 and he intended to not be on Council Zoom next Tuesday. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for clarification, if the motion was to extend the public hearing until October 6"'. Mayor Nelson answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the public could still comment on October 6"'. Ms. Hope said the motion was to postpone a decision until October 6t"; she would defer to Mr. Taraday with regard to whether the public could provide comment. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can if it wishes extend the hearing until October 6"'; the motion was ambiguous and it wasn't clear to him whether the intent was to delay deliberation and voting until 6' or if it was to continue the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday pointed out if that was the Council's intent with regard to the previous public hearing, that also was not clear. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 20 MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15 2020 reviousl Consent Ay entia Item 7.3) Councilmember Olson said the time of adjournment should be 8:47 p.m. not 10:47 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. STUDY ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE Mayor Nelson relayed there were previous presentations by the City Attorney, the Fire Department, the Acting Police Chief and Assistant Fire Marshal. Tonight Assistant Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer and Acting Police Chief Lawless are available for any additional questions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FIREWORKS CODE. Councilmember Paine referred to the $1 million, $2 million insurance required for public display of fireworks and asked whether that was adequate and whether that needed to be addressed in the ordinance. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer answered that was adequate, it was the amount in the two other cities he serves, and $1 million, $2 million was standard practice. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if someone is under 18 and they "mess up" and were charged, Judge Coburn said they could not be charged with a misdemeanor and would have to go to juvenile court. She asked Acting Chief Lawless his opinion about bifurcating that to separate violations over and under 18. Acting Chief Lawless answered the municipal court cannot hear juvenile misdemeanor cases; juvenile charges have to be referred to the juvenile court in Everett. The way the ordinance is written would be consistent with any other misdemeanor that a juvenile may be charged with, it would be referred to the juvenile court. Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the law would be enforced and people stop using fireworks. Acting Chief Lawless said it will be up to the Council to decide what they want to do with regard to juveniles. There is no distinction about 16 years old; the law is related to when a juvenile can be charged and it will be up to the juvenile prosecutor whether to proceed or do some type of deferral. Most first-time defenders on misdemeanor cases, regardless of the charge, are put into some type of deferral program through the juvenile court. Councilmember K. Johnson said this will be a significant change in the law, going from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor infraction. She asked whether civil infractions have been effective and what a misdemeanor infraction will mean in terms of enforcement. Acting Chief Lawless said he was unsure how to address the effectiveness of one charge versus the other; it is usually dependent on the type of charge and what the legislative body decides is appropriate for the charging standard of the offense. It comes down to deterrents and the ability to enforce. The Police Department struggles with the volume of calls versus personnel; but at the same time, a $50 fine when cited is not a huge deterrent when often the fireworks cost more than $50. It comes down to public safety and being consistent with is being done in the region. Acting Chief Lawless commented Edmonds is kind of an outlier; there are other graduated offenses in the code that go from an initial fine on the first offense, to a second offense, to a third offense, but that is more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 21 for repeat offenders such as certain parking violations or other minor offenses versus something like fireworks. Most of the time by the time police arrive, the fireworks have already been discharged and it is difficult to determine who is responsible. Having the ability to cite someone at a misdemeanor level is a much higher deterrent. He clarified that was the ability to charge, ultimately it was up to the prosecutor and the court to make a decision whether to charge. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if charging has been effective in the past. Acting Chief Lawless answered no; part of that is the sheer volume. The Police Department worked hard to address that this year; due to COVID this year was the first time that half department wasn't dedicated to parades and the community fireworks which consume a lot of resources. The department dedicated two officers to responding to fireworks calls; they responded to 56 fireworks calls in a 5 hour period. Most of the time, by the time they arrived, the fireworks had already been discharged. In the time period from 10 p.m. July 3 to 8 p.m. July 5, there were over 120 fireworks calls that the police attempted to respond to in addition to all the other calls. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many warnings or citations were issued. Acting Chief Lawless answered for a citation, there needs to be a chargeable offense. Even with a misdemeanor, there wouldn't be a physical arrest, it would be cited through court because it was not be included in the misdemeanor exception law. With misdemeanors, only certain crimes can be committed outside the police's presence that they can make an arrest for. Charges are forwarded to the prosecutor and they make the decision whether to charge. The vast majority of what the Police Department does is warning and education because by the time they arrive, there are a bunch of people standing around and the fireworks have already been discharged. The fact that someone could be charged with a misdemeanor does carry a fair amount of weight. Councilmember K. Johnson said we're all united in the desire for fewer fireworks for safety, fire hazard and animals, but she wanted to ensure what was done would be effective and provide the necessary resources. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Acting Chief Lawless and Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer for - --- --- - ___11.__ -�1----- --`]'-- L_ --1-1'�'--- �1__ nth _CT__1__ �1_ - --- _1-- GGTI__--11 —T'l ---- r'__---_._7__ ff ICII1a111111�,' UII1111C UU11IIg' L11C 111CCL111g. III UUUILIUII LV LIIC `1 U1 JUIy, LIICIC dIU dISU AUJJCII VV11JU11111CVVU1ICJ. If the ordinance is approved, he asked if the intent was to begin more proactive education and enforcement immediately. Acting Chief Lawless agreed education will be huge with the Police Department and Fire Authority getting information out. The Police Department is often called and responds to fireworks after Seahawks touchdowns and wins and tries to determine where they came from and if there is enough information to cite. Word will get out quickly once people are charged with a misdemeanor. Mayor Nelson clarified the ordinance provides for a $250 fine for a first offense, and the second offense is a misdemeanor. Councilmember Olson said she wanted it to be clear that the second offense was a misdemeanor; someone has already gotten into trouble for fireworks and has continued to offend. As she previously proposed, she supported having the fine be $500 instead of $250 because people who buy fireworks have the means to buy them and think it's worth it. The fine has to be enough to make it not worth it. She was happy the first offense was not a misdemeanor, but the fine has to be enough that it is not worth it. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she hoped the next time she got pulled over she got a second chance. She agreed with initially a warning and a fine, although after the last Seahawks game, her house sounded like it was in the midst of a Middle East War. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:40 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the state or Snohomish County's fines were for discharging fireworks. Assistant Fire Marshal Fitterer did not know Snohomish County's fine. He agreed with Acting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 22 Chief Lawless, the fine wi 11 be a deterrent and hopefully it will make people think if they purchase fireworks on the sovereign nation, they should shoot them off on the sovereign nation and not bring them home. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she does not speed in Edmonds and has never received a ticket in Edmonds 35 years because she knows she could possibly get a ticket. She encouraged those who were interested in shooting off fireworks to do it in places where fireworks were allowed and that were safe places. She thanked Assistant Fire Marshall Fitterer for attending the meeting. Acting Chief Lawless referred to the ordinance on packet page 227, Section 5 related to penalties and violations, explaining the civil infraction is removed and makes it a misdemeanor and all the civil fines have been removed. Mr. Taraday said that is an earlier version of the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4194. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND 5A TO BE A $500 FINE INSTEAD OF $250. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (7-0), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES 2. EDMONDS CARES FUND AMENDMENT RELATED TO INCREASED CARES ACT FUNDING Community Services/Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty explained the Council approved Ordinance 4189 which established the Edmonds Cares Fund with three programs: Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants with $300,000 (supplemented by $150,000 from other City funds); Small Business Support Grants with $700,000; and City Expenditures with $265,100, for a total of $1,265,100, which constituted the Edmonds allocation from the Federal CARES Act. All three programs are under way, expenses being incurred, and invoices in process to the State Department of Commerce for reimbursement of corresponding CARES Act funds. With regard to Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants, public outreach has been substantially upgraded, and the recently Council -approved ability to offer more than one grant to a qualifying household, we anticipate that the CARES funding for this program will be expended. With regard to the Small Business Support Grants, 145 valid applications have been received, grants have been offered to 90 businesses for a total of $697,500. Related to City expenditures, the current estimates through November 30 related to COVID-19 response are approximately $440,000. Up to $211,650 of that total may be FEMA-eligible including the required match, leaving approximately $228,350 to be covered by CARES Act funds. It is estimated that the $265,100 initially allocated to City expenditures should be sufficient to cover remaining non-FEMA-eligible, yet CARES Act -eligible City expenses. In early September, the City was informed that a second round of CARES Act funds will be allocated to Edmonds from the State Department of Commerce, in the amount of $632,550. In addition, the expenditure deadline was moved back to 11/30/20 from the initial 10/31/20 deadline. To plan for utilization of the additional $632,550 CARES Act funds, the Administration proposes the following Edmonds Cares Act Fund program changes: 1. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants: increase this fund by $100,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 23 2. Small Business Support Grants: increase this fund by $400,000, allowing up to 50 additional businesses to be offered grants of up to $8,000 (to be chosen from the existing applicant list who have not yet been awarded grants). 3. Edmonds Food Bank: provide an additional $35,000 to the Food Bank to provide for three programs: $20,000 for holiday season food support; $7,500 to help fund an automated ordering system for delivery service to Seniors, ADA clients, Veterans and other COVID-impacted community members; and $7,500 to add shelving to the delivery van to expedite packing and disbursement of online orders. 4. LEAP scholarships: provide scholarships to qualifying, lower -income and disadvantaged households for participation in the LEAP program, funded by up to $97,550. This would increase the number of full subsidies from 20 households to 50 households. In addition, the Administration proposes that the City Council allow the Administration 10% flexibility in the funding of each of the Edmonds Cares Act programs during the remainder of the life of the Fund and its programs. This will allow for nimbler response to changing conditions and demands. Upon direction of Council, a draft of proposed amendments to Ordinance 4189 ("Edmonds Cares Fund") will be brought to Council on October 6`1 for review and approval. Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated the breakdown in the funds to the sources the Council approved. He inquired about the number of people who have applied for LEAP and the need for scholarships. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser said registration opened last week. It has been a slow start, people are still inquiring about the program and understanding how it works. There is definitely interest in the scholarship program and they are figuring out that if a family can afford $300/week/child, they may have made other arrangements by now. The ability to increase the capacity for full scholarships to 50/week will help with the program's target. Staff researched ways to utilize the funds, such as a multi - child discount, or reducing the registration fee to $250/week, but determined the full scholarship was needed to support the community. Councilmember Paine asked if some of the funds could be used for motel vouchers for those who are unhoused, either people do not currently have a living situation or are fleeing from domestic violence situations. She asked if there was enough flexibility to purchase vouchers for the coming winter. Mr. Doherty answered staff believes there is enough flexibility for funds allocated for rent to cover a motel stay and that has been done for one client. With regard to purchasing vouchers this winter, expenditures can only extend through November 30. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it would be possible a get report on what is happening with the homeless. She agreed with Councilmember Paine, the City could have serious issues after these funds run out and should have a backup plan in addition to the cold weather shelter at the church. She recalled a citizens' question about what was being done for the homeless when there was smoke in the air. She asked if $100,000 would be enough. Mr. Doherty said Mayor Nelson called the directors together to discuss homelessness issues and to begin to create a response. Mayor Nelson asked him and Mindy Woods to convene regional partners in Snohomish County to begin to formulate a plan looking ahead to the winter. With regard to the $100,000, Mr. Doherty explained there is $450,000 in the fund based on a pervious amendment so a total of $550,000. Approximately $160,000 had been spent, applications continue to be submitted. Letters were sent to 190 landlords of multi -family buildings asking that they pass the information on to their tenants. The partner organizations try to connect the homeless that they know of with 211 to determine what can be done immediately and consideration is being given to the possibility of more motel stays. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Doherty for the breakout, commenting there was a lot of thoughtfulness behind it. She had also inquired about hotel vouchers for the unhoused, and learned the timing of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 24 expenditures made that difficult. With regard to the 10% flexibility, she asked if it would be helpful for the Council to authorize use of FEMA funds for City expenses that are not reimbursed as expected. Mr. Doherty said he would take that under advisement. Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated the efforts Councilmembers are making to address the needs of the homeless community. It's unfortunate due to the timing that the funds cannot be used for that. She recalled the Housing and Supplemental Relief Fund began with $100,000 from the Homeless Response Fund. She asked if that fund could be reimbursed which could then be used for the homeless community. Mr. Doherty answered because that fund was set up to help people who were either homeless state or becoming homeless and because the grants are being offering to prevent people from potentially becoming homeless, it is not a new or different use of already budgeted funds which is one of the requirements of the CARES Act. The CARES Act requires the funds be used for something that wasn't budgeted as of 3/27/20 or was used for a different purpose. Therefore, it has not been proposed to invoice the state to reimburse that $100,000 because it does not appear to meet the criteria. He acknowledged there are some gray areas and there are multiple pages of guidelines. The only sure way of knowing is when the state does or does not approve the invoice, but it does not appear to be something they would approve. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was not interested in helping the food bank with any of their capital projects whether it was a refrigerated truck or shelving. It was one thing to help with food but she did not want to assist with their capital projects. With regard to the homeless, there are hundreds of high school students that are considered homeless because they couch surf or do not have permanent housing. She was very concerned about meeting the needs of the homeless; every week the Council receives another email from a citizen about the homeless in their neighborhood. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:50 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was very concerned about the homeless, particularly homeless students, and the increasing need for PPE and hand sanitizer. The Health District does not help with basic sanitation which was something she felt the Homeless Fund could address in the future. Council President Fraley-Monillas said families and children are a priority for DSHS and the other funders that serve families. Families receive some level of funding particularly if they are considered homeless such as car camping or couch surfing. The Homeless Fund did not have anything to do with providing funds for hotel stays; it was established to assist Lynnwood with purchasing a hotel. She was interested in having that fund reimbursed if possible so that the funds could be used for long term purchases for housing, shelters, etc. instead of one time expenditures. Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated that there have been 50 more applicants, but said there are many seniors affected by the pandetnic who live in single family homes that may not know about the opportunity for funds. She reiterated her suggestion that staff consider mailing a simple postcard to single family homes, noting it did not need to be sent to multi -family housing as that outreach has already been done. Mr. Doherty summarized he will come back at the October 6`' meeting with ordinance language that takes note of Council comments made tonight. 3. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. COUNCIL BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 25 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting U. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported Snohomish Health District released information today stating COVID cases are less than half of the summertime peak: cases in July were 96.4 cases/100,000 and are currently at 41.9 cases/100,000. Those numbers are plateauing and need to drop to 25 cases/100,000 to enter Phase 3. Mask wearing and social distancing are the reason the numbers are dropping and he urged citizens to continue wearing masks and social distancing. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas said COVID cases as well as death rates are rising nationally which is potentially attributable to Labor Day weekend. Although Snohomish County is doing better, that is not the case nationally. As a follow up to 5G and Massachusetts, Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Paine who obtained information from a citizen regarding the ruling in the 9"' Circuit Court that was overwhelmingly against municipalities. She invited anyone who was interested to email her and she would provide the information. Councilmember Distelhorst reminded of the community panel tomorrow at 7 p.m. on suicide prevention and mental health. The moderator is a local Edmonds resident who works at Premera and there will be panelists from the Washington Chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; Michelle Reitan a .cncial worker at the FAmnrick Waterfront ('enter- two Rcrihar T.akp hiah cchnnl ctnrlPntc• TnAnna Rockwood, a school psychologist who works on suicide prevention for the Edmonds School District; and John Richards, a KEXP DJ and mental health advocate. The panel will focus on community members of all ages, both youth and senior citizens. The link to the Zoom is on WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov and it will also be streamed live on the City's Facebook page. Councilmember Distelhorst advised today is National Voter Registration Date and he urged citizens to visit Vote.gov to register or check their registration to ensure their address is up to date. Councilmember L. Johnson urged citizens to continue physical/social distancing, wash their hands, and wear masks correctly. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:49 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 26 COt1Noi, Commi rrEr RGP[]RTs Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. tl. MAYOR'S OMMEN11' Mayor Nelson reported Snolrotnish Health District released information today stating COV1D cases are less than half of the summertime peak: cases in July were 96A cases/100,000 and are currently at 41,9 cases/100,000, `Those numbers are plateauing and need to drop to 2-5cases/l 00,000 to enter .Phase 3. Mask wearing and social distancing, are the reason the numbers are dropping and lie urged citizens to continue wearing masks and social distancing, 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas said COVID cases as well as death rates are rising; nationally which is potentially attributable to Labor Day weekend. Although Snohomish County is doing better, that is not the case nationally. As a follow up to 5G and Massachusetts, Councilmember BUCkshniS thanked Council member Paine who obtained information from a citizen regarding lase ruling in the 9`' Circuit Court that was overwhelmingly against municipalities, She invited anyone who was interested to email her and she would provide the information. CounciJmenrber Distelhorst reminded of.'the community panel tomon-ow at 7 p.m. on suicide prevention and mental health. The moderator is a local Edmonds resident who works at Premera and there will be panelists from the Washington Chapter of the Arnerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention; :Michelle Reitan, a social worker at the :Edmonds 'Waterfront Center; two Scriber Lake high school students; JoAnna Rockwood, a school psychologist who works on suicide prevention for the Edmonds School District; and John Richards, a KEXP Wand mental health advocate, The panel will focus on community members of all ages, both youth and senior citizens. 1 he link to the Zoom is on WeCare.EdmondsWa,gov and it will also be streamed live on the City's Facebook page. Councilinember Distelhorst advised today is National Voter Registration Date and he urged citizens to visit Vote,gov to register or check their registration to ensure their address is up to date. Councihnember L. Johnson urged citizens to continue physical/social distancing, wash their bands, and wear masks correctly. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was ad,{ourned at 10:49 p.m. MIC AEL NELSON, MAYOR 5CO ASSEY, CITY CL r;d1110ncis City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page, 26 Public Comment for 9/22/20 Council Meeting: From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:26 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing - Agenda Item 8.2 Perrinville Comp. Plan Amendment Council members; My name is Joe Scordino. I have lived in Edmonds for over 40 years and am a retired fishery biologist. I would like to provide the below public input to Agenda item 8.2 Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area. The Perrinville Creek watershed, in which these parcels occur, has serious problems with excessive stormwater gushing into Perrinville Creek. Any development being considered, or changes to zoning for such development, has to be viewed with an eye towards whether it might exacerbate the long-standing excess stormwater problem. Studies contracted by the City have documented that urban development has resulted in higher flows in the creek during rain events that are causing environmental degradation of the stream system (see for example the 1998 Pontiac study on "Perrinville Creek Streambank Stabilization"). High flows from stormwater are causing serious erosion of the stream banks and destabilizing the valley walls in Southwest County Park and private properties downstream of the Post Office. Sediment buildup from streambank erosion has destroyed fish habitat and raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Recent monthly observations I've made over the past 3 years with Students Saving Salmon confirm these problems exist and are getting worse. Unfortunately, this well-known watershed problem is not addressed in the background information presented to the Council, or the Planning Board. It is essential that environmental issues be fully disclosed and considered in all decisions the Council makes. So..., for this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the review criteria should be viewed as follows: Is the proposal in the public interest or is it detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 27 It is NOT in the public interest to exacerbate 1) deterioration of Perrinville Creek; 2) destruction of fish habitat that otherwise is supporting cutthroat trout and juvenile coho salmon; 3) destruction of private property along stream channel; 4) potential flooding of private property in lower areas of Creek with each storm event; or 5) loss of tree canopy in Edmonds. There is NO information provided by staff or the applicant that would indicate the Perrinville watershed problems would be improved, worsened, or stay the same with a zoning change. Unless it can be proven that the zoning change will not make things worse, the proposed action must be DISAPPROVED. It is NOT appropriate for staff to say that a zoning change would make no difference to the environment unless they have presented analyses necessary to demonstrate such a finding. At a minimum, the following questions should have been addressed. Will a zoning change, which allows DENSE residential development at this site, make it worse for the environment than the current zoning? Does the current zoning provide better opportunities for low impact development, stormwater management & treatment, or retention of large trees, than a rezoning? Another aspect that is not addressed in the staff report is the fact that this parcel is in Critical Area. Has a Critical Area Report been prepared as required by City Ordinance? (The wetland observations included with staff material is NOT a Critical Area Report). In sum, I recommend the Council DISAPPROVE this proposal because critical information, necessary for an informed decision, on environmental affects has not been provided. Separately, I hope the Council will be considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that better address environmental issues, watershed health, and the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Environmentally sensitive areas such as the Perrinville watershed or even the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary watershed need to have individual Master Plans that are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Further, I hope the Council will direct City staff to begin implementing an actual solution to the Perrinville watershed problem of excessive stormwater during rain events. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 28 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 7:07 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for September 22, 2020 City Council meeting I want to make sure City Councilmembers are all very aware that the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has represented that it does not regulate citv standards. Making it even more alarming - the licensing body, the State of Washington, apparently believes it does not have to require corrective action when it has verified as FACT that City standards have been violated. Following is a direct quote from one of the State's decision documents: "The preliminary plat map did violate city standards but did not violate any state statutes." Please appreciate that the State investigated and concluded that City of Edmonds standards related to a preliminary plat map were violated - but since State statutes were not violated - the State would take no action! Former City employee Steve Bullock stated the following in a February 21, 2006 email: "Surveyors are licensed by the State and required to be bonded. Their license to work as a surveyor is in jeopardy if they do not perform accurate work." This is simply not always true. Perhaps the City needs to conduct a public education campaign so that citizens know that if they are harmed by surveys that violate City laws, the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors will do absolutely nothing even when the State concludes that City Standards were violated. Please do not be misled about what the State does and about licenses being in danger if certain professionals do not comply with City laws. Making this situation even more alarming is the State's LUPA laws. There is a major inconsistency as LUPA applies to items related to City Standards, yet the State Board does not regulate City standards. Please give that great consideration. Whose burden is it to regulate City Standards? That is the Mayor's DUTY of course — not the harmed innocent citizens. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 29 I am happy to meet with any or all of you and show you all the documentation I have that supports the above. I think City Councilmembers should be highly alarmed at the State's conduct in this -area. I think Cit)r Councilmembers-need to -appreciate -how -regulation -of surveyors really works at the State licensing and regulation level. Perhaps strongly consider the need to conduct a public education campaign. Thank you. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 30