Cmd100620EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
October 6, 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
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir.
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
At Mayor Nelson's request, City Clerk Scott Passey shared the reason for the technical difficulties; it was
initially with the live streaming software due to installation of a new server and new encoder. Then there
was a problem with the government access channel broadcast; that was rectified and the meeting is now
live streaming and on the government access channel and the phone line is open as well.
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:18 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine 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
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page l
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO MOVE ITEM 10.2, CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT BOND
PRESENTATION, TO STUDY ITEM 9.1.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the Council has never heard this presentation before and if bond
counsel or consultants are present, it is important that they be at the top of agenda.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson advised the remaining Action Items would be renumbered.
5. BOARD/COMMISSION INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A BOARD/COMMISSION
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee (LTAC) meets a few times a year. Councilmember K. Johnson chairs the committee
this year. There has been an opening all year, one of members representing the lodging community on the
LTAC passed away last year and the LTAC did not meet again for several months. The candidate replaced
the previous member as manager of the Best Western Harbor Inn and has applied to replace him on the
LTAC. Mr. Doherty introduced Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Applicant Benjamin Mason and
Councilmembers introduced themselves.
The Council interviewed Mr. Mason (responses in italics):
Councilmember Paine: Have you ever participated on a public board in the past. I have not. Councilmember
Paine: This board is totally industry related and I'm sure you wi 11 pick up quickly and offer a lot of valuable
input. I'm thrilled to see you volunteering for this position.
Councilmember Distelhorst: You have 20 years' experience in the industry. Is there something from that
experience from in another city or state that you think Edmonds could implement? I have not done anything
like this before. My ideas circle back to the idea of longer term events to provide tourists with more
opportunities to visit the local businesses.
Councilmember Buckshnis: Thank for applying. It has been a very strange year. How are things going at
Best Western and what do you think would be a good thing to promote tourism? March, April and May
were very, very slow. It started to pick up in June and we had a pretty decent July and August and even
compared to last year, we've had a fairly decent September. It seems like, in my opinion, that things are
picking up and have not slowed down as I would have expected by now.
Councilmember L. Johnson: Your application states you are seeking the position to help determine how to
spend tax revenue in promoting visitors coming to Edmonds. What top two things come to mind, either in
the current situation to promote visitors, or if you want to be hopeful and think two years down road_?
Longer term events, the longer visitors stay in town, the more they spend at businesses including at lodging
facilities. Things like multi -day music and food festivals would be worthwhile investments.
Councilmember K. Johnson: Best Western has always been the premiere lodging facility in Edmonds, so
it is important to have you representing that. I encourage you to speak to either Patrick Doherty or Frances
Chapin to get you up to speed and background about the LTAC. The committee will be meeting later this
month on Zoom which will be a good opportunity for you to experience that process. The City collects a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 2
bed tax and the LTAC determines how to allocate it to promote Edmonds as tourist destination that supports
entertainment and lodging. It is a good program offered by the state.
Councilmember Olson: I'm excited about your 20 years' experience. With regard to your reference to a
lack of events, I assume you are not from this area. Where did you work previously? Most of my experience
is in Seattle. Councilmember Olson: When things open up, Edmonds has a lot of great events to bring
people to the City and to the hotel. It has been fun learning about the events the City has.
Council President Fraley-Monillas: Thank you for volunteering your time, it is not always easy to volunteer
for one of the various committees the City has. I appreciate you offering to serve on the committee.
Council President Fraley-Monillas advised action on Mr. Mason's appointment to the LTAC is on the
Consent Agenda.
PRESENTATIONS
1. EMERGENCY NURSES WEEK PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson advised Mike Hastings, manager of the Swedish Edmonds ER, was present to virtually
receive the proclamation. As someone who had the unfortunate experience of taking his youngest child to
the Swedish Edmonds ER, Mayor Nelson was very appreciative of the calm, cool collectiveness of the ER
nurses.
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming October I 1-17, 2020 Emergency Nurses Week in the City
of Edmonds and calling upon all citizens to recognize and honor the great contributions of Emergency
Nurses to our community and society.
Mr. Hastings thanked Mayor Nelson for the proclamation, explaining in addition to managing the Swedish
ER, he is also the president of the Emergency Nurses Association, an international association to recognize
emergency nurses. Swedish Edmonds has a top notch team of nurses caring for the community. He thanked
the City for their support; the proclamation helps show his staff the City's support.
2. HOUSING COMMISSION QUARTERLY REPORT
Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Housing Commissioner Jim Ogonowski and
Alternate Commissioner Tana Axtelle.
Ms. Axtelle reviewed:
Background
o Council Resolution #1427 Established Citizens' Housing Commission
o Housing Commission's Mission
It "Develop diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the
range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are
irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual
orientation."
o Commission Make-up
■ Edmonds residents with various backgrounds working together to fulfill the Housing
Commission's mission
■ Housing Commission Members
Karen Haase Herrick- Zone 1 Tanya Kataria-Zone 5
- Zone 1 Greg Long -Zone 5
Leif Warren- Zone 1 Alternate Zone 5 Alternate - Resigned
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 3
Keith Soltner- Zone 2
Weijia Wu- Zone 2
Wendy Wyatt- Zone 2 Alternate
George Keefe- Zone 3
John Reed (dec.)- Zone 3
Eva -Denise Miller- Zone 3 Alternate
Nichole Franko- Zone 4
Michael McMurray- Zone 4
Kenneth Sund- Zone 4 Alternate
■ Housing Commission Support
o City Council Liaisons
■ Councilmember Vivian Olson
■ Councilmember Luke Distelhorst
o City Staff
Jess Blanch -Zone 6
Alena Nelson-Vietmeier-Zone 6
Rick Nishino-Zone 6 Alternate
Will Chen -Zone 7
Judi Gladstone -Zone 7
Jean Salls-Zone 7 Alternate
Bob Throndsen-Mayor's Choice
Tana Axtelle-Mayor's Choice Alternate
■ Director Shane Hope
R Associate Planner Brad Shipley
■ Planner Amber Groll
R Admin. Assistant Debbie Rothfus
o Consultants
■ Senior Associate Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group
■ Project Coordinator Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group
Policy Proposal Timeline
o May 14 meeting — introduce draft policy ideas and clarifying questions
o May 28 Meeting — Discuss round 1 policy ideas
o June 11 meeting — decide which policy ideas will move forward for community input
o July 9 meeting — discuss round 2 policy ideas
o August 13 meeting — discuss round 2 policy ideas
o September 10 meeting — Decide which round 2 policy proposals move forward for additional
community engagement
o September 17 meeting — review survey results
o October 8 meeting— Start to assimilate community input and policy ideas
o November 12 meeting — refine policy proposals
o December 10 meeting — vote on final policy proposals
(nmmimity F.nanae.ment T*rnp_line — will he re.vised coon to reflect iinrinteQ
o May — begin drafting online open house (OOH)
o July — August - Launch OOH and survey and community mailing
o August — close out OOH survey for round # 1
o August — September - update OOH for round #2 (if applicable), in person outreach as allowed,
tabling
o September — close OOH round #2 survey
o October — event on draft proposals and online engagement
o December — share final proposals
• Quarterly Accomplishments since July 2020
o Continued holding regularly scheduled monthly public meetings via Zoom on the second
Thursday of the month. Meetings are recorded and available for public viewing online
o Additionally, a special public meeting was held in September
o Each of the five committees continue to hold their own meetings via Zoom to discuss and
develop housing policy ideas
o A second community survey was developed, distributed, conducted and results reviewed to
gage public interest in Round 1 policy ideas
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 4
o Round 2 policy ideas have been developed and preparation is underway for additional
community input
• Policy Committees
o City Resources Committee
o Incentives & Requirements Committee
o Housing Types Committee
o Zoning Updates Committee
o City Processes or Programs Committee
Mr. Ogonowski reviewed
• Survey Results for Round 1 Policy Ideas
o Background
■ Online open house and Survey #2 conducted from July 22 to August 16, 2020
• Outreach through multiple community outlets along with a random mailing of 3,825
promotional postcards to Edmonds households
■ Paper surveys sent to 600 random households (88 returned)
■ The online open house received 1,387 unique visitors
■ A total of 684 individuals responded to survey #2 (compared to 907 for survey # 1)
- 96% were Edmonds' residents
- 63% were homeowners
■ 294 written comments received
o Summary of Findings
+� City Resources
- Using existing state sales tax that's been shifted to Edmonds for housing:
65% support short term rental assistance to low income, COVID impacted
households
65% support long term assistance for affordable housing only within Edmonds
- 54% oppose advocating for county to adopt sales tax for housing
■ Accessory Dwelling Units
- 65% support allowing accessory dwelling units with certain restrictions
Transition Zoning Areas
- 57% support creating housing transition areas along transit routes adjacent to
commercial zones, with certain conditions
- 49% support & 41% oppose creating transition areas in lots zoned for 8000 or more
sq. ft. when adjacent to multifamily or commercial zones, with certain conditions
■ Housing Types and Design Guidelines
- 56% oppose guidelines or incentives for duplexes to be allowed in single family zones
- 49% support & 38% oppose developing design guidelines for multifamily projects
■ City Processes and Planning
- 78% support simplifying zoning code language
- 53% support reducing number of land uses that must have conditional use permit
■ Written Feedback Themes
- Opposition to growth and/or increased density
- Concern for changes to the character of single family neighborhoods
- Support for considering environmental impacts and preserving Edmonds tree canopy
- Support for considering housing related infrastructure, namely parking, sidewalks,
transit, and access to green space
- Support for more affordable housing options
- Support for the Commission and its work
- Support for making Edmonds a welcome and diverse place
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 5
Policy Ideas Discussed for Round 2 Community Engagement ("indicates ideas the commission
plans to move forward for public input and more consideration)
Note: All "Policy Ideas" Are Still Preliminary & Do Not Represent The Housing Commission's
Final Recommendations
o City Resources Committee
■ Homelessness prevention programs
Eviction reduction measures
o Incentives & Requirements Committee
a Multifamily tax exemption program
■ Incllusionary Zoning for housing affordability
o Housing Types Committee
■ Equity in housing access, policy and programs
o Zoning Updates Committee
• Cluster housing
■ Multifamily design standards
■ Neighborhood villages
o City Processes or Programs Committee
• Zoning concessions vs. property tax exemptions
• Comprehensive Plan transportation element update
■ Childcare voucher program
Ms. Axtelle advised the surveys are not considered statistically valid; they represent the responses of those
who took the survey, but are not a random sample of the entire community. She reviewed:
* Next Steps
o Second Online Open House and Round 2 Policy Ideas Survey
* Date to be announced soon
* To be announced widely & Posted for about 3 weeks
■ To include:
- Videos
- Graphics
- Engaging activities
o Community Engagement
• Online open house
■ Welcome public inputs/feedhack
o Commission Meetings - Always open to the public
■ Zoom meetings until face to face meetings are allowed + video
o Analysis of Data and Public Input/Feedback
o Policy Developments
o Policy Recommendations Finalized
o Final Recommendation to City Council in December 2020
Additional Resources: httpsa/►vww.citizenshotisiiMcominission.org/
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Commissioners Ogonowski and Axtelle and all the Housing
Commissioners for all their hard work. He has been impressed over the last eight months with the evolution
and learning that has occurred during the presentations and the discussions where he often learns something
new as well. At the last meeting the commission was discussing inclusionary zoning, form based code and
equitable housing access, cutting edge concepts in the housing industry not just regionally but around the
world and in many different jurisdictions. The Housing Commission has a short timeline and the end goal
for a final recommendation is in sight. He urged the commission to keep up good work.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 6
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been kept in loop by her two appointees to the Housing
Commission. She hasn't taken the survey yet but plans to. With regard to written feedback themes she asked
if some of those, such as environmental impact and preserving the tree canopy, were incorporated into the
new online survey. She recalled a recent comment that the questions were directive and did not allow people
to make comments on certain areas. Mr. Ogonowski answered the feedback themes from the first survey
were not necessarily incorporated into the second survey. The current survey is directed at getting feedback
on specific policies versus looking back at the previous ones. In the next 1-2 months, the Housing
Commission will be assimilating all the feedback from all the surveys and all the policy ideas to develop a
recommendation for Council based on a holistic approach. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her
understanding from his reply that the Housing Commission will take into consideration trees, low impact
development, etc. Mr. Ogonowski assured that would be part of their consideration. Councilmember
Buckshnis commented low impact development has an impact on the environment.
Councilmember Olson commented for everyone that has been hard up for entertainment, she loved the
virtual open house and found it one of the warmest virtual events she has attended since virtual events began
happening. She thanked staff, commissioners, and consultants for an outstanding job on that event and
encouraged Councilmembers and the public to watch it. She was hopeful there would be 100% participation
and because it was educational, it provides a great deal of information to the public on policy options as
well as seeking their feedback. She encouraged everyone to take the survey, pointing out citizens do not
need be subject matter experts; everyone's input is valuable. She encouraged citizens to reach out to the
Housing Commission and the City Council with questions, this topic is important to the entire community
and the commission and council want to hear from citizens.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Ogonowski and Ms. Axtelle for their contributions to the Housing
Commission. It seems like the commission just started, and now they are nearing their recommendations.
She expressed appreciation for all the work the commission has done and urged them to keep up the good
work. Mr. Ogonowski remarked it was certainly a team effort.
Councilmember Paine thanked the Housing Commission for all their hard work. She has not yet participated
in the virtual open house but plans to; she has taken the survey. She was pleased the past survey considered
the environment. She asked about the commission's preliminary discussions about the Multi Family Tax
Exemption (MFTE), which has been used in two areas of the City and is of interest to her as well as the
community. Mr. Ogonowski answered it was certainly a source of discussion and the commission has spent
quite a bit time on it. There are advantages to MFTE but it is not a panacea. The commission needs to
discuss it further and he was hesitant to make a statement because there are certainly different views on the
Housing Commission regarding the benefits of that approach. Ms. Axtelle said the new survey contains
quite a bit of discussion about that topic. One of the committees has delved into it and are putting together
an interesting packet of information regarding how to incorporate MFTE.
Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Axtell and Mr. Ogonowski for their volunteer service, commenting this
has been hard work and is a big lift for the community. Ms. Hope agreed the commission has been working
hard, members have different opinions and they have not yet reached a conclusion on a number of issues.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked what type of data had been collected on the demographics of the survey
respondents and whether that was telling in any way. Mr. Ogonowski answered recognizing the sample size
of the survey respondents, the demographics were fairly representative of the community at large. Overall
he was pleasantly surprised that it was pretty representative of age and ownership versus renters. Ms. Hope
said there are some places where it is not representative of the citizens. The Council can be provided the
demographic data and it is also available online. The respondents tend to be a little bit older, more female
than male, and they tend to be a little higher income, but there is a lot of other representation throughout.
She emphasized this is not a statistically valid survey; it is simply a representative sample of the people
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 7
who self-select. Hardcopy surveys were provided to a random sampling of 600 households, recognizing
that not everyone is comfortable taking online surveys and to increase the diversity.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked the surveys had been successful in collecting data from a wide
geographic range of the community. Ms. Hope answered data is not available at that level because the
survey does not track individuals.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said her interests strictly lie with low income and low, low income
housing and asked what the commission has done to look at that. Ms. Axtelle answered that has been
addressed in every committee, including MF TE, different housing options, housing types and less
expensive housing types. That has been one of the main focuses of all the committees and she felt the
commission had done a good job gathering information and discussing it. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said that was her concern; the MFTE housing in Westgate starts at $1400 for a studio which was
not affordable to someone earning minimum wage. She was most interested in seeing what the commission
comes up with to address low income and low, low income which includes housing for seniors, the disabled,
veterans, etc. Ms. Axtelle said that is addressed in the survey. Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked
Mr. Ogonowski and Ms. Axtelle for all the work they have done. She has attended a few meetings, the
members come from all areas of the city and she appreciated their differing opinions.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS(littt)s://zoom.iis/s/4257752525)
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Miriam Gold, Edmonds, Perrinville resident, former vice president of the Edmonds-Woodway High
School Students Saving Salmon and now a biology student at Western, was worried about zoning changes
to the lot on 76"' and the additional stress the change would put on the already stressed Perrinville Creek
Watershed. Before moving forward with a zoning change to that lot, she recommended more serious
consideration be given to the effect development of that lot would have on the watershed. Development
keeps chipping away at the wooded areas in Perrinville which is a such a big part of what makes Perrinville
what it is. Ms. Hope inquired if her comments were related to the public hearing. Mayor Nelson suggested
she hold her comments until the public hearing.
Kimberley Koenig, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the funds that were previously allocated to help
small businesses and was grateful the Council was considering allocating additional funds. Prior to tonight's
meeting, it was her understanding grant applications would potentially be opened again but the packet did
not indicate that and she hoped it was still an option. Many businesses are still struggling, ones that
misunderstood the grant criteria or missed the program announcement even with the City's concerted
outreach effort. For her business, July seemed like things were on the road to recovery and then in August
and September, the momentum decreased. She knew anecdotally that hers was not the only business having
challenges due to COVID. When considering the reallocation of funds, she urged the Council to remember
that small business owners still need support.
Pam Stuller, Edmonds, Walnut Street Coffee, current president of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance,
spoke about the CARES fund allocation. The agenda is very full and she was hopefully the Council would
be able to discuss that item because time is of the essence since CARES funds expire at the end of the year.
As a business that received an $8,000 grant from the City, she could attest to what a lifeline it was for a
small business; she was able to add an opening window to improve ventilation as winter arrives, creatively
monetize an area that was previously used for indoor seating that she can no longer provide, and purchase
holiday merchandise that she otherwise would not have had the confidence or cash to purchase. She thanked
the City, commenting the CARES fund allocation really make a huge difference. The packet is unclear
whether new applications would be allowed and she highly encouraged the City to allow new applications
as a lot of people didn't not hear about the grants, may have misunderstood the criteria or thought they were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 8
doing fine and now find themselves in new circumstances as winter approaches. Using the same
applications and scoring criterial will ensure businesses are prioritized the way that was originally intended.
Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, president of the Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) and owner
of Anchor Chic, expressed support for Ms. Stuller and Ms. Koenig's comments. On behalf of DEMA, she
urged the Council to increase support for small businesses via the $400,000 CARES funding which would
allow 50 additional businesses to receive $8,000 grants. She was also appreciative of the other items
proposed in the funding package and thanked the City Council for their ongoing support of small businesses
and other organizations affected by the coronavirus.
A brief discussion followed regarding allowing members of the public interested in the change to the
Comprehensive Plan designation on 9"' Avenue N to speak during this item as that was not on the agenda
as a public hearing.
Charles LaPorte, Edmonds, referred to the Comprehensive Plan map change, commenting it was a huge
governance issue if City staff was willing to misrepresent the Planning Board which he thought happened
at the last City Council meeting when staff presented the Comprehensive Plan map change on 9"' Avenue
and Glen Street. The staff member neglected to represent what the Planning Board said even though it was
their job to provide a recommendation to the City Council and when that failure was pointed out by the
public, he minimized the Planning Board's discussion and implied they were confused about spot zoning.
Thankfully, both meetings were recorded so the public can see for themselves that following a long, detailed
and thoughtful discussion, the Planning Board voted 6-1 to deny this change to the Comprehensive Plan
map because it would be tantamount to a favor for one couple. The Planning Board was very articulate in
identifying the problems. Not only did the staff member do that in the oral presentation, even in the
summary in the agenda item for tonight's meeting, the Planning Board is misrepresented and staff
recommends proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan map change. It is a huge governance issue if staffs
job is to bring this to the City Council and it is an insult to the Planning Board as well as the City Council
who deserve to have a disinterested presentation.
Agerico Manahan, Edmonds, said he tried to participate at the previous meeting by dialing in but was
unsuccessful and he knew others in the community had a similar experience. As Councilmember Olson
stated earlier, citizen input is very important; a lot of citizens tried to dial in to the meeting to participate
but were unable to do so. He reviewed the notes from the last City Council meeting and asked how the City
Council and Mayor are informed of the Planning Board's recommendation. The Planning Board voted 6-1
to deny and had a thoughtful discussion about letting those two homes have special zoning, some referred
to it as spot zoning, that it seemed arbitrary, would cause equity issues, would be a favor for two homes and
set a precedent for other homeowners in Edmonds area. He asked how the Planning Board's
recommendations were delivered to the City Council and whether the Council reviewed the Planning
Board's meeting minutes or did they rely on the City planner to honestly relay how the Planning Board
voted.
Carolyn Mangelsdorf, Edmonds, applicant, thanked the City Council for their consideration and thanked
Mr. Shipley for the work he has done on their behalf. They have lived on the property for many years and
raised their family there. Their goal is to simply divide a lot that is unusually large for the zoning it is in,
sell their house and build a smaller house in their backyard to be able to age in place because they love their
neighborhood and their neighbors. They feel it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the
goals of providing more housing without impacting the character of the neighborhood. She pointed out this
is the only process by which property owners can make changes; there is no other process to make it happen.
The lines on the map may look like there is consistency but it does not actually exist. She suggested the
project itself be considered in terms of the City's goals and this particular instance. She referred to the
LaPortes who have spoken previously, commenting their mother's property has a view through their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 9
backyard which her family has carefully protected for over two decades and might be impacted if a house
were constructed there.
Robert Grimm, Edmonds, co -applicant, reiterated what his wife stated and said they did not start this
project to change the Comprehensive Plan map or zoning for 21 properties in Edmonds nor were they
looking for any preferential treatment. They only want to subdivide their lot which is close to 20,000 square
feet. A lot of the people who have weighed in on the proposal have 6,000 square foot lots; even dividing
their lot in half, the lots were be would be considerable larger than many in the surrounding lots. He recalled
his wife pointing out inconsistency in lot sizes on the zoning map, 27 lots to the north are significant smaller
than the R-12 zoning. in preparation for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that they began over a year
ago, he read the Comprehensive Plan quite thoroughly; one thing that stood out was by the year 2035
Edmonds is projecting population in excess of 45,000 which will be an issue in the near future. He referred
to public comment regarding the change to the Comprehensive Plan designation in Perrinville taking about
preserving greens space, pointing out dividing an existing lot prevents the development of unspoiled area
or forests to provide more living space and is beneficial to the City and its residents. Regardless of the
outcome of their application, this will be in the forefront in future Edmonds' planning and decision making.
Laurena LaPorte, Edmonds, said she was speaking on behalf of a neighbor who did not have access to
Zoom. After the last meeting, she called her neighbors and neither were able to speak at the meeting due to
technical difficulties. She read from a neighbor's letter that was also provided to the Council: Although the
proposal doesn't not call for cutting down trees, we know by watching what is going on in Edmonds that a
lot vegetation will be clear cut which isn't not good aesthetically or environmentally. Edmonds is on record
for valuing trees and being good stewards of the environment. A good, hard rain such as has occurred in
past years has already sent water down Daley Street and then down driveways and into yards and sometimes
homes and continues to lower levels to the north. Taking out trees and turf on the slopes that exist on the
properties of 530 and 522 9"' Avenue North and replacing them with concrete and roofs will surely increase
the volume and speed of runoff, potentially doing significant damage to the properties to the north.
Additionally, trees and bushes add beauty and value to the area. Edmonds prides itself on its annual garden
tour; people come from all over to enjoy the beauty Edmonds offers. A beautiful Magnolia tree at 522 9t"
Avenue North will be removed if the property is subdivided and developed. If Edmonds allows itself to be
cut and pasted away from the character it has to become just another mass of houses on top of one another,
it loses something precious. For these reasons, I am opposed to subdividing the properties at 530 and 522
9"' Avenue North.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
8. 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:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
5. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 10
9. STUDY ITEM
CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT BOND PRESENTATION
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Scott Bauer, NW Municipal Advisors, the City's bond
advisor, and Marc Greenough, the City's bond counsel. Mr. Williams reviewed:
• What does this Bond Ordinance do
o It authorizes the Finance Director t(or designee) to complete a bond sale under very specific
conditions
o A true interest rate maximum of 4.5%
o Within a time frame of one year
o With a maximum amount borrowed of $14,000,000
o With an amortization period tip to 25 years
Operating Cost Comparison
o Savinas of $341,247
Utilities
Existing Incinerator
(Baseline)
Project A
Pyrolysis
Centris s
Project B
Gasification
Ecoremed
Unit
Utilities
$163,566
$193,479
126,666
Total $/ r
Odor Control Chemicals
$47,768
$74,826
$3,009
Total $/ r
Polymer
$160,000
$160 000
$56,000
Total $/ r
Screenings
$0
$24,000
$0
Total $/ r
Labor
4321,725
$333 271
$333 271
Total $/ r
Annual Maintenance
$89,951
$52 000
$35,000
Total $/ r
Regulatory
$172,183
$120,000
$60,000
Total $/. r
Hauling
$36,000
$0
$36 000
Total $/ r
Sub Total All Costs $/ r
$991,193
$957,575
$649,946
Total $/yr
• Benefits of Project B — Pyrolysis/Gasification
o Most flexible, efficient, and affordable approach to implement and the lowest operational costs
o Produces and environmentally -friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal
conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established
in Resolution 1389
o No acidic side steam or hazardous waste is produced
o Biochar will likely be land applied in eastern Washington. We will also look for sites in western
Washington.
• Assumptions and qualifications on this financing
o Includes all sales taxes
it Much of equipment package cost likely will be tax free due to the product produced from
the biosolids (those savings are not included in the assumptions)
o Bond insurance is not needed
o Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds
o Edmonds partners share
■ MLT 23.174% Working on their own bonding process now
• Ronald 9.488% Will cash fund
• OVWSD 16.551 Will cash fund
o Working to establish these as green bonds and as climate bons
■ If successful Edmonds would be the first City in the state to issue bonds with that
designation
Mr. Bauer reviewed:
• Current Bond Market
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 11
o Interest rates spiked in March but have fallen to historically low rates
o The charts are an index of well -rated, 20-year, general obligation tax-exempt bonds
o Charts of Bond Buyer 20-bond GO Index 1990 to present and Bond Buyer 20-Bond GO Index
October 2017 to present:
■ Graph of Outstanding senior lien revenue debt
o OutstandinP debt fnr the City -
Water and Sewer Bonds
Par Callable Par
Outstanding,
Final Mat.
Coupon
Range
Call Date
WS lm rov and Ref Rev 2011
$9,340 000
$8,045,000
12/l/2031
3%-4%
12/1/2021
WS Rev 2013
$13,935,000
$13,285;000
12/1/2038
4%-5%
6/l/2023
WS Rev 2015
$16,459,000
$13,570,000
12/l/2040
2%-4%
6/l/2025
Total Water and Sewer Bond Debt
$39,770,000
$34,900,000
Mr. Williams reviewed:
X /r
+ Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020
o Staff recommended structure
■ 2020 Bonds: 25 year, wrap debt service
— Total debt service: $21,860,814
— A] I -in interest cost: 2.64%
— Debt service first 18 years: $375,432/year
— Debt service last 5 years: $2,552,250/year
Mr. Bauer reviewed bond proceeds and uses for the recommended structure:
Sources
Par Amount
$14,005,000
Original Issue Discount
135,609
Total Sources
$13,869,392
Uses
Project Fund
$13,266,000
Reserve Account
368,589
Issuance Cost
234,803
Total vises
$ 1 3 8p69 7 2
.p1J,OV7,J 9G
Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Other Structuring Options
0 25 year amortization
■ 2020 Bonds: 25 year, level debt service
— Total debt service: $18,566,12
— All -in interest cost: 2.28%
— Debt service first 15 years: $741,936/year
— Debt service last-5 years: $743,125
0 20 year amortization
2020 Bonds: 20 year, level debt service
— Total debt service: $17,412,610
— All -in interest cost: 2.05%
— Debt service first 18 years: $871,123/year
— Debt service last 2 years: $870,188/year
0 20 year amortization
■ 2020 bonds, 20 year, wrap debt service
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 12
Total debt service: $18,179,777
- All -in interest cost: 2.22%
- Debt service first 19 years: $729,264/year
- Debt service final year: $2,549,138
• Com arison of Debt Options between July and October 2020
20-YR Levelized
20-YR Wrap
25-YR Levelized
25 YR Wrap
July
August
JUIV
August
Jul
August
July
August
Interest Rate
2.39%o
2.05%
2.62%
2.22%
2.75%
2.28%
3.24%
2.64%
Initial Avg.
Annual Debt
$898,203
$871,123
$766,917
$729,364
$784,500
$741,936
$509,150
$375,432
Service
Total Debt
Service
$17,964,050
$17,412,610
$18,984,500
$18,179,777
$19,612,350
$18,566,142
$23,255,500
$21,860,814
Payments
Total Interest
$6,144,050
$7,129,500
$7,852,350
$11,64Q 000
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format, with each
Councilmember asking one question during their turn.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be included in future presentations so she could
review the numbers more closely. She referred to the true interest cost for the City of 4.5% and asked if
that was the bond coupon rate. Mr. Bauer answered that is both the coupon and the yield, basically the all -
in borrowing cost, similar to the APR on a house. In this case, there could be discount or premium bonds
that are issued which could change the change the coupon rate.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what staff was seeking, noting it appeared there had to be two
readings of the ordinance before approval. She asked if this was first reading and second reading was
scheduled for October 13"'. Mr. Williams answered that would be fine, two reading do not have to be done
but that has been the preference. Even with two readings, this could be done in time to stay out of the
volatile period ahead of the election. The Council could make a decision tonight or it could be on the
Consent Agenda or an action item on next week's agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the
bond rate was expected to increase between now and October 13t". Mr. Bauer answered there is a concern
with volatility as the presidential election approaches.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked why the group recommended a 25-year wrap when the interest would be
almost twice that of a 20-year wrap. Mr. Williams answered it is 2.64% versus 2.21%. Councilmember K.
Johnson said the total interest for a 20-year wrap is approximately $6 million and the total interest for the
25-wrap is $11,640,000, which is almost double. Mr. Williams answered the big payments and the extra
interest paid in up to 25 years are deflated by the inflation rate which is one of the big tradeoffs.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not see any advantage to paying twice as much for a five year
longer amortization. Mr. Williams said this may not be the only borrowing the City does in the next 25
years. He did not expect more borrowing would be necessary for pipe replacement in the sewer fund as
there is adequate cash flow from increasing rates to generate ongoing revenue for pipe replacement.
Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated her question, why the group was recommending the 25-year versus
the 20-year wrap when the interest payment would be double and said she was not asking about sewer or
water. Mr. Williams answered this is a sewer bond, there is underlying debt, solve of which will be paid off
by the time the large payments are due so the intent is to even out the cost to the sewer utility over time. It
may be necessary to borrow again; the City is facing an issue with nitrogen in the next 5-10 years and if
that requires a large capital project, he would like to keep the total interest low enough to absorb it without
higher rate increases. That supports a longer amortization period and the wrap.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 13
Mr. Bauer agreed clearly there were tradeoffs between short versus long debt. Shorter debt raises the debt
service payments, but then overall total debt service is certainly lower than the 25-year wrap. As Mr.
Williams said, as they began to look at potential future borrowings, they figured given known interest rates
which are historically low, those could be locked in for a longer term and then conceivable return in a
couple years if a borrowing was needed and layer that debt in the shorter term. Interest rates are unknown
for that time, but as far as the yield curve goes, the shorter debt would be at a lower interest rate. He
acknowledged it is a balance.
Councilmember Paine referred to level debt service versus wrap debt service and said the wrap appears to
absorb some of the bonding capacity. It was her understanding from the Finance Director that the City has
more than adequate bond capacity. She asked if the reason wrap debt service was preferred versus level
debt service was to reserve excess capacity that might be needed in the future. Mr. Bauer answered if debt
issuance was necessary for a $10 million project in 5 years, the debt could be structured shorter and higher
and then if there were another bond issue in 5-10 years, it was likely the debt would have to spill over the
edge in a wrap scenario unless rates support debt service payments that could be higher if it were kept at a
level debt service structure. If the plan was to continue spilling debt over the edge, there was the question
whether the short term capacity was not being used at the expense of putting it out long. In the City's past
debt issuances, there has been a little of both; the initial issuance was level debt service, the next one
wrapped it around the 2011 bonds and the following issue was a level debt service.
Councilmember Olson commented as this was the first of two, she did not delve into this quite as much to
notice that information included in a previous presentation had not been included such as the impact to the
rate payer. When that information was provided, it illustrated a clear winner, but it was not evident in
today's presentation. She was certain tier choice was not the 25-year wrap when that additional information
was provided. She asked to have that information provided next week. Mr. Williams agreed that could be
done, but it was difficult to include it in a simple way when comparing two wrap and two level debt service
options. It would be easy to compare the rate impact of a level debt service because the payment is constant
throughout the amortization period which is why it was referred to as the initial rate impact on the graphs.
The initial rate impact and for 18 years, the 25-year wrap has the least impact on rates for the next 18 years.
Mr. Williams recalled a 20-year level debt service was recommended initially which is the lowest interest
rate and results in the least amount spent on interest over the entire bond issue. A 20-year level debt service
is the cheapest if that is the only goal, but there are other considerations which is why that changed. His
impression of the Council's direction during the nrevinlic nrecentatintig was a nref�renee for the longer
amortization period. A 20-year level debt service would double the existing payments for the next 18 years
but there would not be the large payments at the end. No one can guess what inflation will be, but whatever
it is, it will eat away at the true value of the payments made in 2040-2045. The payments are fixed but the
value of the money goes down.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the 20-year level had an initial rate impact of 6.43% and the 25-year wrap
had an initial rate impact of 3.1%, approximately half. Mr. Williams answered those were after the savings
expected in O&M, electricity, and chemicals were subtracted.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the wrap debt service. The City's AAA rating should
result in a good rate differential and she asked if that had been taken into consideration. In looking at AAA
rated 30-year muni bonds, they are 1.4% and AA are 1.6%. Her husband works in this field and said that
green bonds are not selling. She wanted to ensure the City was focusing on getting the best deal and not
doing something new that was not out in the market. She asked if the numbers were based on the City's
AAA rating. Mr. Bauer answered they do not assume a AAA rating; that is the City's general obligation
bond rating by Standard and Poors; a revenue bond will be rated differently. They went through the process,
a rating call, with S&P last week and expect to receive the rate in the next couple days. He assumed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 14
City will be in the AA category; the City's current bonds are rated AA by Moody. Councilmember
Buckshnis said the interest rate seemed a little high, but that explained it.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Williams saying that sales tax was included in the cost, but that
he expected some of it to be refunded. She asked the amount of sales tax included in the estimates. Mr.
Williams said it is unknown what parts of the project will be determined to be eligible for sales tax
exemption. He was fairly confident that some of the large pieces that are being purchased will be, not the
labor or miscellaneous materials. If the entire $11 million equipment package was eligible, there could be
$1 million in savings. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why bond for that if a $1 million in savings was
anticipated. Mr. Williams answered that decision would not be made until the end of project. If funds were
left over, it could go to the ending fund balance of the utility and used for pipe replacement, etc. There
needs to be enough from the proceeds of the bond sale in case there is an adverse decision on the sales tax
for the equipment.
Councilmember Paine asked if there was a surcharge for climate bonds and green bonds. Mr. Williams
answered there is a charge for the services of the company that reviews the project and makes a decision.
There is no impact on interest rates, the bond does not cost more or generate any savings for the City. It is
a way to have the project reviewed and have it labeled and be able document that this is a much better
process than the existing process or other options that were considered. Mr. Bauer said there is a $21,000
fee to the third party verifier.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she looked forward to studying the information presented tonight and will
submit any questions later.
Councilmember Buckshnis said people often do not understand the time value of money; inflation will
spike eventually but when is unknown. She suggested illustrating why the 25-year wrap was more
advantageous due to the time value of money.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled discussion about bonding for the full project or only the City's share
and asked what decision was made. Mr. Williams answered the partners have decided not to have Edmonds
bond for their portion of the project; Mountlake Terrace is working on their own bond issue and Ronald
and OVWSD intend to cash fund their contributions to the project. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized
this is only Edmonds' portion.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
2. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
PPT Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled in two weeks.
Invite to send him questions. Building Official Leif Bjorback is also present to answer questions. Mr. Lien
reviewed:
• National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) & Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
o The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a voluntary Federal program that enables
property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses
from flooding.
o FIRM establishes flood hazard area
o New FIRM maps became effective June 19, 2020
o City was required to update its flood regulations by June 19thto remain in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP)
• Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
o Primarily a Building Code Amendment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 15
■ Establishes construction standards for development within floodplains
* Standards intended to prevent damage to structures should a flood occur
o Does Not Change Allowable Land Uses, Zoning, Critical Areas or Other Development
Regulations
■ Any development within floodplains must still comply with existing zoning and
development regulations
■ No policy changes related to floodplain development
Chapter 19.07 ECDC
o Questions from Council about Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance
o Staff reviewed most recent model ordinance
o Chapter 19.07 ECDC reflects changes from interim ordinance
■ 19.07.020 Additional Definitions
■ 19.07.025 Administration
■ 19.07.030/.040 Reconstruction
■ 19.07.065 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas
■ 19.07.095 General Requirements for Other Development
■ 19.07.110 Variance
+ Next steps
o Interim ordinance expires after six months (12/2/20
o Council review
■ Public hearing October 20, 2020
Mr. Lien said the packet includes the Planning Board minutes as well as two comments that were received.
Notice was provided to all property owners in the new floodplain area in the FIRM prior to the Planning
Board public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the majority of this was a mandate. Mr. Lien answered if the City wants
to remain in the NFIP, which allows properties within the floodplain to buy insurance, yes it is mandated
in that way. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was very detailed and very complex.
Councilmember Olson said she had had a discussion with Mr. Lien on a couple things. The things that made
the least sense to her were the language that was provided verbatim from the federal program.
CoU1jrihnamher K Tnhngnn asked Mr. T ;. t^ lam: , I,,,.,, +1,- r;� , A 4-ti,. ni, nn-*-- T-3-- A a 1__
.. -PI—ll'.VVV LL., li1Ly aI U LI)G 1 IQLllMg L)UMU 111LUIPICLCU HIC
model floodplain ordinance and what parts were incorporated and what parts were left out. Mr. Lien
answered the model floodplain ordinance applies to all types of flood hazard areas such as floodplains,
floodways and shallow flood areas. Since Edmonds does not have floodways or shallow flood areas, they
were not included.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she noticed building were required to be three feet above the flood hazard
area. She asked what the requirement were for development and redevelopment in the waterfront area other
than that. Mr. Bjorback said Councilmember K. Johnson might be referencing the two -foot elevation
difference needed for the lowest floor level above the base flood elevation (BFE). In the waterfront area,
the Waterfront Center for example, the minimum was two feet, but they elected to go three feet to provide
additional protection against future flooding. The ordinance under consideration is a minimum of two feet
for raised construction.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that was the only thing considered. She was trying to understand how
flood areas in the waterfront would be protected, how to deal with redevelopment, and how to protect the
City from paying for very expensive armoring and flood control measures in the future, all aspects of the
model flood ordinance. Mr. Lien answered the ordinance deals with construction within the floodplain.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 16
There are other City codes that address floodplain management such as frequently flooded areas in the
critical area code, the building code, as well as sections in the Shoreline Master Program that address not
allowing development that will require future protection. This is just one piece of it; it is not a policy call,
it is building code for structures in the floodplain.
Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated the answer but said she has a larger problem with construction and
reconstruction in a known floodplain which seemed like very poor planning. Mr. Lien answered there is a
section in the model ordinance that deals with development and redevelopment related to substantial
development which is new construction or an addition to an existing structure that is more than 50% of its
value, that development has to comply with this ordinance. This ordinance doesn't prevent development
but prevents damage to structures should a flood occur.
10. ACTION ITEMS
1. EDMONDS CARES FUND ORDINANCE SECOND AMENDMENT
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty thanked Councilmembers who
submitted questions in advance. He explained the City Council approved Ordinance 4189 accepting
Edmonds' allocation of federal CARES Act funds and establishing the Edmonds Cares Fund with three
programs:
1. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants: $300,000 (supplemented by $150,000 from other City
funds) for a total of $450,000
2. Small Business Support Grants: $700,000
3. City Expenditures: $265,100
TOTAL: $1,265,100
All three programs are under way, expenses are being incurred, and invoices are in process to the State
Department of Commerce for reimbursement of corresponding CARES Act funds.
Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants
A report was provided to Council today. With substantially upgraded public outreach, and the recently
Council -approved ability to offer more than one grant to a qualifying household (Ordinance 4195), 234 new
applications were received in September, up from 164 in June, 62 in July, and 145 in August. These
increased applications volumes are anticipated to continue over the next two months.
Small Business Support Grants
Of 145 valid applications received, grants have been offered to 90 businesses for a total of $697,500.
City Expendihu•es
Current estimates for City expenditures to date and through November 30"', related to COVID-19 response,
are approximately $440,000. Up to $211,650 of that total may be FEMA-eligible, leaving approximately
$228,350 to be covered by CARES Act funds. As such, 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/invoice deadline was moved back to 11/30/20 (from the initial 10/31/20 deadline).
In order 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 $130,000.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 17
Small Business Support Grants. Increase this fund by $430,000.
Edmonds Food Bank. Provide an additional $35,000 to the Food Bank.
LEAP scholarships. Provide scholarships to qualifying, lower -income and disadvantaged
households for participation in the LEAPS program, funded by up to $37,550 (revised from $97,550
due to potentially lower participant rate). The $60,000 reduction was split between the Housing
and Supplemental Relief Grants and Small Business Support Grants.
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.
The draft ordinance amends Ordinance 4189 (as recently amended by via Ordinance 4195) to reflect all of
the above -cited program changes.
• Section 1 is amended to reflect the additional funds allocated to Edmonds from the CARES Act,
new total $1,897,650
■ Section 3 is amended to allow 10% flexibility in the funding of each of the Edmonds Cares Fund
programs
• Section 4(B) is amended to add $130,000 to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, for a
total of $430,000.
• Section 4(C) is amended to add $430,000 to the Business Support Grant Program, for a total of
$1,130,000. And at subsection (c) the eligibility criterion regarding the date a business must have
been in business at least on year's duration is changed from April 1st to October 1st.
• Section 4(D) is added to allocate $35,000 to the Edmonds Food Bank, $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
• Section 4(E) is added to allocate $37,550 to the LEAP program with funding allocated to provide
"reduced or free tuition to scholarship funding for full or partial registration fees to Edmonds
households of low-income or hardship situations to help them enroll their school -aged children in
LEAP"
Mr. Doherty advised it was decided to open the Small Business Support Grants to new applications in
addition to the applications already received that have not been awarded. He recalled a question about the
r_r._.�.--- -r'-
ucin,rtion o, low income and said a sentence could be added to Account E regarding LEAP that states,
"Low-income households shall be defined as eligible for the Edmonds School District free or reduced meal
program."
Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format, with each
Councilmember asking one question during their turn.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Account E on packet page 267 that states $97,550 is for designated
LEAP but in tonight's presentation, Mr. Doherty indicated it was only $37,550, a $60,000 difference. She
asked which wasthecorrect amount. Mr. Doherty said in discussions today and in estimating the sign-ups
for LEAP, it was felt $97,500 would overshoot the need. A change was offered tonight to allocate $37,550
for LEAP and reallocate the $60,000 as $30,000 to business grants and $30,000 to household grants.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Ms. Feser's proposal was that LEAP would be a self -funding program
where the total tuition would cover low-income households. If $37,550 was being added to the program,
she asked if that reduced the overall cost for non -low-income households. Parks & Recreation and Cultural
Services Director Angie Feser said daycare is eligible under CARES funding so some of the funds are being
used to build up the scholarship fund and offer full scholarship for any household that meets the Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 18
School District (ESD) free or reduce meal program as well as reduce the registration fee from $300 to $150.
The additional funds benefited the program and reduced the reliance on paid registrations. Councilmember
K. Johnson commented that was excellent, recalling the initial expectation was 25 subsidized students and
asked if that number had increased as a result of the CARES funding. Ms. Fester answered the second
funding allows up to 35 full scholarships per week.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this will assist people who need the support. She assumed
the administration would continue reaching out to those who have not received grants including businesses,
families and whoever else who needs assistance. She noted a number of businesses have closed on Highway
99 and a number of people for whom English is not their first language have received support.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the amendment in Section 3 to allow 10% flexibility for
administration, noting it would exceed the Mayor's $100,000 in the purchasing policy. She will make an
amendment to change "should not exceed 10%" to add "or $100,000." Mr. Doherty said there is a general
purchasing policy that give the Mayor authority to contract up to $100,000. In the current proposal, the
highest value account is $1,130,000; if a full 10% were moved into another account it would be $113,000
which would be over the amount allowed by the policy. In creating the ordinance, the Council has the ability
to state for this express purpose, the Mayor has the authority to exceed that amount. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday said the $100,000 that has been referenced applies to mayoral authority to contract for goods and
services acquired by the City and is not applicable to this situation except for possibly the A Account related
to City expenditures. As far as reallocating money from one account, that is not contracting and is more
akin to budgeting.
Councilmember Olson said she liked the proposed definition of low income, recalling she recommended
including a definition of low income so that the ordinance was as clear as possible. She also had concern
about the word "hardship" because it is open to interpretation and too loose. She suggested the City did not
want such a loose word in the ordinance and suggested further defining what is a hardship and who makes
that decision. She was concerned it could be subject to abuse and that there could be concerns with regard
to how the money was spent. She proposed removing the word "hardship" and invited Councilmembers to
provide input regarding how to make it more enforceable or defined.
Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated that the Small Business Support Grants were opened to new
applicants, recalling the Council heard from three business owners during Public Comments about that
topic. With regard to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Grants, she recalling there was concern that not
all the funds could be granted, but the increased outreach had resulted in an increased number of applicants.
With regard to the LEAP scholarship, she asked if the 10% flexibility could be used to add funds to the
LEAP scholarships if the need increased. Mr. Doherty answered yes.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson and Mr. Doherty for their work on this.
Councilmember Paine referred to the proposed supplemental language regarding the definition of low that
was related to eligibility for ESD free and reduced lunch program and wanted to ensure that would apply
to families who did not attend ESD but qualified for free or reduced according to the ESD guidelines or
Title 1 qualifications. Mr. Doherty answered that was the intent, that they qualify conceptually based on
the ESD criteria versus have qualified. Councilmember Paine wanted to ensure people understood they do
not have to attend ESD schools to qualify.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section D on packet page 267 related to providing $35,000 to the
Edmonds Food Bank, reiterating her full support for providing $35,000 to the food bank for food but did
not want $15,000 to go toward capital or administrative support as that was not meeting the needs of people.
It may meet the needs of the food bank but it was not food. She requested Mr. Doherty bring back that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 19
change. Mr. Doherty said there needed to be direction from the full Council. The food bank believes their
funding requests far an automated ordering system for delivery service will help theirs get the food out more
quickly to avoid perishables going bad and responding to the increasing demand. While those requests are
not food, they help get Food to those in need more assuredly fresh, quickly and efficiently. With regard to
the shelving for the van, it will allow them to put more food in the van and distribute more food to the
community via fewer trips. Councilmember K. Johnson understood that was the food bank's desire, but it
was not food and did not meet the needs as defined in the CARES Act.
Council President Fraley-Monillas wanted to ensure the $35,000 was used for food for Edmonds citizens
and not food for non -Edmonds citizens. She was interested in feeding the hungry that live within the City.
Mr. Doherty said the contract with each agencies including food bank specifies the recipients are only
Edmonds residents. When agencies are not sure about addresses, City staff has helped them determine
whether applicants are in the Edmonds city limits.
r
k-ounciimember Olson expressed concern with businesses surviving this economic environment and with
the jobs those businesses provide for citizens. She was concerned about taking money from the Small
Business Support Grants and wanted businesses to receive the funds to the extent the demand exists. She
requested the 10% flexibility be in the spirit of using the funds, but when there was demand in the originally
allocation and the amounts agreed to by the Council, that the funds be used in that manner.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND AMENDING ORDINANCES 4189 AND
4195, RELATED TO THE EDMONDS CARES FUND.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON,
TO AMEND SECTION 3 REGARDING 10%, "UNDER THE MAYORS DIRECTION, IF THE
ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF RESPONSIVE
APPLICATIONS OR ELIGIBLE EXPENSES IN ANY ACCOUNT DESCRIBED IN SECTION 41 TO
ALLOWIT TOEXPEND THE FULL.AMOUNTAUTHORIZED HEREIN THE ADMINISTRATION
SHALL HAVE THE FULL AUTHORITY TO REALLOCATE FUNDS AMONG THE ACCOUNTS,
PROVIDED THAT IF THE AUTHORITY TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM ONE ACCOUNT
(THE SOURCE ACCOUNT) TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT (THE RECEIVING ACCOUNT) SHALL
NOT EXCEED TEN PERCENT OF THE SOURCE ACCOUNT ALLOCATION SET FORTH IN
SECTION 4 BELOW."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council had more work to do than could be accomplished in
the next 30 minutes. She did not want to meet for five hours.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this limits the 10% to only forecasts of insufficient applicants or could
the administration also make the decision if there were more applicants for LEAP. Councilmember
Distelhorst answered his intent and understanding was that would still be allowed as the intent was to
expend the full amount authorized. It does not say from which account it needs to be expended and could
be from any of the accounts. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the amendment said up to $100,000.
Councilmember Distelhorst answered it maintained shall not exceed 10%.
Councilmember L. Johnson said if the motion referenced insufficient applicants but also retained shall not
exceed 10%, there was the potential for leaving money on the table. She asked if removing the reference to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 20
10% would better fit the goal. Mr. Doherty said the administration proposed what was thought to be a
reasonable, modest amount to allow flexibility without going back to Council in the short time remaining.
If the Council wishes, the flexibility percentage could be increased; there was nothing magical about 10%.
Councilmember L. Johnson said her concern was not with the original 10%, but with the amendment saying
if insufficient applicants are forecast, having the flexibility to make transfers sooner rather than later. Mr.
Doherty responded it was very unlikely there would be an insufficient number of applicants for the business
grants. Even before accepting new applications, there were already enough applications to give all the
money away. Based on the current rate, he expected to give away $400,000+ of the total $580,000 with the
existing application pool and anticipated reaching the total funds allocated. However, it was possible in
early November there may not be enough applicants for the housing grants, and funds could be moved to
the housing grants or elsewhere such as the food bank. The total in the housing grants is $580,000 so he did
not anticipate reaching the 10% in either that or the business grant program. He said the 10% was more of
a failsafe, he did not anticipate needing it.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked it was needed, would there be time to come to Council to remedy it. Mr.
Doherty said he did not know as it was unknown when the final reckoning would occur. He referenced the
section Councilmember Paine originally added to the ordinance about PPE. Councilmember Paine clarified
her addition to the ordinance was to use any unexpended funds to purchase PPE for distribution as needed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas advised there are three more Tuesdays between now and the end of
October and the funds need to be used by the end by November. If there is an expectation that funds will
not be expended, she was confident Mr. Doherty would bring them to Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson advised the CARES Act period ends November 30. Mr. Doherty agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said that leaves seven more weeks.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND D ON PAGE 267 OF THE PACKET,
ALLOCATE $35,000 TO THE FOOD BANK, AND DELETE THE $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. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mr. Doherty asked if the Council wanted to propose a definition of low income.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO DELETE "LOW INCOME" PRIOR TO "EDMONDS" AND ADD THE SENTENCE, "LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SHALL BE DEFINED AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT FREE OR REDUCED MEAL PROGRAM."
Councilmember Olson asked if there was any interest in defining hardship or if that word should be removed
in its entirety via an amendment to this amendment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem using the ESD qualifications for low income.
She suggested adding in addition to low income, "below low income." Councilmember Olson accepted that
as part of her amendment.
Ms. Feser said the reason "hardship" was included was to handle potential one-off situations such as a
family with one person working who knows they will lose their job at the end of the month but as of the
date they register, they do not qualify for the ESD free or reduced meal program. She wanted to have the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 21
leniency to allow that household to put a child or children into the program. She noted things are changing
so rapidly with COVID and the phases and she anticipated that would continue through the end of the year.
The intent of the hardship language was to provide enough flexibility for the director to approve or consider
one-off situations.
Councilmember K. Johnson said that made sense and the hardship language would allow discretion to deal
with a family with students that needed to be considered.
Councilmember Olson said to expect scrutiny on how hardship is used and ensure decisions will stand up
to that scrutiny.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Doherty wanted to ensure it was clear the Council was approving the ordinance as presented tonight,
not the ordinance in the packet and as amended tonight. Mr. Taraday suggested toward that end, Account
E be read in its entirety with that amendment. Mr. Doherty read, "Account " B" shall be the "Edmonds
Learning and Activities Program (LEAP) Scholarship Support Program" account into which $37,550 of the
CARES Act funding shall be allocated to provide scholarship funding for full or partial registration fees to
Edmonds households of low income, below low income, or hardship situations to help them enroll their
school age children in LEAP. Low income household shall be defined as eligible for the Edmonds School
District free or reduced meal program."
MAIN MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED TONIGHT AND AS AMENDED
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREI• ETNSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM
"NEIGIIBORI4.00D COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM
DENSITY."
Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained this is a continuation of the public hearing held on September
22, 2020 for two properties located in the Perrinville area. The proposal is to change the Comprehensive
Plan map designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi Family —Medium Density." This a Type
'A"' legislative decision. Based on the findings in the Staff Report, staff recommended approval. The
Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approve the proposal. The City Council held a public
hearing on September 22, 2020 and voted to continue the public hearing until October 6, 2020.
Mr. Shipley reviewed:
■ Four review criteria for evaluating Comprehensive Plan amendments:
l . Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest?
2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City?
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city?
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the
anticipated land use development?
• What is the difference between "lot coverage" and "impervious surface calculations?"
o "Lot coverage" is defined as "the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a
site..."
* Structures are defined as something permanently affixed to the ground over 3 feet in height
o Maximum lot coverage allowed by zoning designation
Zoning Designation
I Maximum Lot Covera e
All sin le famil zones (RS)
35%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 22
Multi -family zones (RM) 45%
Business Neighborhood BN I None
o "Impervious surface" is defined as "a non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards
the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development."
• Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
o Land Use Element Residential goals and polices encourage:
• RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets
• Height of multi -family buildings that abut single family zones shall be similar to the height
permitted in single family zones.
- Maximum height allowed
RM zone - 30 feet
RS zone - 25 feet
■ Good design practices that preserve natural surroundings
- Preliminary site plan shows: 40% impervious surface coverage and 60% landscaped or
undisturbed areas and leaving the slope untouched
o Commercial goals and polices encourage:
■ Parcels of land planned or zoned for commercial use but are identified as inappropriate for
commercial use should be rezoned.
- Land was rezoned for commercial use in 1962 and has never developed
- Additionally, the site sits approx. 8' above street level, making it difficult for visibility
necessary for commercial use.
o Housing goals and policies
■ Provide for a variety of housing types that respect the established character and land use
policies that provide for a mixture of housing types and densities which addresses the
missing middle housing type
Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City
o What we heard: Concerns about health of Perrinville watershed
o Issue: Sedimentation and channeling of creek has led to declining quality of habitat.
• Caused by past development practices.
• Updated stormwater requires projects of a certain size to prove infeasibility of low -impact
development (LID) best management practice (BMP) methods with the objective of.
- Minimizing degradation of surface water quality;
- Minimizing degradation of groundwater quality;
- Avoiding damage to adjacent or downstream properties.
■ Reminder: The subject site can currently be developed by -right with either commercial or
detached single family, two uses that could be more detrimental to the critical areas on site
than what is being proposed.
• Geotech letter confirms that the soils on the site are suitable for infiltration.
■ Proposal avoids grading of the hillside
• Closing
o Staff finds the proposal meets the criteria as established by ECDC 20.00.050, and recommends
approval.
o Planning Board concurs with staff s assessment and also recommended approval.
o If a motion is made to not approve the proposal, please specifically state which criterion the
proposal does not meet.
Hans Korve, applicant, DMP Engineering, said he had a 20 minute presentation but would attempt to
condense it due to time constraints. He referenced the neighborhood context map, recalling key points by
the Housing Commission such as housing should be located around transit and commercial uses which their
project is, that more affordable housing options as well as less expensive housing types should be provided
without changing the character of the community. Their project does all of those; it provides fee -simple
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 23
home ownership in a more compact housing type that leaves the majority of the project site untouched. He
pointed out this is not a choice between development or no development; a lot of the comments seem to
indicate the public wants this left as an undeveloped site. If the Comprehensive Plan rezone is not adopted,
the client will go back to their single family development option which will impact a greater amount of the
site, impact the hill to a greater extent and eliminate the trees on the hill.
Mr. Korve referenced the Neighborhood Concept Exhibit, explaining their proposal impacts the minimum
amount of hillside and trees, the vast majority of larger trees on the slope are left undisturbed. One of the
issues raised was infiltration; a geotech letter has been provided that specifies permeable pavement is
possible on the site. He paraphrased a public comment that townhomes would put water into a pipe and
shove it down the hillside, commenting that was untrue. Permeable pavement can be applied to a single
family or retail project, it is a matter of soil, not the development type. However, if a public street with a
cul-de-sac is constructed, public streets are not allowed to be permeable pavement, a private drive for a
townhouse project can be permeable.
Mr. Korve referred to his September 25"' letter regarding the 2015 flow reduction study the City
commissioned that found in Reach 1 of Perrinville Creek, the area where this project is located, the stream
bank is in a pre -modified stage and has no erosion. Many of the comments at the first public hearing were
in regard to water gushing into the creek and causing erosion. He said that would not happen; there is an
existing stormwater system and whatever is not infiltrated on their project will be collected on site and
released at a predevelopment rate per the adopted stormwater manual.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of clarification, whether this person was restricted to the
three minute public comment or was responding to staff s presentation. Mr. Shipley advised Mr. Korve is
the applicant. At the public hearing, he was included in public comments and was not able to make a
presentation about the proposed project.
Mr. Korve explained there would not be any degradation of the stream as a result of their project; the
applicable codes do not allow it. There is existing infrastructure to address stormwater via a piped system
long before it reaches the stream. He contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are no toads so
there is no toad impact. All the problems with the creek are based on 60-year old development with no
stormwater standards whatsoever. Their project will have no negative impact on the creek, erosion, toads,
or the environment because they will build to the current standards which do not allow water to gush into
rl,A terra uo o a ;i w i a .ti _w �: ._ ,_ _ :a...,
stream. He urged C.ouiicilmembers o read he iui0-1ma�ivii uc Er0viucd.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXTEND TO 11 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing,
Gayla Shoemake, Edmonds, said it was interesting to listen to the applicant because she had heard those
kinds of proposals and promises about what would happen before and very often there were problems. She
remained opposed to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan primarily because the
environmental issues have been downplayed by staff to both the Planning Board and the City Council. Now
that the environmental concerns had been publicly noted, it was clear the proposed amendment would
endanger an already fragile watershed and critical area in Perrinville and harm habitat. She noted there are
fish in area, not just toads. It would also further contribute to possible residential flooding that is already a
problem in Perrinville. She requested the City Council not approve this amendment.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a resident of the Seaview neighborhood for 25 years, stood behind the
comments he made at the September 22" d public hearing on this topic. The primarily focus of those
comments was that Council should end the practice of providing changes to the Comprehensive Plan and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 24
development codes that are not put forward by conscientious prospective consideration by the Planning
Department, Planning Board and/or Council but rather by a developer who purchased the property with full
knowledge of the development requirements and limitations and then looks for a financial windfall resulting
from a zoning change. In fact, Mr. Korve mentioned that no one was willing to develop the property due to
the expense associated with its elevation and steep slopes. He suggested that should have been considered
before the property was purchased. Mr. Korve also astonishingly expressed a complete lack understanding
of watersheds when he indicated that excessive stormwater is not an issue because Perrinville Creek is
located on the opposite side of street. Perhaps he does not understand that water flows downhill following
the path of least resistance and that removal of trees and vegetation will result in more excessive flows and
that a street does not stop flows into the creek.
Dr. Senderoff said Perrinville Creek is a salmon creek and the creek banks and habitat are being damaged
and private property downstream is already flooding during rain due to excessive stormwater. Given these
facts along with Lynnwood development activities on the east side of 76" Avenue, the City should pay
more attention to development impacts on the Perrinville Watershed, not less. It is time for a time for master
plan for the Perrinville Woods properties that recognize the watershed, taking stormwater, steep slopes,
wetlands, significant tree canopy and wildlife habitat provided by the current open space into account. Dr.
Senderoff supported the concept of addressing the missing middle in Edmonds. But just like there is a right
place and a wrong place to plant a tree, there is right and wrong place for new developments. Impacting
forested open space already limited in Edmonds that affects the watershed and salmon streams is the wrong
place. Edmonds should be protecting these areas, not expanding development into them. He quote Theodore
Roszak, "Suddenly it becomes a subversion of progress to assert the commonsense principle that
communities exist for the health and enjoyment of those who live within them, not for the convenience of
those who drive through them, fly over them or exploit their real estate for profit."
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, appreciated the Council continuing the public hearing so that environmental
issues could be brought to Councilmembers' attention. He was troubled that these same environmental
issues were not brought to Planning Board's attention when they made their recommendation to approve
the Comprehensive Plan amendment which he viewed as a flaw in the process. The background material
provided to Council includes a 14-page document regarding infeasibility criteria that can be used to justify
not using various onsite stormwater management BMPs, essentially 14 pages of excuses for developers to
not to follow stormwater protection procedures. The City has a problem getting correct stormwater
protection structures and drainage in place to protect wetlands throughout the City. That makes it clear that
whatever commitment the developer is making at this stage in the process was not likely to continue to the
end of the process.
Mr. Scordio said the current Comprehensive Plan map designation for this property should not be changed
because it could not be demonstrated that any change would be better for the habitat. This parcel is in a
critical area which has not been mentioned; critical area restrictions will considered later in development
but should be considered to ensure best management practices occur to ensure the property is not developed
in an adverse manner for the watershed under the current Comprehensive Plan map designation. This
proposal does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, environment quality goal Al and C indicate this
amendment should not be approved and it is clearly not in the public interest. It is clearly in a private
developer's interest to change the designation. The public's interest is the entire watershed and what citizens
want for this property He urged the Council to deny the proposal.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, emphasized the need for more information about the environmental implications
of development in the Perrinville Watershed. Piecemeal decisions about the area like the current proposed
change camouflage the big picture. Citizens along Perrinville Creek do not find flooding their yards
wonderful and would disagree with the 2015 engineering report that there is not erosion or bank degradation
along the creek across from the development site. Students Saving Salmon disagree the proposal is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 25
wonderful for salmon due to sediment blocking the creek. The City's report acknowledges Perrinville Creek
has been degraded over the last 60 years as a result.oF urban development and inadequate stormwater
regulations. She wanted to ensure the next 60 years did not continue that degradation. Councilmembers
should. not be asked to make a decision that impacts the Perrinville Watershed until a master plan for the
area has been created. There needs to be a separate section in the Comprehensive Plan for Perrinville due
to the sensitive nature of the area.
Mariam Gold, Edmonds, a resident in the Perrinville Watershed and on Perrinville Creek of all 19 years
of her life, said she has a vested interest. The developer's presentation on a magical lack of environmental
impact to the Perrinville Creek watershed is willfully naive of how development works in its inherent
nature. For him to act as though the development will magically have no impact on a nearby watershed
does not seem a reasonable expectation. She expressed concern with allowing this rezone to go forward
without a lot of oversight to ensure what occurs does not impact creek. There needs to be more regulation
and investigation into the impacts independent of the developer. A change from single family to a
sigfiificant increase in residential density cannot have a positive impact on the watershed. It is already a
highly stressed watershed and even small changes can have significant impacts on the function of the
watershed and stormwater runoff that plague the Perrinville Watershed. Any additional development in
such a fragile ecosystem needs to be entered into with less monetary motivation and a lot more investigation
regarding the impacts. She urged the Council to deny this proposal as it was not in the interest of the natural
ecosystems or the residents of Perrinville.
Justin Monroe, Edmonds, a lifetime Edmonds resident, said lie submitted an email to Council identifying
his concerns and asked if Councilmembers had an opportunity to read it. Mayor Nelson advised the public
hearing is an opportunity for comment, not a back and forth exchange. Mr. Monroe echoed all the previous
speakers regarding environmental concerns from the project. This neighborhood is awaiting the impact of
an additional 40-50 new townhomes in a Lynnwood project. Streets in the neighborhood are already
dangerous; Olympic View to the west is a very windy, narrow, dangerous road; 76"' Avenue to the north is
extremely narrow and dangerous with sidewalks on only one side and limited space between the sidewalk
and passing cars. Additional vehicles from the Lynnwood project as well as this proposed development will
only add to those concerns. The Perrinville intersection also needs improvement. He requested the Council
pause and not allow this rezone, and wait to see the impacts of the Lynnwood townhome project before
allowing more development. To Mr. Shipley's assertion that the property has been zoned commercially for
60 years and has not been developed so it is improperly zoned, there has been a great deal of development
in the area so commercial development may occur on that lot: He, asked the. Council to raiart this r�r�r�ncol
allow the neighborhood to absorb the already pending project and wait to see the impacts before adding
further development in the neighborhood.
Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, assumed the Planning Board would have made a different decision if they had
all the environmental information. She trusted the Council had that information to weigh in its decision.
She echoed previous requests to push the pause button on this amendment as it is putting the cart before the
horse. There are master plans for Westgate, Five Corners and Highway 99, but no master plan for an area
that is the most fragile, most damaged, and needs the most care and thoughtful consideration. The appeal
of low income and affordable housing is a big carrot, everyone wants that. As stewards of the City and
property, she requested the Council push pause. Proposals are being approved for single lots throughout the
area and she envisioned playing "whack a mole" with the problems that develop if there is not a master
plan.
Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 26
In reference to the public comments, Mr. Shipley said there is an assumption there will a huge increase in
density. The site could currently be developed with seven units; the preliminary proposal is for six units.
There is a lot of discussion about whether the stormwater system has been properly designed; the project is
not at that stage yet and other stages need to be completed before the stormwater infrastructure is designed.
Critical areas are typically addressed via a subdivision or a development proposal, this is neither of those.
Housing, particularly housing diversity, is in the public interest and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. This step in the process is the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan map change. If approved, the
applicant could apply for a rezone and then submit a development proposal which would go through design
review and a building permit application. There are several stages of review that are not being considered
by the public. Stormwater can and will be addressed at the appropriate time; it is not feasible for a developer
to design the system before they know whether the development type will be allowed.
Mr. Korve said he understood everyone's passion for protecting the creek. Everyone assumes the applicant
has nefarious intent which is not the case. They worked with staff to develop something they thought would
be acceptable. To the inference that the Planning Board lacked information and that now that secret was
out, he pointed out the Planning Board had exactly the same information that was presented to the City
Council. Other than one board member, they were happy with the presentation and addressing the idea of
missing middle including one board members who wanted to know when she could move into the project.
There was opposition at the Planning Board, but they addressed the opposition. One adjoining neighbor to
the north whose backyard abuts the property changed his mind and now supports the project. The proposal
is not intended to degrade the environment but to live within it. The proposal is to build six townhomes
next to shopping which the Comprehensive Plan supports so that residents can walk to services instead of
driving.
Mr. Korve explained this a small project with a new sidewalk removed from 76"' with trees on both sides
creating a boulevard in front of the project. This will be an improvement in the neighborhood, it will be
hidden by trees and 8 feet above the street level. He anticipated when it was complete, it would not be
visible from the street. He urged the Council to look at their concept sketch. He was unclear about the
reference to a 14-page document, explaining the stormwater manual does not allow them get out of
anything. The project will go through an arduous process of stormwater design to meet the currently adopted
standards that are applicable across the state. This project will meet Ecology standards or it will not be
approved.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Shipley's comment that this meets the City's goals and
asked how it met the City's goals related to low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley answered
this will be market rate housing. It provides other housing options and a more diverse range of housing
options, but it is not a subsidized project. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how it was a more
diverse range of housing. Mr. Shipley said adding townhomes instead of single family homes diversifies
the range of housing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how that how diversified the range of
housing. Mr. Shipley said if someone did not want to take care of a yard, a townhome was a great option.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the difference in cost between single family and townhomes. Mr.
Shipley said the proposal is not to build more units than is currently allowed. Townhomes can share walls
and do not require construction of full streets so there are cost savings in development. Council President
Fraley-Monillas said it does not respond to the low income or low, low income housing that is needed in
Edmonds. The report refers to missing middle housing, but that is not where the City is struggling, the
struggle is with low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley said there are no programs to
promote affordable housing in Perrinville. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there could be. Mr.
Shipley answered maybe, but the City has not done that.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 27
Councilmember Distelhorst observed based on the current zoning, this not open space or public space, this
is a privately owned property and could be developed in two different manners if an applicant applied
tomorrow. Mr. Shipley agreed and said that was likely the route the property owner would take, developing
it with single family homes, if this was not approved. The approach the applicant has proposed is more
environmentally sensitive; everyone is talking about the environment, but are talking across each other.
Councilmember Paine recalled Mr. Shipley was unable to complete his sentence about lot coverage and
impervious surface percentages during his presentation. Mr. Shipley said he wanted to clarify the difference
between those; lot coverage for single family development is 35% and 45% for multifamily development.
The site is currently zoned BN which has no lot coverage maximum.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought this up two weeks ago, why hasn't the City done a
Perrinville master plan when master plans have been done in other areas and in her opinion, Perrinville was
just as important as Five Corners, Westgate, Firdale, and Highway 99. Ms. Hope said budgets are set for
subarea plans; there is actually only one full subarea plan and that is for Highway 99. Some work was done
for Five Corners but it was never completed. There was a code change for Firdale, but there is no subarea
plan. There are no subarea plans for most of the City.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
EXTEND TO 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ms. Hope was not with the City when the Firdale Plan was done;
there was also a form based plan for Westgate and the plan for Five Corners was not completed. She may
be using the wrong terminology or Ms. Hope may misunderstand what she was saying about master
planning the area because it is an important business area. Ms. Hope said there was no plan, only zoning
code changes.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City did do a master plan for Firdale and development at Firdale
was approved but the property owners backed out. She recalled building heights on the back side of Firdale
were up to 6-7 stories. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that no planning had been done for the
Perrinville area. Some say this proposed change is a benefit to the City but she only sees benefit to the City
of housing for low income or low, low income people and $1400/month for a studio was not low income
or even market rate at this point. She was not saying this area in Perrinville had to be identified for low
income housing, but it was another missed opportunity to create low or low, low income housing. Changing
the laws in Perrinville to allow this development caused her angst considering nothing was being done to
provide the level of housing that was needed. The missing middle is not the problem in Edmonds; it is low
income and low, low income.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed the Council was discussing this specific change because that is the
application, not because the City was initiating it to provide a certain type of housing. Mr. Shipley agreed
the property owner initiated this Comprehensive Plan change, not the City.
Councilmember L. Johnson recalled hearing the term press pause during the public hearing and asked what
that would mean. Mr. Shipley said the proposal needs to be evaluated based on the current codes. If we see
something we don't think fits with what we would like to see there, we can't press pause and change the
code, that could open the City to lawsuits. Councilmember L. Johnson assumed pressing pause meant
waiting for a more comprehensive plan for the Perrinville area. She asked his opinion on what would happen
if that was done in this case. Mr. Shipley said the site would probably move forward with a subdivision for
seven single family homes which is currently allowed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 28
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had it with piecemealing and thanked everyone who had contacted
her. She was interested in an emergency ordinance that would put a moratorium on any development in
heavily forested areas such as pocket forests and critical areas until the tree code was in place. The tree
code and the housing code are due in a couple months. In the last four years, she was aware of seven pocket
forests that have been razed for construction of houses. The Council needs to take control and speak on
behalf of the environment. The Council waited three years for the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
and are now waiting for the tree code. She was interested in doing something to press pause, noting
emergency ordinances and moratoriums have been done in the past and it is time to do it now. She has had
this conversation with Ms. Hope and Mr. Taraday and Mayor Nelson was copied.
Councilmember K. Johnson said on the face of it, this looks like an interesting proposal. However,
considering all the other plans that are nearing completion such as the housing plan and the tree code and
the environmental concerns, it seems appropriate to remand this back to the Planning Board to consider all
the public comments and to make a determination after the tree code and housing plan are presented. Ms.
Hope said that may be a question for the City Attorney; state law directs the City to look at existing
regulations and if something is incorrect, it is docketed for future correction. Projects are entitled to be
considered under the existing requirements.
Mr. Taraday explained according to the code, the Council choices on an application such as this are to
consider the recommendation and subsequently approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the
proposed amendment based on the findings required by the chapter. The code does not provide an option
for remand. If the Council determines the application meets the findings required under Chapter 20.00.050,
the application should be approved. If the Council determines it does not meet those findings, the Council
should not approve it. If the absence of a master plan is the Council's primary concern, an applicant is
always free to reapply in subsequent years if a master plan is ever presented. He pointed out under that
criteria, no one in this area would be able to successfully apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A
Comprehensive Plan amendment is a legislative decision, not quasi-judicial, even though the code directs
that certain findings need to be made. The Council cannot be forced to approve a Comprehensive Plan
amendment that they think doesn't meet the test of what's appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested not making a decision tonight due to late hour. Public testimony has
been provided and she wanted an opportunity to carefully consider what everyone contributed including
the applicant's information and what she learned tonight from Mr. Shipley.
Councilmember Paine commented the Council has received a lot of public comments on this topic. It is
time to make a decision and she did not support postponing a decision.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO DENY IT.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not believe the proposed amendment satisfied review criteria #4, Is the
proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? Consideration hasn't been
given to the fact that it is a business area with Lynnwood on one side and Edmonds on the other side, there
isn't a good master plan for the area, she has received a large number of comments, and she was interested
in doing a moratorium until codes were in place. She felt the proposed amendment was detrimental to the
public interest, health and safety.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order whether the Council should vote tonight when a
Councilmember asked for time to review the information. She asked whether the Council should vote on
whether to give that Councilmember the time they requested to digest what they heard. Mayor Nelson
answered there is a motion on the floor; the Council will first take action on that and if they disagree with
the motion, they can vote accordingly.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 29
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to withdraw the motion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said until there is process developed for the Perrinville area, she was
unwilling to give up something just because someone wanted it. She suggested the same process that was
used for Highway 99, Westgate and Firdale, commenting the only area where that process did not occur
was Perrinville. She was particularly interested in looking at the area as a whole and developing a plan for
development because it involved streams, fish, trees and many other issues.
Councilmember Olson thanked the citizens for their thoughtful comments, commenting she has learned a
lot. She supported a master plan for Perrinville, but there was no plan for that and it was not included in the
proposed 2021 budget and it was likely not something the Council could make a budget priority. What was
a budget priority was restoring the health of that watershed. She supports that commitment, including it in
the budget and considered it a top priority and will do everything in her power to ensure that funding remans
in the 2021 budget. She researched this agenda item exhaustively and she was satisfied that the
environmental impact from the project was equal to or less than the development opportunity that is already
available to the property owner and that it is otherwise a greater community benefit than the commercial
development that likely will not happen or the single family development that probably will happen. If the
Council was not willing move forward on any development proposal, it is unethical for the City to be taking
applications with no intention of approving them due to concerns with the environment. If that is true, the
Council should absolutely do an emergency moratorium to take the opportunity for applications to vest off
the table.
Councilmember Paine appreciated the thoughtful discussion from everyone over the last two weeks. The
competing needs of the environment and the need for entry level housing stock are troublesome. She did
not see approving with modifications as an option as there were no modifications supported by the code to
suggest or impose. If that was an option, she would like to hear about it. This area has large lots, and the
last thing she wanted to see was 2, 3 or 7 single family residences on this property which was currently
allowed without any Comprehensive Plan change. She asked if there were any modifications that the
Council could offer, if not, the Council was stuck with approval or disapproval. Ms. Hope said she did not
see any potential modification, the question was whether to change the Comprehensive Plan designation or
not. Mr. Shipley agreed; it is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, he was uncertain what modification
could be made at this stage. In the next stage, a rezone, modifications could potentially be made such as a
contract rezone.
Councilmember Paine asked if the next stage would come to Council. Mr. Shipley said it would. Ms. Hope
said the zoning designation would come to the Council and the Council would have a couple of choices
including a contract rezone but that was a special process and not something that was typically done. Once
it gets to the project stage, conditions would apply related to critical area protections, stormwater, etc.
Sometimes it difficult to sort out whether the concern is related to what is truly best for the environment
such as can it remain open space forever. That is not likely so the question is whether one designation is
environmentally better than another, whether one designation provides for other needs in the community
and another does not. She agreed it was a legislative decision and a balancing act.
Councilmember Paine asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan change, could the property
owner proceed with seven single family homes without coming to the Council. Mr. Shipley explained if the
applicant did not pursue a rezone, the zoning remains as is and the property could be developed with single
family homes. Approving the Comprehensive Plan map change keeps the options open and allows further
exploration of the environmental concerns. The rezone as well as a formal plat would come back to City
Council before anything was developed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 30
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it is 11:22 p.m. and the Council has been meeting until 6:00
p.m. and it very late to be making such a drastic decision.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND OLSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE REST OF THE AGENDA ITEMS TO THE WEEK AFTER NEXT
DUE TO THE LATE HOUR AND NEXT WEEK IS COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO SET THESE TWO ITEMS TO NEXT WEEK AND HAVE A
SPECIAL MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
Councilmember Olson suggested taking the public hearing comments and only delay the vote since
members of the public have been present for hours. Keeping people up until 11:30 p.m. without resolution
was inconsiderate. Mayor Nelson advised the Council had already voted to table the issue. Councilmember
Olson clarified she was referring to the agenda item regarding properties on 9"' Avenue.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the two items that would be moved to next week
were 10.4 and 10. 5 and Item 10.3 was tabled indefinitely. As Council President Fraley-Monillas was
experiencing technical difficulties, Mr. Taraday said that was his understanding of Council President
Fraley-Monillas' motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her intent.
At Councilmember K. Johnson's request, Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
TO MOVE ITEMS 10.4, CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" AND 10.5, SET
PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184TH STREET SW STREET VACATION, TO A SPECIAL MEETING
NEXT WEEK.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES BECAUSE THERE ARE APPOINTMENTS THAT
NEED TO BE ANNOUNCED.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out there was a motion on the floor to extend the meeting. Mr. Taraday
advised a motion to adjourn takes precedence over the motion on the floor and is not debatable.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES.
MOTION TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 31
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM
"SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN l" FOR TWO
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 530 AND 522 - 9T" AVE. N. (Previously Item 10.4..}
This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item
10.2
4. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184T" STREET SW STREET VACATION(Previously Item
10.5)
This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item
10.2
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson relayed the curbside dining program for downtown restaurants has been very successful.
Staff is working on long term provisions for the code that will be presented to the Council for consideration
and public comment. The existing special permit expires October 11 "; therefore he is extending the curbside
dining program to November 8"' to ensure there isn't a gap between the curbside dining allowed by the
special permit and the ordinance that will be presented to Council in approximately 30 days.
Mayor Nelson announced the following appointments:
• Economic Development Commission
o Charlene Lieu, Position 1, term expiring 3/31/22
o Carrie Hulbert, Position 2, term expiring 3/31/21
• Youth Commission
o Brooke Rinehimer
o Alternates: Zane Marulitua and Aaron Nateephaisan
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis announced she appointed Grace Kamila to the Youth Commission. She advised
the budget is available online. Anyone interested in obtaining a hardcopy can contact Finance Director
Dave Turley.
Councilmember L. Johnson announced she appointed Firm Paynich to the Youth Commission.
Council President Fraley-Monillas announced she appointed Brooke Roberts to the Youth Commission
Councilmember Distelhorst announced he appointed Hunter DeLeon to the Youth Commission.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 32
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at. 1 1,37 p.m.
MJKHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
Edmo«ds City Council Approved Millili'm
Ociober 6, 2020
Page 33
Public Comment for 10/6/20 Council Meeting:
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:39 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Agenda, Action Item 10.4
Council,
Please deny Item 10.4.
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban
1"
In a LTE in myedmondsnews:
https:llm edmondsnews.com 2020 10 letter-to-the-editor-no-s ecial-favors-for-
homeowners-when-changing-the-comprehensive-plan-mapl#comment-265465
The following is stated:
"On August 26, 2020, the Planning Board voted overwhelmingly (6 to 1) to DENY a proposal to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two lots on 9th Avenue between Glen and
Daley, after having also voted (7 to 0) to deny the same proposal for the whole block."
Please honor both the Planning Board's recommendation and the concerns expressed by the
letter writers.
Given the condition of our city code, this is not the time to approve Comprehensive Plan
changes, to private property owners, to allow future development. There is not a clear public
interest to warrant doing so.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 34
<pubIiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Item 10.3. Perrinville Comprehensive Plan change request
Council,
Please deny Action Item 10. 3. Continuation of 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."
I agree completely with Joe Scordino's letter which states:
"the Council should deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been
shown to be in the Public Interest due to potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area;
and 3) it can be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to
wildlife habitat and confounding contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with
potential flooding of residences in its lower reaches."
Each Council member would best serve the citizens of Edmonds, in evaluating this and all future
requests from the planning department, by keeping in mind the following:
The Big Picture- poor code, no Urban Forestry Plan
• As Ken Reidy has repeatedly brought to council's attention, our municipal code has been
seriously in need of re -write, since 2000. Pause with that for a moment. Twenty years
have passed since serious problems with our code were identified. Tens of thousands of
dollars have been spent of l consultants, and staff hours allocated for a code re -write,
and yet it has not been accomplished.
• The city has yet to complete an Urban Forestry Plan. We have no code that specifically
protects our trees.
The Smaller/Personal Picture- the affect upon tax paying citizens
Each approved development has an effect on the environment AND on nearby property
owners.
Joe Scordino states:
"The stream's wildlife and the streamside property owners should not have to tolerate
continued and additional deterioration of the creek caused by urban development."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 35
It would be irresponsible for Council to go along with the planning department's aggressive
support for development given our poor code, the lack of an Urban Forestry Plan, and the
damage the proposed developments would do to our environment and to surrounding property
owners.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
From: joe scordino
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:58 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Comments on Agenda Item 10.3 on proposed Comprehensive Plan Change in
Perrinville Watershed
Sorry, missed including the attachment.
Here is a map from the Edmonds City GIS site showing the proximity of the parcels to Perrinville
Creek.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 36
On Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 10:40:39 AM PDT, joe scordino wrote:
This is a follow-up to my prior public comments on the proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area.
I am pleased to see that City staff have now provided additional information to the Council that
acknowledges the long-standing excess stormwater problem in the Perrinville Creek
watershed. It was a gross disservice to the Council for staff to ignore and not mention this huge
environmental issue in their previous presentation to the Council. Unfortunately, this new
-information-does-not-also- affirm- that -the parcels are -in Critical -Area -which-ECDCChapter-23.40 -
defines as "ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their
functions and values."
The SEPA checklist is still grossly inadequate and misleading relative to environmental impacts,
presence of salmon, and doesn't even affirm that the parcels are in Critical Area (it incorrectly
says the parcel is NOT within 200 feet of a stream - contrary to what the Edmonds GIS Map
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 37
shows - see attached); but, I recognize the SEPA appeal period has passed and defer to the
Council's attorney on how the Council's decision making is affected by a deficient SEPA
Checklist.
I did not send any E-Mails to Brad Shipley or to Zachary Richardson, City Stormwater Engineer,
on this topic, so I don't know what E-Mails are being attributing to me in the document in the
Council's packet (Packet page 345) - it obviously is not the public comments (Packet page 63)
that I sent the Council as part of the public hearing on September 22nd. But, nonetheless, I am
pleased that it acknowledges the severity of the excess stormwater issue in the Perrinville
watershed and provided some details of what the stormwater ordinances say. Unfortunately,
what is not emphasized is all the "loopholes" in the ordinances and BMPs that allow developers
to circumvent intended environmental protections. However, the Council meeting packet
starting on Packet page 349 does provide 14 pages of "infeasibility criteria that can be used to
justify not using various on -site stormwater management BMPs..." This is like telling a student
they must turn in homework to pass a class, and then to give them a wide -array of "authorized"
excuses they can use for not turning in their homework. Unfortunately, Mr. Richardson's
comparison of stormwater requirements for differing zoning did not take into account these
"authorized excuses" nor incentives and varying development practicalities that would affect
how much additional stormwater flows into an already "overcapacity" stormwater drain
system.
The bottom line is Council decisions on any Comprehensive Plan Amendments affecting the
Perrinville Creek watershed have to be made with an eye towards whether it might, in any
way, add -to the long-standing excess stormwater problem. The stream's wildlife and the
streamside property owners should not have to tolerate continued and additional deterioration
of the creek caused by urban development.
Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan sets forth Environmental Quality Goals that must
come into play as the Council considers if a proposed amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Quality Goal A.1 states:
Ensure that the city's natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated with its
urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future
generations.
Environmental Quality Goal C states:
Develop, monitor, and enforce critical area regulations designed to enhance and protect
environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science.
It is very troublesome that in the Agenda Item narrative for the continued public hearing, staff
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 38
added Housing goals from the Comprehensive Plan, but neglected to even mention the above
Environmental Quality goals. The minutes of the September 22, 2020 Council meeting are clear
that the continuation of the public hearing was due to Council's desire to obtain environmental
information so Council could make an informed decision on whether the proposed amendment
was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Pubic Interest - yet, the Plan's
Environmental Goals aren't even referenced. The minutes from the Planning Boards meetings
indicate they too were not appraised of the environmental issues in reaching their
recommendation to approve the proposed amendment.
It is noteworthy that one of the Planning Board members voted against recommending the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because "there is no guarantee that is the project
that will ultimately get built. T he Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan
that was presented." This point also applies to whatever the applicant is stating currently
about the development and how stormwater is treated - there is no irrevocable assurance that
the actual development will include protective measures for the Perrinville watershed. The
Planning Board minutes are also telling about the applicants personal interest, rather than
public interest, for the proposed amendment - "If the property were developed for a
commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed. This would be
quite costly." Mr. Shipley is also quoted in the Planning Board minutes as stating "the applicant
has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate that
amount of density." What is most disturbing about the staff's presentation to the Planning
Board is the lack of acknowledgment that the parcels are in a sensitive watershed AND in
Critical Area and that has special requirements for development (see Comprehensive Plan Goal
C referenced above).
A stated in my previous comments, high stormwater flows from multiple sources 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 and high flow scouring have destroyed fish habitat (coho salmon, chum salmon, and
resident cutthroat trout) and have raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek
such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Any urban
development that may adversely affect the health of the Perrinville Creek ecosystem needs to
be avoided.
So .... based on the information presented, the Council should deny the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's
Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been shown to be in the Public Interest due to
potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area; and 3) it can be detrimental to public
interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to wildlife habitat and confounding
contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with potential flooding of residences in its
lower reaches.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 39
Separately, I hope the Council will begin a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include
a separate section for the environmentally sensitive Perrinville Creek Watershed caused by
urban development.
From: dgarberson
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:19 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Mon illas@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana
<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>;
Buckshnis, Diane<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan
<Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: AMD2019-0007
We represent three properties on Glen Street and we are adamantly opposed to both proposals
in AMD2019-0007 (changing 21 parcels from 'Single Family -Resource' to 'Single Family -Urban 1'
and changing 522 and 530 91h Avenue N from 'Single -Family Resource' to 'Single Family -Urban
1'). Changing 530 9th Avenue N to 'Single Family -Urban 1' will ultimately add more traffic to
Glen Street, which is a very narrow street that cannot be widened. We believe that ingress and
egress for the proposed flag lot at 530 will end up being off Glen Street as egress on 9th Avenue
N would be too dangerous given that you cannot see cars travelling northbound down the hill
(often well over the speed limit).
We are also extremely concerned about how this issue has been presented to us by the
City. Why did the City staff propose changing 21 parcels from Single Family -Resource to Single
Family -Urban 1 when it was clear to them that it was never a viable option given the conditions
on Glen Street? We were led to believe that the issue up for discussion was changing the
designation for 21 parcels when, in fact, the issue was changing the Comprehensive Plan
designation for just the two parcels (522 and 530). We do not understand why the notification
letter we received from the City did not make it clear that there were two options up for a vote
and that City staff recommended denying the first and approving the second. Even one of the
Planning Board members pointed out during the 8/26/2020 meeting that the public was not
clear about the proposals on which the Planning Board was voting. We do not believe that full
and clear public disclosure is an unreasonable request.
The Planning Board voted to deny both proposals. We ask that you review and consider their
recommendations regarding this issue. Changing the designation for the two parcels sets a
precedent for Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes based on individual exception rather
than changes based on an established set of criteria in the best interest of the City as a whole.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 40
Richard Garberson (property owner/resident)
Doris Garberson (property owner/resident)
934 Glen Street
Silvia Heldridge (property owner/resident)
923 Glen Street
930 Glen Street
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:39 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>;
Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Confusion - Public Comments for either Mayor Mike Nelson's Proposed 2021 Budget
Address on October 5th or the City Council Meeting on October 6th
I am confused as to the surprise change to City Council's Plan (since July 2, 2020 per extended
agenda) for the Mayor's Message and Presentation of Preliminary Budget to Council to be done
during the October 6th Council Meeting. Is City Council as a whole being provided any
information during the October 5th message and presentation? Is City Council attending
the October 5th message and presentation? If so, the October 5th action may constitute a City
Council meeting.
Please consider the following Public Comments my 450-word written public comments for
either October 5th (if this is a City Council meeting) or October 6th. If the public is allowed to
make public comments on both October 5th and October 6th, please let me know promptly so I
can prepare public comments for the October 6th City Council meeting. Thank you. My public
comments follow
City of Edmonds government knows it has operated with a flawed Code for many years. This
includes the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC).
During the October 25, 2005 City Council meeting, former Development Services Director
Duane Bowman said he had been describing the need to update the zoning code since 2000.
The comment was also made that the City's Code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal
amendments made it difficult to use and administer.
In September of 2007, the former Hearing Examiner issued a written report which stated that:
Several code provisions fail to provide adequate guidance because of the use of the phrase "and
so forth," which creates ambiguities within various criteria for approval.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 41
Thirteen (13) years later, the use of the phrase "and so forth," is still found in the
City's Code. See ECDC 20.75.085.
Former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 City Attorney annual report
that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the Code Rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent
was to begin the Rewrite last year and finish it this year (2007). Mr. Snyder summarized that
the Code Rewrite was approximately a year behind schedule as of November 2007.
It is now late 2020 and the Code Rewrite is MANY years behind schedule.
The 2009-2010 Budget included the following:
Major 2009-2010 Budget Issues
Completion of the City"s Shoreline Master Plan update and the Edmonds Community
Development Code rewrite will occur in 2009-2010.
Completion of the Code Rewrite did NOT occur.
In late 2012, during the PUBLIC HEARING ON the 2013 BUDGET, I made public comment that
five years had passed since Mr. Snyder stated the intent and I questioned why the Code Rewrite
had still not been completed. I urged the Council to include the proper amount in the 2013
budget to complete the long overdue Code Rewrite from start to finish.
Over the years, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been budgeted yet here we sit with
a Code that is still flawed and has been for at least 20 years.
There was an open house in March of 2015 trumpeting the City's just -launched Code Rewrite
process — a process advertised as a major update of the City's development code. I attended
that Open House in the hope that finally the Code Rewrite would be finished. The City has a
page on its website - but I do not see any updates to this Code Rewrite website page for over
4 and a half years! The last update on that website page was in March of 2016.
Please budget for the completion of the Code Rewrite - including the ECC which is also
flawed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 42
From: cdfarmen
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:37 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: October 6th hearing on 184th St SW street vacation
Dear City Council Members,
I am requesting the hearing on October 6 regarding the street vacation to be postponed for the
following reasons.
The initial notice of public hearing sent to residents of the Seaview area said the hearing would
be about eliminating the right-of-way of 184th St SW from the official street map, not a partial
vacation of the right-of-way.
Since the original "notice of public hearing" was sent out, the council's agenda has been
changed to deal only with vacating a segment of the easterly portion of 184th St SW. The area
residents have not been notified of this change, nor have they been informed of the
landowner's reason for their request. How can anyone any interested citizen make an informed
decision without current and reliable information?
Also, I think the council should be concerned that someone may join in via zoom and start
talking about removing 184th St SW from the city official street map because they have not
been privy to the change in the council's agenda. That would create an unnecessary and
embarrassing situation for the caller.
The reasons I have just cited warrant postponing the hearing scheduled for October 6 and a
new notice of public hearing be sent out. Any new notice should include the reasons for the
street vacation requested by the landowner.
In all fairness, the concerned residents deserve sufficient and reliable information on which to
make an informed decision so they can participate in any legislative decision regarding the
landowner's vacation request.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Farmen
Seaview resident
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 43
Public Comment for Tree Board Meeting October 1, 2020
Comments provided by Darrol Haug
I spoke to the Tree Board at your March 2020 meeting. The topic was to amplify your policy of
the Right Tree in the Right Place. I was talking about examples of the Wrong Tree in the Wrong
Place. Sometimes wrong trees are ok but, in some instances, a wrong tree is dangerous to our
citizens. On your agenda tonight is the tree on Chase Bank Property at Walnut and 5th Ave S.
You have been sent some of the background information about this tree. The City contacted
the Bank at least as early as September 2019, pointing out the need to remove the tree as it
was a violation of city code.
As I commented at your March meeting, I first became aware of the violation when I ask code
enforcement for a determination in January 2020. That is not in you packet, but I can assure
you that it was determined to be a violation in January and likely back in 2019.
I will not review the other information that you have been provided but do have some
suggestions for your discussion.
1. City Code is very clear about this type of violation. Just ask staff.
2. City reached out to Chase over a year ago point out the violation and I did the same in
January.
3. Chase submitted information, the City had requested added information, Chase asked
for a 90-day extension, the extension expired, and when the City did not follow up on
the issue until I asked for and update on the issue.
4. You now see a September 22, letter to Chase re -initiating the process. This means that
more than a year has passed since the first letter to Chase. It was only in this last letter
that a fine of $100 a day was outlined.
I urge you to ask staff some questions about enforcement.
1. Why has it taken more than a year when there was no question about the violation?
2. The code seems to read that the property owner is responsible for the expense of the
sidewalk repair, why is the city paying for that repair?
3. Chase has been asked to purchase a sidewalk tree grate. The sidewalk is not very wide
in that area and already has various poles for lights and signs. Is their going to be a
replacement tree, and where will it go?
4. Will the sidewalk be widened in this area?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 44
5. The tree has damaged a patch of sidewalk directly north as well. Will that sidewalk be
repaired and at whose expense?
The bottom line is this tree has been labeled dangerous for a long time and the City has not
been as aggressive as it could have been to remove this hazard.
I would urge the Tree Board to take a stand on "Wrong Trees" when such a tree is dangerous to
our citizens.
Thank you for your time and efforts for Edmonds.
Respectfully submitted,
Darrol Haug
From: Finis Tupper
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:25 PM
To: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: September 22, 2020 Special City Council Meeting 6pm
Dear offending Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas:
Yesterday's Special Council Meeting at 6pm was conducted in violation of State and City laws.
First off, there was no Roll Call of the Councilmembers attending this Special Meeting. After the
executive session, the City Council failed to reconvene the Special Meeting which is required by
State law. You failed to announce whether any action would take place and failed to announce
if any information would be released which is in violation of City law. As the Presiding Chair of
the Special Meeting you also failed to publicly adjourn this Special Edmonds City Council
Meeting.
Are you not aware of the rules governing Special Meetings or is it that you are assuming the
City Attorney is making sure the City and State laws are being followed?
The City Councilmembers have violated the OPMA on the following dates; May 15, 2020, May
26, 2020, September 8, 2020 and September 22, 2020. The OPMA requires a civil penalty of
$500 each for the first violation and $1000.00 each for each subsequent violation of the Act for
a total of $3500.00 per councilmember.
Yours truly, Finis Tupper
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 45
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:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 6, 2020
Page 46
Is the proposal in the public interest or is it detrimental to public interest, health, safety or
welfare?
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
October 6, 2020
Page 47