Loading...
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