Cmd110220EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
November 2, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Brad Shipley, Associated Planner
Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council Special virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Council President Fraley-Monillas read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We
acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors
the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these
lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual
connection with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS C"'I"TPS:IIZOOM USIS14257752525)
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Mike Pattison, Edmonds, referenced Item 8, the proposed moratorium, urged the Council not to pass the
moratorium. Moratoriums are extremely harmful to business and this moratorium would be hurtful to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 1
affordable housing in the community. Businesses, especially during COVID, cannot go dormant and
expect to survive. The moratorium will shut businesses down and prevent them from doing business.
Homebuilders' carrying costs such as interest and other costs do not stop, the clock keeps ticking so this
is a very expensive proposition for them. Further, there is no evidence the City's existing regulations are
not working. Edmonds is well known in the building community as having some of the most stringent
regulations with regard to trees, critical areas and others and there is no need for an emergency
moratorium to address water quality issues. In fact, water quality and related issues are regulated by
stormwater and LID laws and trying to address those with tree regulations is simply misplaced. Finally,
the industry would like to work with the City and its staff and already have a good relationship with Ms.
Hope and others. He urged the City to look to other avenues instead of what they consider a rather
draconian measure of a moratorium. He offered to communicate with the City on such issues at any time.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
4. 2021 COLA ADJUSTMENT FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM
STUDY ITEMS
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised Sharon Cates and Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office,
worked on this presentation. Ms. Cates provided an update on the Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services
Agreement and recommendation for next steps:
• Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S.
o Currently working under Amendment No. 4 to the parties' 2013 Professional Services
Agreement, a one-year extension which expires December 311, 2020
o Original agreement extended four times, the last two were one-year extensions
o After the RFP process, City provided one-year extension to allow time to evaluate
performance before deciding on a longer -term agreement
o Payment under Amendment No. 4 structured with a base fee of $21,250 per month for certain
enumerated tasks
o Work outside that scope of work is extra, and billed at different hourly rates depending on the
task
o To date, the City has not been billed for work above the base fee amount for any month in
2020
• Prosecuting Attorney RFP Process
o City advertised RFP in May 2019 and received two submissions
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 2
o Proposals were evaluated by Screening Committee, headed by consultant Marilynne Beard of
MMB Consulting, during summer of 2019 (City was without an HR Director at that time)
o Committee concluded both proposers were qualified to provide services
o At the October 22, 2019 regular City Council meeting, two Councilmembers expressed
concerns about Zachor & Thomas, and Council agreed to one-year extension of the current
legal services agreement
• Proposed Areas for Improvement
o Feedback from the Court and Police Department had raised the following as areas for
improvement for Zachor & Thomas:
• Communications
■ Quality of work
■ Continuity of the prosecuting attorney appearing on behalf of the City
• Quality of supervision of newer attorneys
o With Amendment No. 4, Zachor & Thomas declined to commit Yelena Stock as the City's
named prosecuting attorney, but agreed to assign Ms. Stock and James M. Zachor as the
City's two supervising attorneys, who carry an active caseload and supervise newer attorneys
• Performance Appraisal
o City's ability to fully evaluate Zachor & Thomas' performance in 2020 has been limited
because the Covid-19 pandemic has limited court appearances this year to just a few months.
o City reached out to the following individuals for input on Zachor & Thomas' performance in
2020:
■ Judge Coburn
■ Acting Chief Lawless and Assistant Chief Anderson
IN Bob Boruchowitz, Public Defense Legal Services Assessor, and
in Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defenders Association
• Feedback on Performance
o Based on the somewhat limited opportunity to observe, the following feedback on Zachor &
Thomas' performance in 2020 was provided:
• Yelena Stock has appeared most of the time in court, has been prepared, and appears to
be providing good supervision to newer attorneys
■ Communications, case flow, charging and continuity have been smoother
• Communications with defense counsel is better, and delivery of documents requested
during discovery has improved due to Zachor & Thomas' implementation of a new
database
■ Improvement could still be made on responsiveness via email
• Staff turnover and operating short-handed are still a concern
• Additional Feedback
o Feedback provided to the City on its criminal legal services by Ms. Kyle and Mr.
Boruchowitz also addressed issues of:
■ Potential for collecting and reporting data on diversity of defendants
■ Potential for changing City's practice of "Direct Filing," which is the filing of charges by
Law Enforcement Officers without the Prosecuting Attorney first reviewing those
charges
• Potential for implementing Pre -filing Diversion Program for DWLS 3 (Driving with
License Suspended in the third degree) charges, or other possible alternatives to
prosecuting these cases
o In 2020, some Councilmembers have begun to consider a DWLS 3 diversion program
■ Recommendations for Next Steps
o Mayor Nelson's recommendations on next steps are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 3
■ Offer Zachor & Thomas another one-year extension to the 2013 Prosecuting Attorney
Legal Services Agreement, to allow the City sufficient time to assess the quality of
services provided on an ongoing basis;
■ In spring of 2021, advertise another Request for Proposals for Prosecuting Attorney
Legal Services to reassess the market for such services; and
■ Allow the City Council the opportunity in 2021, if desired, to discuss the pros and cons of
a DWLS 3 diversion program and the City's direct filing practices.
Guidance from City Council
o DWLS 3 work accounts for approximately 1/3 of Zachor & Thomas' current workload, so a
diversion program could reduce these costs by potentially $7,000 per month in base fee work
o Zachor & Thomas has stated that, if the City moves away from direct filing, it will require a
40% increase to its base fee (an increase of $8,500 per month)
o If the Council decides to implement a DWLS 3 diversion program and/or move away from
direct filing, a one-year contract extension will allow the City the opportunity to negotiate for
prosecution services that are in line with the Council's possibly changing priorities
o We are seeking City Council input and/or approval to move ahead with the Mayor's
recommendations
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to performance issues last year that have continued this year
particularly with communication. She questioned the recommendation to continue with Zachor &
Thomas, whether it was due to COVID-19 and the inability to do an RFP. Ms. Cates answered with
regard to the concerns that were shared prior to the RFP process, some have shown improvement, others
have not. The addition of Yelena Stock to their rotation has been helpful to the City and a good change,
but there is still some employee turnover at Zachor & Thomas so it seems there is not enough information
regarding how they will continue to provide good service in the future. Before committing to a longer
agreement, the Administration wants to feel more confident the services that are being provided will
remain as good as they are now and even better.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the recommendation was to give Zachor & Thomas a year
contract and then the City can look at it again. Ms. Cates agreed the recommendation was a one-year
extension of the current contract. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for a one-year
extension, recalling in the last 11 years she has been on Council, she has heard multiple times about
issues with Zachor & Thomas. She supported a more aggressive approach to conducting an RFP.
Councilmember Paine asked if staff had inquired with other cities whether they had done an RFP for
prosecuting attorney services in the past 6-12 months and what their response rate was. She was
comfortable with extending for a year, but was curious if other prosecuting attorneys were responding to
RFPs. As the City only had two responses last year, she questioned if there would be more interest in the
future. Ms. Neill Hoyson said since she has been with the City, no research had been done regarding other
cities' RFP processes for prosecuting attorney services and the responses they received. Staff could
certainly research that. Councilmember Paine acknowledged that did not address the problem of poor
communication and other issues but it would be nice to have a fulsome set of choices if the City decided
to proceed with an RFP.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to information in the presentation that if the City moves away from
direct filing, a 40% increase to the base fee (an increase of $8,500 per month) would be required. He
asked if that was based on the 100% work they were doing now or the 66% if DWLS 3 was removed. Ms.
Cates answered direct filing is handled separately from DWLS 3; a diversion program would reduce
Zachor & Thomas' workload by 1/3 and their workload increased by 40% if the City moved away from
direct filing, basically evening out the amount of work they would be doing which was the rationale for
looking at both topics at the same time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 4
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the recommendation from the Public Defenders Association to
move away from direct filing and asked if there was any more information about that. Ms. Cates
answered they mentioned it is costly from the defense and prosecution side anytime charges go into the
court system; to the extent some offenses can be moved into a program that does not require as many
touches, it can save a lot of money, and save the defense counsel time. The defense counsel has a heavy
caseload just like the prosecuting attorney and there are caseload limits, no more than 400 cases per
attorney. It would help them with an area that's fairly reliable, they know what to expect with regard to
those charges, so it's easier for them to determine how it would affect their bottom line and available
time. She noted that was related to DWLS 3.
With regard to direct filing, Ms. Cates recalled Kathleen Kyle provided some justification regarding why
direct filing was not a great idea and it was mostly to ensure the prosecutor was making the decision
about charges to be filed and it makes the defense counsel's job easier because they are working directly
with the prosecutor on those cases. She offered to follow-up with Ms. Kyle.
Councilmember Olson said she had the same question as Councilmember Distelhorst regarding direct
filing, what problems had been identified and what the Administration and/or the prosecuting attorney
saw as the value. She hoped and expected there would be a net savings from the prosecuting attorney's
contract as there would be fewer add-ons. Ms. Cates answered the contract with the prosecuting attorney
has a base rate for a large part of what they do on an ongoing basis and add-ons for different types of
things. Their base rate would need to be negotiated down to address either increasing work due to
eliminating direct fling or reducing the amount of work due to a DWLS 3 diversion program.
Councilmember Olson observed the consequences of currently doing direct filing, is the City would pay
more in the base fee by having the prosecuting attorney do it instead of directly fling, but there would
savings in the add-ons, and the expectation was a net savings for the City. Ms. Cates agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the Council reviewed this previously, then -Chief Compaan
recommended keeping the status -quo. She was glad input had been sought from Judge Coburn, Acting
Chief Lawless, Assistant Chief Anderson, Bob Boruchowitz, Public Defense Legal Services Assessor,
and Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defenders Association because in a
legislative role, the Council does not hear much about the prosecuting attorney's services. She supported
Mayor Nelson's recommendation for a one-year extension, doing an RFP and the Council discussing the
issues that Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson raised regarding direct filing. With COVID, trying to
do an RFP now would be difficult and the City should continue with the status -quo as Mayor Nelson
recommended.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to direct filing and asked the implications of allowing law
enforcement to file directly versus having the prosecuting attorney review it first and what that means for
the individuals that are charged. She sought a fuller understanding of the specific impacts to Edmonds.
Ms. Cates said when she spoke with the Police Department, they mentioned not all filing is done directly,
direct filing is limited to certain types of charges and her understanding was the prosecuting attorney's
office still does some review of charges before they are filed. Defense counsel feels it is beneficial to have
the prosecutor always review charges before they are filed to narrow them to what needs to be addressed,
and there is a feeling that charges can put people into a spiral they cannot get out of. There is some social
justice reasoning in ensuring the prosecutor is involved in making charging decisions. The Police
Department has been in favor of direct filing and she could not speak for them why they feel it is a good
idea. It could be that it is still a good idea for the City to continue with direct filing on the types of charges
that it applies to now. She did not have enough information to provide pros and cons of retaining direct
filing, but agreed it was ripe for discussion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 5
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not expect the information now but it was an issue she would like
to have more specifics on when the Council discusses this again.
Councilmember K. Johnson believed the City could have significant savings if the DWLS 3 work were
taken out of Zachor & Thomas. It represents 1/3 of their current workload so $84,000/year could be saved
in their base fee. She was curious about what Judge Coburn thought of that proposal, but she herself was
entirely in support of it. Ms. Cates said as Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, there needs to be a
more robust background on that program to ensure Councilmembers know the pros and cons. The costs
could be reduced but she wanted to ensure the Council was aware of all the implications of such a
program.
Councilmember K. Johnson said it appeared to be a significant savings of 1/3 of Zachor & Thomas's
current workload. She asked how a DWLS 3 diversion program could be evaluated in 2021. Ms. Cates
answered if the Council provided Zachor & Thomas a one-year extension, that discussion could occur in
2021 including what other jurisdictions have done; there have been at least a couple successful programs
implemented in Washington. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed interests in resolving that issue this
year while Judge Coburn is still the Municipal Court Judge as a new judge will not have the same
experience. Judge Coburn's recommendation would be very valuable to the City. Councilmember K.
Johnson asked if that could be done in the remaining two months of 2021.
Mayor Nelson said that was a decision for Council to make, not Ms. Cates. Councilmember K. Johnson
asked whether it was feasible from a process standpoint. Ms. Cates answered there likely would not be
enough time this year. She was certain Judge Coburn would be happy to provide input on that program
this year before she leaves, but it was unlikely that issue could be resolved by the end of 2020.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she would definitely like to hear Judge Coburn's point of view. Ms.
Cates agreed.
Councilmember Paine asked how many of the directly filed case were dismissed outright with prejudice.
She was hopeful the prosecuting attorney could provide that information.
Councilmember Olson commented going back and forth between direct filing and DWLS 3 may be
confusing for the public who are listening. What Councilmember K. Johnson seemed to be getting at was
the $7,000 was a line item for negotiation in the contract extension so the City has two months to
potentially save $7,000 if a decision was made to do that. She noted $7,000 would make a difference in a
year when the budget is so tight. Mayor Nelson advised this is a study item and will come back to Council
for action. Councilmember Olson supported having that discussion as Councilmember K. Johnson
suggested so a decision could be made this year and potentially save $7,000 if it is a good idea.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she spoke with Judge Coburn about this issue and Judge Coburn
was willing to provide her opinion about how to move forward to any Councilmember individually.
Ms. Cates relayed it sounded like the Council supported the Mayor's recommendations. She understood
the desire for more information and will endeavor to provide it in hopes of clearing up any issues this
year. Mayor Nelson added Council would like to have that information before renewing Zachor &
Thomas's contract.
Councilmember Olson observed Mayor Nelson's recommendation would not reduce the $7,000 unless it
was returned to Council for discussion. Ms. Cates relayed her understanding that the Council wanted to
move ahead with a one-year extension and do an RFP next year and to the extent possible, help the
Council make a decision about direct filing between now and the end of the year so that could be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 6
incorporated into the one-year extension. Councilmember Olson agreed, noting there were other
Councilmembers interested in that as well.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he has heard several Councilmembers express support for accelerating the
implementation of a diversion program so that could be implemented starting in 2021. He was unclear if it
was a majority of Councilmembers and could not promise that that was feasible. If a majority of
Councilmembers want to have that happen, he asked for an indication so he and his staff can push hard in
that direction very quickly. There is very little time left to accomplish that and it depends somewhat on
how many meetings the Council plans to have in December.
Councilmember K. Johnson supported completing the analysis and making a decision in 2020 for a
diversion program to begin in January 2021. That would save the City approximately 1/3 of the
prosecuting attorney's time and save $84,000 which she felt was significant.
In response to Mr. Taraday's request, Councilmember L. Johnson expressed interest in accelerating
discussions on a pre -filing program, both from a financial standpoint but more from the implications it
will have on those who are impacted.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there was not enough information although the City would save
$7,000. She also supported researching direct filing. She agreed a diversion program may be a good way
to go.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed Councilmember Paine and he have been working on DWLS 3 for a
number of months and have convened meetings with Bob Boruchowitz, Kathleen Kyle, Acting Chief
Lawless, Zachor & Thomas, and representatives from Lighthouse Law Group as well as research
assistance from Maureen Judge. He was hopeful Councilmember Paine and he could provide information
to Council judiciously.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was aware of Councilmember Distelhorst and Paine's efforts.
Ms. Cates is trying to negotiate a contact with Zachor & Thomas and the Council is discussing removing
1/3 of their work. The sooner this is resolved the better as it is difficult to move forward without knowing
the City's expectations. She recalled an update from Councilmembers Distelhorst and Paine was on next
week's Council agenda.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. EXTENSION OF INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR APPOINTMENT
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised this is a request to extend the interim appointment of Dave
Turley as the Finance Director. The initial six month appointment period ends November 19, 2020. The
City is currently recruiting and getting close to final steps including scheduling Council interview with
the three candidates on November 17"'. The final steps may not be concluded prior to the expiration of the
six month interim appointment. She requested the Council approve either a six month extension, although
she did not anticipate needing that much time, or at the time a hire is made, whichever occurs first.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF DAVE TURLEY AS INTERIM FINANCE
DIRECTOR FOR SIX MONTHS OR UNTIL THE HIRE IS MADE WHICHEVER COMES
SOONER.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 7
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Mr. Turley has been very accessible to Council and has done a
very good job. She wanted to ensure there was consistency with the Finance Director until a permanent
appointment was made.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO
UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DENSITY."
Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained the proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map
Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville Area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to
"Multi -Family Residential - Medium Density. He reviewed:
• Process
o Type "V" Legislative Decision;
o Based on the findings in the Staff Report, staff recommended APPROVAL of the proposal;
o Planning Board recommended City Council APPROVE the proposal;
o City Council held a public hearing on September 22" d and continued the public hearing until
Oct. 6th;
o City Council tabled the public hearing during the October 6"' meeting;
o During the Oct. 20"' meeting, the City Council set November 2"d as the date for consideration
of the proposal.
• Potential Paths to Development (Decision -making authority) and SEPA and SEPA exempt
processes
o Commercial Development
■ Neighborhood retail/service uses and offices (excludes some uses, such as taverns,
theaters, used car lots, etc.)
o Single Family Dwellings
■ Detached, developed to RS-6 standards
o Multi -family Dwellings
• Condo, townhomes, apartments, etc.
• This is the first step of a multi -step process that includes Architectural Design Board, Hearing
Examiner and staff decisions later in the process if the proposal moves forward
• What we heard
o Concern about how stormwater will be mitigated and potential impacts to Perrinville
watershed
■ Proposed use has maximum lot coverage requirements (45%). The existing BN zoning
does not include maximum lot coverage requirements
■ Approval of stormwater facilities occurs later in the process
■ Council will have an opportunity to weigh in on rezone
- If property is rezoned, it will be reviewed by ADB for design review, to Hearing
Examiner if there is a unit lot subdivision and to staff review for compliance with
codes
• Geotech letter confirms that the soils on the site are suitable for infiltration
o Concern about increased traffic
■ The issue is not whether the property remains undeveloped or is developed —the site can
be developed today with either commercial or single family development built to RS-6
standards.
• The preliminary site plan indicates six new townhomes and does not represent an
increase in traffic when compared to other development types that are currently allowed.
o Concern over potential loss of tree canopy
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 8
■ Existing trees along western and eastern property boundaries. Center of lot consists
primarily of grasses and small shrubs, including invasive species such as Himalayan
blackberry.
■ Some trees would be removed along the western portion of the site and replaced with
street trees and landscaping. Trees would be added to the northern, southern, and western
property boundaries.
o Desire for housing affordable to very -low income households
• Currently, there are no incentives to provide housing for very -low income households in
the Perrinville area.
■ Housing for very low-income generally cannot be provided without a sizable grant or
other subsidy.
o Desire to have a subarea plan for Perrinville
o Support for "missing middle" housing
Site Constraints
o Critical Areas Map
■ Perrinville Creek across the street adjacent to post office (80 feet from property
boundary, unlikely stream buffer encroaches onto subject property)
■ Steep slopes
— Intent to avoid slopes to avoid damage to slopes and expense of developing on slopes
o Parcel sits 8 ft. above the street and is not conducive for commercial development without
significant grading due to lack of visibility.
o Subject parcels were rezoned for commercial use in 1962 and remain undeveloped
■ Edmonds Comprehensive Plan states: "Parcels of land planned or zoned for commercial
use but are identified as inappropriate for commercial use should be rezoned."
Review Criteria (ECDC 20.00.050)
1. 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?
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Shipley for the complete packet and the responses from the
applicant to emails sent during the public hearing. She asked if a plan had been done for Perrinville that
considered how development in Lynnwood would affect the watershed and whether the new houses in
Lynnwood would benefit from commercial development on this site. Mr. Shipley restated the question,
whether the 42 units in Lynnwood would significantly change the area to make commercial development
possible. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the site was zoned commercial in 1962 but there had been
no development in the area until recently by Lynnwood. The City has looked at Firdale, Five Corners, and
other areas and she wondered if the City has looked at Perrinville as a business area and taken into
consideration growth in Lynnwood and whether this site may now be feasible for commercial use.
Development Services Director Shane Hope answered a subarea plan has not been done for this area, a
process that is quite expensive for the City to undertake. She agreed some additional development has
occurred in Lynnwood and she was certain the property owner who proposed this change was well aware
of that and had given some thoughts to the opportunities it would create and yet wants to move forward
with changing the designation.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for reviewing the Perrinville watershed, particularly the
impact of development on that sensitive area. She asked if that would be part of the SEPA process if the
Comprehensive Plan designation change was approved and the property was rezoned. Mr. Shipley
answered absolutely, stormwater would be reviewed at the appropriate time in the process. The applicant
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 9
would have to show it was infeasible to infiltrate onsite. The geotech has already done soil analysis to
determine that infiltration is possible. He assumed if the applicant proceeded with the proposed plan, they
would infiltrate and manage stormwater onsite. Ms. Hope added the City would review that with regard to
best management practices, the latest applicable stormwater standards, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an Exhibit A in the appendix that includes ways to avoid best
management practices. She recalled Mr. Scordino brought that to the City's attention. She would not
support the proposal until there was more information about the tree code and the impact on the business
sector and the watershed.
Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated Councilmember Buckshnis' perspective about considering the
impact from development in Lynnwood and the potential increase in use of businesses; however, this is
an opportunity to develop townhomes, and multi -family is recognized by many environmental groups as
generally more environmentally friendly housing compared to single family. This proposal in particular
preserves the slope which is 40% of the property and contains a majority of the trees. There is an
economic lens, but looking at it through the environmental lens, this proposal is the most environmentally
friendly or the least environmentally harmful way to develop it.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Shipley and Ms. Hope for the decision -making matrix graph in
the presentation. He observed if the site were developed with single family or commercial under the
existing designation, there is no maximum lot coverage. Ms. Hope said there is no maximum for
commercial and it would be subject to other residential regulations related to lot coverage. The
townhomes would result in less lot coverage and less impervious surface than would currently be allowed.
Councilmember Distelhorst summarized multi -family has a lower maximum coverage, reducing potential
maximum coverage. Ms. Hope agreed.
Councilmember Olson observed the Planning Board supported this change and they certainly knew of the
development in Lynnwood. She recalled a citizen saying the City should only proceed on City -initiated
changes. In a perfect world where there was a lot of staff time and resources to proactive planning she
could agree with that, but that is not the mode the City has been in for quite some time. Review and
approval by the Planning Board indicates this is an approach or zoning type the City would be happy and
comfortable with. The proposed use would result in less environmental impact than the existing
authorized uses. She was supportive of less environmental impact and more of a desired housing type.
Councilmember Olson relayed to the developer that Edmonds citizens are good stewards of the
environment and she hoped he would take that into consideration and include all the green approaches he
could such as rainwater collection tanks that residents could use for irrigation, something that she felt
consumers would vote with their pocketbook by choosing to live there, Further, even in this tight budget
year, addressing the watershed's issues is included in Mayor Nelson's proposed budget and she will
support that watershed priority 100% during the upcoming budget process. She summarized the proposal
is a good move and she will vote in favor of it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the City gains or loses from the proposed change. Ms.
Hope answered what is most notable for her is this opportunity would mean better environmental
protection for the site in the long term. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the City loses. Ms.
Hope answered the City loses the option for single family homes and gains another option for multi-
family, potentially losing one dwelling unit with this proposal based on the information available.
Councilmember Paine said this site is on her running route. On side of the street opposite the post office
heading north on 76"', there is no other vacant parcel for at least a half mile on either side of the street or
at least on that side of the street. Mr. Shipley answered he was not entirely sure without looking at a map.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 10
He knew there were some vacant parcels on Olympic View Drive but was uncertain about on 76".
Councilmember Paine recalled from her run that that was the last vacant parcel for about half mile from
the major intersection of Olympic View Drive & 76"'. Mr. Shipley answered she was probably correct, he
could not think of another vacant parcel.
Councilmember Paine said she liked the project, thought it was compact enough, and if it will be larger
than 4,000 square feet, it will go through additional review and SEPA review. She did not want trees to be
cut down other than tidying up the front and ensuring it looks nice; the trees on the slope are important for
the environment, for the hillside, for preservation of property and the environmental benefits that trees
and the understory provide. She was in favor of the project due to its compactness.
Councilmember Olson said while it is not relevant to this Comprehensive Plan change, the traffic impact
comments from citizens are worth Public Works taking notice of due to development of the nearby
project in Lynnwood as well as current intersection volumes. It is possible the signal at that intersection
will need to be upgraded. Ms. Hope said that would be considered in the traffic impact fees and
mitigation. The developer could be required to pay a share of improvements necessary to address any
additional impacts.
Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to go on record that this is a Comprehensive Plan change; the project
and the zoning has not occurred yet so what will be constructed is unknown. She reiterated that the
proposed amendment does not satisfy Review Criteria 4, the proposal is detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety or welfare of the City. She has received numerous comments from citizens regarding this
parcel and the fact that Lynnwood is across the street and it is being considered in a silo and does not take
the watershed into consideration.
Councilmember K. Johnson said there is nothing in this proposal that would prevent construction on this
site under the current Comprehensive Plan designation. They could build houses or a neighborhood
business. It is unlikely tree removal and development would occur on a 40% grade because it would be
very expensive and environmental unsound. Having said that, she believed that the City has three major
concerns with development of this site. She was not opposed to the townhouse concept but was very
concerned that a comprehensive tree ordinance and a housing plan were several months away and a
history of very poor development in the Perrinville Creek Watershed that has resulted in excessive
sedimentation and an inappropriate environment for salmon. For those reasons, she supported a pause in
the process to be absolutely sure of the environmental impacts and the impacts of the other two studies.
She supported a six month moratorium on this project.
Councilmember K. Johnson said many people support townhouses due to less impact on trees, but she
feared that was just the selling point the developer has proposed. There was nothing to prevent the
developer from developing the site as a neighborhood business or with single family homes. For those
reasons she did not support the Comprehensive Plan change.
Councilmember Olson said there is time, money and effort associated with requesting a Comprehensive
Plan change so she did not envision the developer would pursue uses that are already allowed on the site.
As Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, this is just the Comprehensive Plan change, there are several
additional steps before a project moves forward. The tree code and some of the other things
COL11161meniber K. Johnson mentioned will be completed prior to this project commencing.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, THAT CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM
"NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 11
DENSITY," NOTING ALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES COME BACK TO COUNCIL
ON NOVEMBER 17TH
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN SUBDIVISION
APPLICATIONS
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought this up last week. The City Council has done
moratoriums in the past; the last one was in 2019 when a building in a BN zone was constructed without
parking. This is a short-term emergency moratorium ordinance on subdivisions or short plats. The
moratorium will give the City, citizens and Administration a pause to catch up. The tree code and housing
code are coming up, both of which are extremely important to the City. It is a good time to put a
moratorium in place. A public hearing is scheduled on December I" so anyone with concerns can provide
input. She recognized the builders association was concerned the City would stifle construction although
she was unaware of any permits coming online. The Council has the legislative authority to adopt a
moratorium and she believed it was appropriate. Councilmember L. Johnson, Ms. Hope, Mr. Lien, Mr.
Taraday and she have discussed imposing a moratorium. She looked forward to a robust discussion
tonight.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the purpose of a moratorium is to allow for the City's planning
efforts to be implemented before new development comes online. Washington State has a vested rights
doctrine which means when an application comes in for a subdivision, that application has the right to be
reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of the application. What that means is if an application
comes in on day one and a new tree code is adopted on day 30, that application will not be reviewed
under the new tree, but under the old tree code. Because the new tree code is so close to completion, if the
Council wants to ensure that new development is consistent with the new tree code, a moratorium is the
tool to do that. If the Council is fine with new development vesting to the existing tree code, then a
moratorium would not be necessary. From a big picture standpoint, a moratorium is imposed to ensure
new development coming in complies with the forthcoming, not quite yet adopted regulations.
Mr. Taraday displayed and read Section 2 of the proposed ordinance: "The City Council hereby imposes
an immediate six month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property
that contains four or more significant trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area..." He commented this
moratorium does not apply to all subdivisions, it only applies to subdivisions that have a certain threshold
of trees on them.
Mr. Taraday continue..rl marline, Section 2: "...PROVIDED TH �T trees that are either deed or determined
_.__. Taraday _ . o
by a certified arborist to be hazardous shall not be included in the significant tree count." He commented
if the requisite number of tree existed on a property but were all dead trees and an arborist could confirm
that, then the property would not be subject to the moratorium. Section 2 contains a formula that will
work for any given lot size and any given number of trees.
Number of significant trees on parent parcel
X=_------------------------------------
Parcel size in square feet
The ratio is derived from the four trees per 10,000 of lot area, but mathematically it can work with any
number of trees and any lot area, basically it is a fraction with the number of significant trees in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 12
numerator and the parcel size in square feet in the denominator and the math produces a decimal and that
decimal will either be more or less than .0004.
Mr. Taraday read the examples in Section 2: an 18,000 square foot lot with seven significant trees on it
would not be subject to the moratorium because X would equal .00038 which is less than the threshold of
.0004. In contrast, an 18,000 square foot lot with eight significant trees on it would be subject to the
moratorium because X would equal .00044 which is greater than the threshold of .0004. He said that same
math could be done with any size lot.
Mr. Taraday explained significant trees are trees with a caliper of 16 inches or greater; caliper is defined
as diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of 4 feet above the ground on the upslope side of the
tree. He summarized the moratorium would only apply to properties with the requisite number of
significant trees, defined as 6 inches or greater in diameter, and other types of subdivisions would not be
subject to the moratorium and could move forward as per usual. There are some other provisions, it is a
six-month moratorium although that could be shorter if the tree code is adopted sooner than six months
from now. There is a public hearing required to be held on any moratorium the City adopts; the public
hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 1, 2020. If five or more Councilmembers vote to adopt the
ordinance, it would take effect immediately.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the draft tree code is part of the Planning Board packet. She pointed out a
significant tree is actually six feet in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground,
rather than 4 feet. The four trees per 10,000 was chosen as the Sierra Club defines significant trees as 16
per acre. The acre was divided into 10,000 square feet instead of using zoning designations. Mr. Taraday
said the moratorium is not intended to pre -adopt the draft tree code. As Councilmember Buckshnis
pointed out, there are inconsistencies between the proposed tree code and what is contained in the
moratorium ordinance. The moratorium ordinance uses the existing City definition of caliper which is
apparently different than the one in the proposed tree code. For the purposes of the moratorium, unless the
Council amends it, it uses the existing City code definition of caliper.
Councilmember Olson asked if the Council was allowed to amend the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taraday
said the Council can amend the ordinance, amendments that are fairly within the way the item was
noticed for the special meeting. If someone wanted to change something on a completely different
subject, that would have to wait for a regular meeting.
Councilmember Olson asked if caliper was the same as diameter. Mr. Taraday answered caliper is defined
as the diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of four feet above the ground on the upslope side
of the tree. Councilmember Olson displayed a rolled eight -inch wide piece of paper, pointing out that
width four feet from the ground was not a huge tree. She reduced the side of her rolled paper to six
inches, pointing out that is the size that is being discussed. She personally felt that should be expanded to
a slightly larger tree for the purposes of the moratorium. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien
said it is still the diameter of the tree, the caliper is where you measure the diameter. Per the current
definition of caliper, the diameter is measured at four feet above the ground and a significant tree is six
inches so it has to be six inches in diameter at four feet above the ground to be considered a tree in this
ordinance. Mr. Taraday clarified it is diameter, not circumference.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if a subdivision could proceed if the significant trees on the property
would be retained. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered the moratorium would apply
and a person could not develop until the moratorium ended even if they wanted to save the trees.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed this only applied to subdivisions; if someone wanted to develop
single family, multi -family, commercial or other, the moratorium did not apply. Ms. Hope agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 13
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if a larger size tree was considered with broader application to address
mature trees versus small trees and one type of application. Ms. Hope said there had been some
discussion and Councilmember Buckshnis could comment on that. Councilmember Buckshnis said there
was discussion about significant trees, confers versus non -conifers, shoreline uses, and an eight inch
definition for a significant tree. She recalled the Sierra Club uses ten inches. As Mr. Taraday stated, the
moratorium includes the definitions in the existing code. Other cities use larger diameters. The ordinance
can be amended if Councilmembers feel six inches is too restrictive. A public hearing is scheduled in a
month; the ordinance can be amended at that time as well. She summarized the intent was to make the
moratorium as simple as possible.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if was correct that the City received about ten subdivision applications
per year. Ms. Hope answered approximately. Mr. Lien said since 2010, the City has received about ten
subdivision applications per year and that includes 2-lot short plats up to larger subdivision, 27 was the
largest one during that timeframe. Councilmember Distelhorst observed some of the subdivisions are not
large enough scale that tree removal is required. Ms. Hope answered it is all site specific.
Councilmember Paine asked if a Planned Residential Development would fall into this category. Ms.
Hope answered it would because it is a subdivision. Mr. Lien answered it would also apply to unit lot
subdivisions which are townhouse subdivisions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the moratorium included development on Highway 99 if it
met the six inches caliper and 10,000 square feet. Mr. Lien answered it would apply on Highway 99 if a
subdivision met the density requirements. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if it would apply to
developments off Highway 99 such as 2-3 blocks east or west. Mr. Lien answered it applies to a specific
type of development, subdivisions, wherever it occurs; a short plat which is 2-4 lots, a formal
subdivisions which is 5 or more lots, or unit lot subdivision. It is tied to subdivisions no matter where they
are, no matter what zone, it applies to all subdivisions with a certain tree density.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said along the Highway 99 corridor, particularly on the west side,
more and more subdivisions are being created. Mr. Lien answered there are some larger multi -family
developments on Highway 99 but those are not subdivisions. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked
about subdivisions on the west side of Highway 99. Mr. Lien said he was not aware of any subdivisions in
the Highway 99 corridor right now. There are some in the residential zones in the area outside the
Highway 99 corridor.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with a citywide moratorium; one of the reasons was
an effort to create housing for all levels. A moratorium will prohibit development in smaller subdivisions
that fit on the Highway 99 corridor. This moratorium is probably not the best thing for Edmonds and she
was unsure she could support moving forward with a moratorium. Although she understood the reason for
the moratorium, there has been an ability to change the codes for the last 5-7 years and that hasn't
happened. To impose a citywide moratorium now creates issues related to housing for low income, low -
low income, veterans, disabled and seniors. She summarized she had some angst with the proposed
moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was approached with this as a way to protect pocket forests,
something she was very interested in. She greatly appreciated being include in at least one planning
session. However, as written it is more restrictive than her vision of a pocket forest. Personally, she was
interested in considering amendments that would be more in line with what would be considered a pocket
forest. Although she wanted to protect four trees on a 10,000 square foot lot, she was unsure that rose to
the level of a pocket forest. She had ideas for amendments but wanted to hear other Councilmembers
thoughts.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 14
Councilmember Paine appreciated the work that had been done; she wondered how fast the draft tree code
could go through the Planning Board and what was the soonest it would come to Council. Ms. Hope
answered early January and then it would take whatever number of meetings the Council needed to
approve it. Councilmember Paine said her choice would be one meeting. She wanted to have a solid tree
code in place and the preservation aspect was very appealing to her. She was not a fan of moratoriums
and this isn't the way the Council wants to conduct business.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for moratoriums; the City has had several that were very
effective. One was on SR-104 in a fragile area where more information was needed and there was a
famous moratorium on crumb rubber. The City needs to use moratoriums judicially, basically a pause
until the tree ordinance and housing ordinance are adopted and there is better knowledge about erosion in
Perrinville Creek. She expressed support for the moratorium.
On a personal note, Councilmember K. Johnson said she has observed at least one company that clear
cuts every tree on a site in order to build. Their philosophy is that's what new homeowners want. Her
parents' home was sold to that developer and they cut 20 fruit and nut trees and about 50 other trees
including many natives and only one tree remained. She has been working with Councilmember
Buckshnis and the Tree Board to develop a resolution since last March that would help guide the City in
the future. Unfortunately, due to COVID, she was unable to continue working on it until September.
There have been several meetings with the Tree Board and a great deal of input.
Councilmember K. Johnson recommended the Council adopt the moratorium now to essentially put a
pause on rampant clear cutting with development. Everyone has seen it occur in their neighborhood and
although the tree work that -was done at a master planning level only deals with street trees, Mr. Lien is
working on many of the issues including clear cutting and saving specimen trees.
Councilmember Olson expressed appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis and Mr. Taraday and others
who worked on this. Some of what prompted this was as the City continues to get applications and then is
horrified and saddened by the byproduct of development, there is an ethics issue. The City cannot
continue accepting applications it does not intend to process because of concerns with the environment. If
the City wants to have this control, this is the tool to provide it. She did not take this decision lightly and
was very concerned about the current business climate for all businesses including construction. This is
not a blanket moratorium and she agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson's point about tightening the
proposed definition.
Councilmember Olson said if the Council adopts the moratorium, a public hearing is scheduled on
December I"; at that time, the Council could potentially change its mind and withdraw the moratorium if
they decided it wasn't appropriate based on the input at the public hearing. She disagreed with the
statement made by Mr. Pattison during Audience Comments that the current tree code was adequate.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said her issue with this wasn't Perrinville because she understood the
City may not have done as thorough a job as has been done in Westgate, Highway 99 and Five Corners.
However, a moratorium on development is not just about Perrinville, it is the entire City. She could not
support holding up development in the entire City to create a moratorium for one small area of the City.
There are people living in the streets who are desperate for affordable housing — seniors, veterans, and the
disabled. Arbitrarily putting a moratorium in place when this should have been dealt with years ago was
not the best way to protect the City and its citizens. She pointed out the City Council represents people
who are homeless living in Edmonds and are living in difficult situations, including seniors, people with
disabilities, etc. The moratorium affects a wide group of people
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 15
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this could not be done years ago because there wasn't a
comprehensive tree code. A comprehensive tree code has been drafted which she sent out to everyone last
Wednesday. The tree code has a tremendous amount of tree retention associated with development
activity. She also did not want to be discriminatory and say this was just about Perrinville, it was about all
of Edmonds. The moratorium is short term, they have worked with the Administration and the
Administration is not aware of any development on the Highway 99 corridor that would be impacted.
Mayor Nelson corrected Councilmember Buckshnis, stating she has not worked with this Administration;
he learned about the moratorium when she introduced it last Tuesday night. Councilmember Buckshnis
said Mayor Nelson had been copied on all the emails and that Ms. Hope and Mr. Lien had met with them.
Mayor Nelson said he wanted to be clear because Councilmember Buckshnis was making it sound like
there was some agreement among the Administration with regard to support or not supporting the
proposed moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has copied Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Nelson on
all her emails since October 13"' when this began. The issue is that over the past four years she has seen
seven pocket forests clear cut and it was time to pause. She agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson
maybe it shouldn't be four trees, maybe it should be eight trees. It was important to do this now, it is a
legislative decision and will allow the Administration to time to work through tree code which she hoped
would be passed by February or within six months. If the Council wished, it could be reduced to four
months in December.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council had 60 days to hold a public hearing on the
moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered that was true by law, but as currently drafted in the ordinance, the
intent is to hold a public hearing on December I". Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested
in holding up development for everybody, particularly for one area or even in multiple areas. This has
been an issue for quite a while and she took issue with a citywide moratorium, particularly an emergency
moratorium because she did not see the emergency. She recalled the Council has done emergency
ordinances in the past, but they were based on an actual emergency. This discussion has occurred for
multiple weeks and she was not confident or comfortable passing an emergency moratorium for
something that could affect people in Edmonds who need housing.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed the appreciation for developing a workable moratorium. He pointed
out the Housing Commission will not be delivering a set of ready-made policies, plans, or zoning code
amendments. They will give Council recommendations that the Council, Planning Board and other bodies
would need to explore which will be a long process. The tree code is in the near term and he would be
interested in getting as much advance information from Mr. Lien and Ms. Hope in the next 60 days and
doing that work now to hopefully minimize the number of times the Council needs to discuss it in 2021.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed at last week's Alliance for Housing Affordability meeting, a planner
from Lake Stevens reported 1,752 houses single family homes and 215 units of multi -family have been
built in Lake Stevens. One of the reasons for that booming growth in rural Snohomish County is because
denser areas are not adding housing. It is important to remember that when houses are not added in urban
areas, they are added in rural areas which often contributes to vehicle miles traveled which is the largest
producer of greenhouse gas in the state. Trees are absolutely important to the environment, but it is one
slim aspect of all the other environmental aspects that are the dominos of the decision the Council makes.
He urged the Council to keep that in mind; a house not built in Edmonds means a house built somewhere
else as well as to keep in mind the environmental impacts and downstream impacts that Council decisions
have.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 16
Councilmember K. Johnson said the tree moratorium will not affect any commercial or multi -family
development in the City. Most senior, low-income, veteran and other special needs housing are multi-
family which will not be impacted. What has been observed over the past 6-8 years is clearcutting for
development of single family houses. When controls were asked for, the answer was wait for the tree plan
and tree ordinances which have been promised by at least three development directors that she was aware
of. Trees have been cut left and right and the time has come. Some Councilmembers may not view this as
an emergency but all moratoriums are basically an emergency. It is an opportunity to get the codes and
regulations finished. If those regulations were in place, there would not be a problem but experience has
shown the current regulations are insufficient to preserve trees.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if a tree ordinance could be done in the next 60 days. Ms. Hope
answered that would be difficult because it is going through the Planning Board process and their public
hearing is not anticipated until December. She said anything is possible, but it would be difficult.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
PASS ORDINANCE NO. 4200, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
ANY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN
FOUR SIGNIFICANT TREES PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT
UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING
THE CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY.
Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated she was definitely interested in protecting pocket forests citywide
and to avoid the clearcutting that has been seen over the last few years. She viewed it as a chance to pause
to prioritize putting tools in place, but wanted the pause to be as short as possible.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EIGHT TREES, EIGHT INCHES IN DIAMETER
AND THAT THE MORATORIUM BE FOR FOUR MONTHS.
Councilmember L. Johnson said that would give the Council until March Is'and if the tree code is coming
to the Council in January, that provides an incentive to move forward and not have the moratorium be any
more restrictive than it needs to be and not to go on any longer than needed.
Councilmember Olson said she would have been okay with a six-month moratorium but she agreed with
the other two amendments and was willing to accept them all.
Councilmember Paine inquired about doing something different than the existing tree code, whether the
Council could change the caliper from six inches to eight. Mr. Taraday said that change could be made.
He drafted the ordinance consistent with City code for the sake of simplicity, but the Council can make
the moratorium as broad or a narrow as they like.
Councilmember Paine asked about code enforcement. Ms. Hope answered it would enforced via
subdivision applications; anyone applying for a subdivision would be unable to submit an application if
their site met the threshold in the moratorium.
Councilmember Olson said the current code does not allow cutting trees prior to an application. One of
her initial reservations and concerns with the moratorium was that it did not address that, but the current
code, which is still in effect, does address it.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 17
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not support moving forward with an emergency ordinance
and will be voting no. She did not understand the emergency and felt it could be detrimental to low
income housing in the long run.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION
FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND K. JOHNSON VOTING YES.
Councilmember K. Johnson said at the risk of repeating herself, she did not think this would have any
impact on multi -family housing, low income or low -low income, senior or veterans housing. She asked
Ms. Hope to clarify that as there appeared to be a difference of opinion. Mr. Lien said for multi -family
development, this would apply to unit lot subdivisions and townhouse -type development, but not to other
multi -family type developments. Ms. Hope answered it would apply to any subdivision which could be
types of multi -family housing and there may be other types of multi -family housing it does not apply to.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if this affected middle level housing. Ms. Hope said it could
affect people in moderate level housing in two ways, 1) developers' perception that a moratorium makes
it difficult to build in Edmonds, and 2) development of townhomes in a more affordable category. Council
President Fraley-Monillas commented this could affect moderate and low income housing. Ms. Hope said
it was possible it would affect low income and it was very possible that it would affect middle and
moderate income housing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the Council to think very carefully about this. This was not
something the Council should jump into quickly and perhaps it should have been brought up in the last
few years. She understood the principle and the purpose but was interested in assisting people seeking
moderate and low income housing. All this does is reduce the ability for people to live in Edmonds.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that most construction occurs during dry periods
such as March through October. She asked if a four -month moratorium would significantly affect the
development process. Ms. Hope answered it depends on what "significantly affect" means. While people
may not be doing construction during that time, they want to submit their applications. It's possible it
would not have a huge impact if there weren't people who wanted to submit, but it would affect projects
for which a developer wanted to submit an application. Projects that are already submitted could go
forward, moratorium or not.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday displayed a redline version of the ordinance and highlighted changes made by the
amendment:
■ Change "four significant trees per 10,000 square feet" to "eight significant trees per 10,000
square feet" in the ordinance title
• Change 6' WHEREAS to read, ..."WHEREAS the City Council desires to impose an4ffmnediate
s-ix four -month moratorium... more than few eight trees per 10,000...,"
■ Change the definition of significant tree to "...having a caliper of eight inches or greater"
Change "four month moratorium" to "six month moratorium" in Section 2
® Change the math in Section 2. Examples:
o Fourteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot would not be subject to the
moratorium
o Fifteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot be subject to the moratorium
• Change duration of moratorium from six to four months in Section 3
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 18
Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether language could be inserted to exempt applicants who were not
planning to remove trees. Mr. Taraday answered theoretically that could happen and if the Council
wished, language could be developed. He discussed that concept with planning staff and they were
concerned that type of qualification would make administration of the moratorium significantly more
complicated as it would require obtaining some type of statement from the applicant that they committed
to not removing trees and that somehow would become a binding condition of preliminary plat approval.
He summarized it was not impossible but it would be fairly complicated.
Mr. Lien said with subdivision application, the placement of the house is not necessarily known. The
review of a subdivision application is primarily drawing the lines and the utilities. There has to be a
buildable site on the lot, but the exact location of the houses is not identified. Trees impacted by house
placement are not typically reviewed until the building permit stage. There could be a case where the trees
were on the perimeter of the development and could be saved, but like Mr. Taraday said, if the
moratorium was in place and the applicant said they would not cut any trees, the City would need some
assurance of that, otherwise everyone would just say they weren't removing any trees with the
development. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed interest in a long term sustainable tree code.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday noted for the record that because the vote margin was a simple majority and not super
majority, the emergency clause in the ordinance does not take effect and the ordinance will take effect
pursuant to its normal five days after publication.
(Councilmember K. Johnson left meeting at 9:19 p.m.)
4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING INTERIM DEV F LOPM EWT REGULATIONS TO MAKE
THE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE MORE ENFORCEABLE.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday displayed the proposed ordinance and explained this is the nuts and bolts that
go along with the moratorium ordinance. It does not do much in the way of policy changes, but makes it
so the moratorium cannot easily be circumvented. He referred to Section 2, where language related to one
of the exemptions from the current tree cutting code. The current tree cutting code would allow an
exemption for a 2-lot short plat, so anyone proposing a 2-lot short plat could essentially clear their lot
prior to making an application for the subdivision. The language in strike -through removes that
exemption from the tree cutting code so even a 2-lot short plat is still subject to the general rule that land
cannot be cleared in anticipation of development.
Mr. Taraday referred to Section 2.1.13, a non -substantive change that makes the language parallel. The
change in Section 3 changes the subdivision application requirements by referencing ECDC 20.75.060
and .060 itself is changed in Section 4. The combination of Sections 3 and 4 together require when a
subdivision applicant comes to the counter, they are required to show on their application materials the
location of any trees greater than eight inches in diameter. That is necessary because the counter staff
cannot enforce the moratorium unless they can see whether the requisite number of trees are present on
the application. Basically, this ordinance requires that the application materials show 8 inch and larger
trees. That way counter staff can easily determine whether the moratorium applies or does not apply to a
particular subdivision.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she thought the size was six inches rather than eight inches. Mr. Taraday
pointed out the Council approved an amendment in the previous agenda item that changed it to eight
inches.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 19
Councilmember Paine asked how the diameter of the trees on the subdivision would be verified to ensure
a developer did not just say they were six inches in diameter and then the chainsaws come out. She asked
if there would be an application review process where staff would walk the property. Environmental
Program Manager Kernen Lien explained when the City receives an application, the applicant has to sign
stating the application materials are true and accurate. He did not envision staff measuring the diameter of
all the trees on a property. When an application is submitted, staff would do a calculation for trees
identified on the application based on the moratorium ordinance and then make a determination whether
to accept or deny the application based on the moratorium.
Councilmember Paine recalled an effort when she was on the Tree Board to develop a canopy map of the
City. She asked if there was an actual canopy map for the City that a regular person could come in and
find. Development Services Director Shane Hope said a tree canopy analysis was developed as part of the
Urban Forestry Management Plan; however, there is not enough detail to determine the exact canopy on
individual properties. COuncilmember Paine asked about USGS maps. She recalled Snohomish County
looks at tree canopy and has a predetermined canopy coverage requirement of 30%. She asked how
Snohomish County did that to allow them to see where the largest trees are. Ms. Hope said it was hoped
with the proposed new tree code, there would be an opportunity to take a better look at that.
Given that the ordinance the Council just passed was not an emergency ordinance, Councilmember
Distelhorst asked if it would be inconsistent for this ordinance to be passed as an emergency ordinance
and go into effect before the moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered it would be inconsistent and he was
unsure the reason for the emergency would be necessary without the moratorium also going into effect
immediately. Ms. Hope said it would not be helpful to have this ordinance take effect prior to the
moratorium taking effect because staff could not deny an application under the existing regulations. Mr.
Lien said Section 2 of this ordinance changed the exemption when a tree cutting permit is required.
Currently clearing on an approved lot that is capable of being further subdivided would be exempt so
someone could cut trees before the moratorium goes into effect. That would be a reason for adopting this
ordinance as an emergency and have it take effect prior to the moratorium. Mr. Taraday agreed. Ms. Hope
said that would apply only to 2-unit short plats since the others are already covered.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the number of significant trees was changed to eight per 10,000
square feet, and asked if that needed to be changed via a motion. Mr. Taraday said he will make those
changes to the ordinance while the Council is deliberating. Ms. Hope recommended the title also
correspond with the amended version of the moratorium ordinance.
Councilmember Olson expressed appreciation for staff and how smart and on top of things they were
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4201, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
TO ACCOMPANY THE CITY'S MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN EIGHT
SIGNIFICANT TREES PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL
THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE
CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING FOUR MONTHS AS
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATIONS, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PAINE,
OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 20
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson commented tomorrow night is Election Night. Washingtonians know a thing or two about
mail -in ballots although it seems to be a new thing for the rest of the country. Most everyone is waiting
with bated breath for the results. However, if the results are not known nationally tomorrow night, we'll
wait because Washingtonians know results can take a while and know how important it is that every vote
is counted.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember L. Johnson encouraged the public vote, noting they have less than 24 hours to get their
ballots in. Voters can visit VoteWa.gov to look up ballot box locations and download a ballot if they have
misplaced theirs. Anyone who needs to register can go to the Snohomish County Elections office in
Everett. It is worth it to ensure your voice is heard and your vote is counted.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the need to be conscientious and calm. She relayed a few people
who work in downtown Seattle were told by their employers not to go downtown because they were
expecting rioting. She urged everyone to be safe, stay home, and wear a mask. Things are tough now, but
treat yourself with kindness, take care of yourself and be calm. Tomorrow's results will be exciting;
everyone is waiting.
Councilmember Distelhorst urged the public to vote, vote, vote. Over the weekend, Snohomish County
had the largest single day of positive case counts, 141 cases on Saturday so Snohomish County residents
are not doing enough. He urged those who are not essential workers and have the privilege to stay home
to use that privilege to keep all essential workers safe. He urged those who were able to do so to stay
home, not see friends, hunker down and take care of the whole community.
Councilmember Olson expressed thanks to essential workers, noting everyone appreciated them. She
shared a letter published on the front page Everett Herald to Snohomish from Chief Palmer:
"Greetings to all of you from your new Police Chief and that greeting extends to the larger
Snohomish community that surrounds us. We are all deeply committed to seeing a healthy and safe
city and I wanted to express a few thoughts and make some simple requests as we navigate uncertain
times.
Since assuming this role in early June, I've spent many (some sleepless) hours reflecting on the
events that occurred to bring me to this position, and what we can do, together, to avoid unnecessary
or negative circumstances in the future. 2020 has been the most challenging year that many of us can
remember and sadly, our communities, and our country, have become deeply divided on several
significant topics — Political Ideology, Law Enforcement, Economics, and most importantly, Race.
Every one of these topics needs and deserves careful consideration, thought, and revision and I want
to state that I emphatically support the right of our citizens to peaceably assemble and protest the
things that they find wrong in our society. I also categorically stand against racism, bigotry and
prejudice in any form, for any reason.
As your Police Chief you have my promise that I will do all that I can to facilitate assemblies and
maintain a safe environment for them when they are held in the city. It is my sworn duty to protect the
rights of our citizens, as expressed in the Bill of Rights, without regard to my own beliefs and equally
under the law — I cannot choose sides. I have sworn that oath many times in my service to our
country, and to my community, and I take it as seriously as is expected of me.
It is also the responsibility of our citizens to follow our laws and actively participate in partnership
with their law enforcement to maintain safe communities. We work for you, but we also need to work
with you. Violence in any form is counterproductive to a thoughtful and meaningful dialogue about
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 21
effecting change that meets the needs of all of us, not just one side or the other. Even the threat of
violence, actual or perceived, creates further division, raises tensions, and erodes the community's
sense of safety. It also destroys the validity of the message being sent by the body trying to be heard
by the larger audience.
My first request is this; if you wish to protest an injustice, seek a redress of wrongs, get your message
out to as wide an audience as possible — don't break other people's stuff while you're at it. It doesn't
help anything or anyone and most likely harms the livelihoods of exactly the people you are trying to
speak for. Please respect the rights of others, as you correctly expect your rights to be respected;
assemble peaceably and responsibly and I will do everything within my lawful authority to facilitate
you.
Conversely, when well-intentioned citizens come to the city to provide community support or security
in the face of a serious threat, while visibly armed with semi -automatic weapons and tactical gear,
this automatically creates an uncomfortable distraction for my officers who are called to respond to
the situation. Please consider how their safety is compromised by such distractions during a critical or
rapidly evolving event. The more focus my professionally trained, and legally -authorized team of
officers can apply to the complexities of a potential or active threat — without such distractions — the
safer they and our community will be. The simple truth is that citizens have no legal authority to stop
anyone from doing anything and direct intimidation of otherwise peaceful protesters could subject
you to arrest.
So my second ask is this; If you hear of a planned protest in the city of Snohomish, even one with a
credible threat of violence, please leave your weapons at home or safely and legally stored out of
sight, but please don't open carry on the streets as we have seen. It doesn't make my job, or the job of
the dedicated officers in Snohomish any easier. In fact, it makes it infinitely harder and creates long-
lasting tensions in the community that likely ripple for months afterward. Let me use the legal and
lawful resources that I have available to me to maintain order.
The remainder of 2020, and likely well into 2021, has every indication of continuing the uncertainty
and stress our communities have seen over the last 8 months. I will work with anyone, anytime, to
minimize that uncertainty and stress, within my authority to do so, but I simply can't make it all go
away. Working together, we can keep a lot of it in check through cooperation and understanding that
every American is equally entitled to their Constitutional rights and their own personal views and
philosophies.
My final ask is this; please do everything you can to keep Snohomish safe, welcoming, racism free
and to work with me as we navigate these challenging times as a community — not as antagonists or a
divided nation.
—Thank you, Chief Rob Palmer, Snohomish Police Department"
Councilmember Olson commented that was a letter from a leader in another community, but it was an
important message to share.
Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the public to get out and vote. Snohomish County is doing
really well and Edmonds has always been a leader in the number of voters. She advised next week will be
Council committee meetings; Maureen will be sending out more information. Councilmembers will
continue in the committees they assigned to in January.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said although she understands the kindness thing, but she was also
interested in change. Change is an important thing in tomorrow night's elections. She wanted to see
change in the world, in the city and in neighborhoods. The only way that will happen is to step up and
demand change from electeds. Fingers crossed tomorrow's election will result in change for everyone in
general. For anyone who hasn't voted, she urged them to vote.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 22
As the parent of an essential worker at QFC, Councilmember Paine said her daughter has been safe all
this year which has been a huge relief for her and her daughter's father, With regard to trees and the
environment, climate change and the climate crisis is an existential threat; the Council and the community
are well aware of that. She was excited about looking at the City's watersheds; Perrinvilie is an important
watershed and the City has a great opportunity to shine a spotl.i.ght, on things that need to be done now and
quickly. She typically preferred to t:ollow regular steps, but appreciated the tree preservation aspects of
the moratorium because now is the time to fix this. The Perrinville area and its watershed are very
important. The City has talked about i.t for the past 16 years and it is time to do something and this is the
action that. was needed to focus on all the watersheds, Lake Ballinger, the. Marsh and Perrinville. She also
urged the public to vote.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
M NELS N AY R
56,PASSEY, CIT;LIER
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
T overriber 2, 2020
Page 23
Public Comment for 11/2/20 Council Meeting:
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 5:53 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Resolution to ban all planned development until Tree Code is enacted
Greetings Edmonds City Council members;
I am writing in support of the resolution to temporarily stop all proposed real estate
development until a meaningful City Tree Code is enacted by Council.
We have literally lost hundreds of significant trees just since the Urban Forest Management
Plan was adopted last summer. In that plan, the City committed to maintaining a 30 percent
tree canopy that was measured years ago. We don't even know what our current tree canopy
percentage is!
We certainly have not been adding to our canopy, only losing it very quickly. It is time to push
the "pause" button until we can get a tree code in place.
We, like all of our neighboring cities, are facing tremendous housing pressures. It seem that all
of Edmonds will be totally developed soon.
It will take some creative solutions to figure out how to maintain our 30% forest canopy. It will
take time to complete our Tree Code. In the meantime, we should take a deep breath and call
a halt to all planned construction until that tree code is in place.
We will all be facing difficult times ahead as we grapple with Climate Change. We need to
figure out how to maintain our forest canopy, which is the easiest way to mitigate increased
Green House Gases in our atmosphere.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bill Phipps
Edmonds resident
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 4:36 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 24
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott
<Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for November 2, 2020 City Council meeting
The documentation for AUTO — ENG Review/Activity completed January 16, 2020 (Permit #:
DRC2020-0001), shows that City Staff think they can act contrary to the City's laws and
ordinances. The following comes from that documentation:
"Access to Lot 3 is proposed off Cedar Street. Thank you for making a site visit and providing
dimensions of the paved area. As shown in the photo below (and in the attachment provided
by Rob), the existing paved road is narrow and bound by an existing Cedar tree on the south
side. In consideration of the development history on Cedar Street and a previous
determination to protect the cedar trees, the Engineering Division will not require any
additional pavement widening in order to access proposed Lot 3. An on -site turn around will,
however, be required."
Such is not allowed per ECDC 18.80.010 Street Standards.
Streets serving 5-9 lots in the RS-6 zone must be a minimum of 30' Right -of -Way Width. There
are portions of the Cedar Street R.O.W. where the width is only 25' wide. Cedar Street is not
wide enough to allow for even 1 more lot to be accessed to the east of this 25' R.O.W. width
area. Furthermore, the pavement width has to be 20' wide minimum. A 25' Right -of -Way
Width paved as little as 11 feet wide does not allow access for a new lot.
Despite this — City staff claimed that the Engineering Division will not require any additional
pavement widening in order to access proposed Lot 3.
This is obviously a major problem.
It is not enough for Council to adopt our laws and ordinances. We must have Mayors who will
perform their duty to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced, and that law and
order is maintained in the City.
Please see an email attached from 2012 in which I informed that ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an
error. I informed that: This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the
community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided,
prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in
the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat
at the applicant's option. The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. 1
informed that: I've actually witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the
information required by ECDC 20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC
20.75.040.C. I said: This must be fixed!
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 25
In April of 2012, 1 had emailed City Attorney Jeff Taraday the same information.
It is November 2, 2020 and ECDC 20.75.040.0 still contains the same error.
Attachment:
Subject: My General Requests of the Tree Board
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:18 -0700
To the members of the Tree Board,
Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss the City's Code related to trees during last
week's meeting. Much was discussed, but I believe the main point is that there is often a
conflict between development rights and tree protection under the City's Code. I believe that
accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development
application process coupled with proper application and enforcement of the City's Code by
Mayor and staff will greatly assist the protection of valuable trees in Edmonds. As such, my
general request of the Tree Board is twofold:
1. Please strongly encourage the City Council to closely review the City's tree related Code and
make corrections and IMPROVEMENTS where necessary. I believe that the Code needs to be
strengthened related to accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the
development application process. For example, ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. This Code
section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the
exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and
signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can
be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The reference
should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. I've actually witnessed a
developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060
on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. This must be fixed!
A second example is found in ECDC 20.75.060.N. This Code Section states that the following
shall be shown on the plat: The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual
trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director. There are
two problems here. First of all, there is no such position as planning director. Secondly, even if
there was a planning director, why should the disclosure of the location of individual trees over
eight inches in diameter in areas be subjective? I believe leaving such an important Code
requirement optional and subjective gives the applicant and the City a potential excuse for
failure to disclose trees on preliminary plats. I believe the more accurate, detailed disclosure of
trees and tree covered areas during the development application process the better! I think
accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas on adjoining properties is also very
necessary.
2. Petition and respectfully request that the Mayor and his staff be diligent in the application
and
enforcement of the City's Code related to trees. For example, valuable healthy trees located in
critical areas should not be lost to development because the trees weren't disclosed during
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 26
the application process. Vesting is supposed to be based in equity. It is not equitable to gain
vested development rights as a reward for not disclosing trees as required under the City's
Code. For example, development applcations should be deemed incomplete if the application
fails to disclose the required trees and tree covered areas. Thank you very much for your hard
work as members of the Tree Board. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ken Reidy
From: Wally Danielson
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 8:26 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Perrinville Woods - Street Vacation
This is a comment is for the November 17, 2020 Edmonds City Council hearing re the
"Consideration for the vacation of a portion of 184th Street SW ..."
I oppose the proposed street vacation as this will increase housing density in this parcel. These
additional and/or larger homes will require the removal of mature trees and the loss of more
wildlife habitat. It will make it more difficult for wildlife to between Southwest County Park and
Seaview Park. The public good would be best served by making this parcel a bridge between
the two parks. If that is not pursued, then reducing the impact is the best public good. I have
lived very near this parcel for thirty years and opposed the previous development proposal
which would have been disastrous.
Wally Danielson Edmonds, WA 98026
From: Douglas Resnick
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 11:30 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 184th Street SW Vacation
Dear City Council:
You have scheduled a hearing on November 17, 2020, for a proposal to vacate a portion of
184th Street SW between 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive. This hearing was
rescheduled from a meeting on October 6, 2020. 1 read the material concerning this proposal
contained in the agenda packet and minutes from the earlier meeting. Those minutes also
contained a discussion of another proposal for this part of Edmonds, namely, Perrinville; the
other proposal concerned a plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels. I
believe that the following comment from page 30 of the minutes is appropriate not only for the
plan map designation change, but also for the street vacation: "Council President Fraley -
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 27
Monillas said until there is process developed for the Perrinville area, she was unwilling to give
up something just because someone wanted it." Thank you for considering my comment.
Yours,
Douglas Resnick
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2020
Page 28
.y
T. 1