Loading...
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