Cmd050421EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
May 4, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir,
Rob English, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Ryan Hague, Project Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council 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
Councilmember 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
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page I
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments_
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, provided comments on technical studies and public outreach she felt was
necessary to undertake thoughtful deliberations for the upcoming tree regulations. First a technical study to
quantify the costs of private tree maintenance as well as context costs for the different types of damage
caused to private property by trees is required. The City spent public funds to quantify in dollar value the
benefits of trees in both the Urban Forest Management Plan and the tree canopy assessment. It is only fair
that the City spend public funds to explore both sides of the issue before undertaking this process. Those
costs are necessary in creating effective incentives which the City has identified in Action B of the UFMP
Goal 3. Second, a technical study to evaluate the City's public investment versus private priorities in relation
to environmental justice and specifically the Washington State Environmental Health Disparities Mapping
is required. A review of the 2017 Urban Tree Canopy Assessment as well as the UFMP found no
consideration of environmental justice. Had that consideration be given, it would have found overburdened
communities are located around the SR 99 corridor and focusing public dollar investment in street trees,
parks in the areas identified in the tree canopy assessment, concentrates public funds away from the areas
that need them the most while simultaneously creating private requirement to maintain trees in these
overburden communities. Finally, the City needs to undertake public outreach. The City undertook
significant outreach including surveys to develop the UFMP which found the public is generally satisfied
with the City's activities on public property and prefers the City only provide guidance and education as
opposed to regulation when it comes to stewardship of trees on private property. For private land, the UFMP
guides education and incentives toward tree management. It is clear from the emergency ordinance that the
City will be evaluating actions that deviate from the UFMP. Conducting outreach to gauge community
support and interest in this effort is absolutely needed. All these studies and efforts would have the added
benefit of properly supporting the finding of the State Environment Policy Act assessment.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, a resident, veteran and local business owner, commented on the Walkable Main
Street concept. It has been the hard work of the downtown businesses and their associations and
organizations in promoting the charm of Edmonds and encouraging shoppers and diners to come to this
lovely City, not necessarily the Mayor and the Administration. The Save our Saturday's effort was an outcry
by the retailers to firmly indicate they do not want unsolicited help and in fact the Walkable Main Street
help is harmful to them. Many businesses have suffered tremendous loss in revenue due to the pandemic
and instead of letting businesses take a breather to recuperate, the Walkable Main Street concept is like
force-feeding them an ineffective antidote. Citizens deserve leadership that uses a fair and systematic
process for making decisions, one that starts by identifying the problem to be solved and then answering
basic questions. For example, citizens have yet to hear the cost of Walkable Main Street to taxpayers for
staffing and logistics. Citizens expect honest and impartial analysis when citizens and stakeholders provide
input and want it considered. Despite the slanted and biased nature of the surveys, the data from the second
survey clearly indicates the majority (52% of participants) prefer Walkable Main Street for one day or less
while only 48% requested more than one day per week. This policy must be reconsidered and a compromise
struck with the retailers to ensure true equity in this decision -making process.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, a long time Edmonds resident, recently retired marine ecologist and member of
Save Our Marsh, spoke regarding one aspect of the Marina Park grant that are being discussed later on the
agenda, the marsh outlet. The key to restoring salmon and wildlife in the Edmonds Marsh estuary is a
comprehensive, holistic plan, one that provides salmon access to the entrance, tidally carved and
meandering channels within the marsh and fish access to health urban creeks. The grants the Council will
be voting on are components of an overall marsh estuary restoration vision or project, however, an overall
vision does not exist and remains stalled due to the Unocal property issues. He was eager to see this project
move forward and supported beginning some aspects of the park work, but leaving maximum flexibility
for stream outlet design as what happens at the mouth is critically important to the rest of the system. The
final outlet design should wait until there is resolution to the Unocal property so the whole marsh system
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 2
can be considered holistically. The Council should ask, can the landscaping and structure placements move
ahead under these two grants without knowing the final specification of the entire tidal channel? There are
big picture benefits if holistically restored; the education and tourist benefits the salmon bearing estuary
would bring to Edmonds could be incredibly significant if it is done right and now is a once in a lifetime
opportunity to do so.
Willie Russell commented none of what he had to say had anything to do with Student Representative
Roberts. He warned Councilmembers that actions have consequences. This past weekend he was notified
by some dangerous people who have his address thanks to the Council and the Police Department because
he was listed as a gang member by Council President Paine and the Edmonds Police Department in case
number 19-22704. He contacted Captain Greg Wineberry yesterday to inform him what he was told; there
is now a contract on a Snohomish County police officer because gang members do not like to be listed in a
police document that they know nothing about. His family went through some very dangerous moments
due to the Edmonds Police Department document and he encouraged the Council to look at it. As an elected
official in the 2Is' LDPCO of the Cascade Precinct, he presents 987 people; 215 signed a document and
have talked to a lawyer about suing the City for putting their lives in jeopardy due to gang activity for no
reason. At this point they have no choice but to protect themselves by contacting a lawyer. They have
attempted to contact the City's attorneys but they do not want to talk and neither does the district attorney
or the sheriff. The Edmonds Police Department was at their residence illegally at 10:30 p.m. and lied in
their patrol log, committing a felony. He summarized the Council's actions very important and urged them
to be careful in what they say and write because it puts peoples' lives in jeopardy. He requested the Police
Chief contact them and urged the Council to be safe because what has been said and done is dangerous.
John Hoag, Edmonds, a member of the Economic Development Commission but speaking as a private
citizen, said as a member of the EDC subcommittee on neighborhood districts of which Firdale Village is
one, the recent unit lot subdivision expansion plan got his attention. He was opposed to the unit lot
subdivision expansion to the BD, OR and the Firdale Village mixed use zones. This expansion will further
erode existing commercial space set aside for businesses, business expansion or new business for the City
of Edmonds, thus stifling job creation and business recruitment. If there is a truly a desire for live/work in
Edmonds, the City should stop prioritizing housing at the expensive of commercial space. At the March
24"' Planning Board meeting, Mike Clugston stated that unit lot subdivision has worked out very well in
the Westgate mixed use area. This is highly debatable as the two commercial spaces are still vacant two
years after Westgate Village opened. The housing above restricts the type of businesses that can use the
commercial space below and because the housing is maximized while the commercial is minimized, it
further restricts the footprint of potential business. The commercial spaces at Westgate Village are small;
the lack of tenants is not due to COVID, it is due to incentivizing housing. In his opinion Westgate Village
mixed use has not worked out well and he feared the same would happen in the BD zone and Firdale Village
mixed use area if housing is de facto incentivized by making it easier in these zones with disastrous results.
Housing is allowed in the business zoning and the Council will hear this is not a big change, but the change
is housing is a small H and commercial is a big C in these zones and turning that on its head will result in
much more housing than commercial space and any commercial space will not fit an expanding business
or enable a business to move into the space.
Kate Guthrie, Edmonds, owner of Glazed and Amazed, voiced her strong opposition to the Walkable
Main Street program that will close off Main Street right in front of her studio all summer from June 19"'
to September 5, a 12 week period. Although she did not support any program that closed Main Street, a
good compromise would have been to close the streets on Sunday only. She heard at previous Council
meetings that having data from retailers would be helpful to assess the effects on retailers of closing the
streets. Data from her studio shows that the 12 weekends of road closure in front of her store will cause
significant revenue loss. As a retail business she depends on a large volume of sales to occur on weekends
make up for slow sales during the week while most people are working. She depends on Main Street to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 3
open to customers who drive by and find parking close to her store. In comparing the weekend sales for the
weekends that Edmonds closed Main Street last summer compared to the same weekends in 2019, sales at
her studio were 40-80% lower in 2020 compared to 2019. She realized this was probably due to COVID
business restrictions placed on her business, but the closure of the street does not allow customers to shop
at her store. Having Walkable Main Streets and tables in front of her studio, her customers are not painting
outside or coming inside to buy pottery while the streets are closed. Her customers are staying away from
her studio on the weekends because there is no parking close to her store. She asked that Walkable Main
Street only be allowed on Saturdays as a way to support retailers like her who are struggling to stay open.
In 2020 Glazed and Amazed lost over $5000 and was only able to stay open due to PPP loans and the grants
and help provided. She hoped the City would give retail some support and only have Main Street closed on
Sundays.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, spoke regarding the tree ordinance. The City is taking property value away
from owners of undeveloped property just because there are large trees on the property. The same has been
done to many indigenous tribes across the USA. Halting development on Edmonds property to honor the
land in the name of the Snohomish people, the City will be pushing urban sprawl close to tribal lands
allotted to them in the Treaty of 1855. Those actions will ultimately have a negative effect on the Snohomish
Tribes. Edmonds citizens and property owners will lose millions of dollars, the City will lose property tax
revenue due to the Council's decisions. Most if not all of the undeveloped land in Edmonds has challenges
such as dense trees, steep terrain, difficult access, all liabilities and expensive to overcome. It takes
determined and driven people willing to take on these challenges and build homes on the properties, homes
that are needed and allowed in a city zoned for high density. At least three people who are now in the
process of development are immigrants; she was unsure if that was a coincidence or maybe it was because
they are more determined and willing to take on challenges. The trees are not the challenge when they
bought the property; they were a bonus because they like trees and wanted to build around them. Laying
the financial burden to achieve the goal of funding the tree fund only on undeveloped property owners is
discriminatory. Owners of undeveloped property cannot be expected to fund the entire tree fund. To build
three homes on their property, they will retain more than 55% of the trees, but will be required to pay
$250,000 in fees. Not only does that take away any profit they hoped to make, it makes building almost
impossible. Potential buyers will factor the City fines into their purchase price. She suggested if the trees
that are being cut are valued, also valuing the trees that remain on the property and subtracting the trees
that are being cut from the value of the trees that remain.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to the agenda item regarding bicycle improvements, expressing her
appreciation for the work put into this project. At the listening session on February 24"', citizens asked for
another public meeting via Zoom to review any new plans since the original rough designs have now been
altered and new information is being presented to Council tonight. She was hopeful the team will allow for
an update directly to interested citizens to gather new input to better assimilate the concerns and
opportunities offered by the public. One important piece missing in tonight's presentation is the location of
critical turn lanes from 9t" and Bowdoin at heavily traveled cross streets allowing for ease of traffic and
bike flow. Heading north on 9", the recommended locations to consider would be left turns at 15t" Street
SW north of the cemetery as well as a left turn at Pine Street. Heading west on Bowdoin, she recommended
including a left turn lane at 92nd Ave W. She requested the design not squeeze parking and driveways on
Bowdoin to fit a dedicated bike lane downhill that is not necessary and would be more dangerous as bikes
could easily travel faster than cars causing potential accidents when cars turn right into driveways. Sharrows
are the perfect solution on the downhill side of Bowdoin and Walnut as they travel with the traffic and the
same speeds and allows for normal parking and drive lanes. If 76"', 220"' and 212"' are all examples of great
results, then there is no need to add the unnecessary 3-4 foot buffers that will only squeeze out the
Community Transit buses, trucks and delivery and work vehicles.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 4
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
3. EPOA LAW SUPPORT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 1/1/20-12/31/22
NEW BUSINESS
MARINA BEACH PARK RENOVATION GRANT MATCH CERTIFICATION
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser said this agenda item is related to the
certification of grant match funding for the Marina Beach Park project. She requested Council's
consideration to authorize the Mayor to sign documentation that identifies the funding source for two
$500,000 grants that are eligible to match each other therefore, not requiring any City funding to match the
grants totally $1M. If Council chooses not to authorize the match certifications, the City will not be eligible
to accept the grant funds once they are available from the state. This is simply a requirement of the grant
program used to commit jurisdictions to supply the grant match. Edmonds is in the fortunate position to
having qualified for both grants and they can and will be used to match each other. This is not the step of
accepting grant money, only identifying the sources of match for the two grants.
Ms. Feser explained the Marina Beach Park improvements have been identified in the Parks CIP and CFP
since 2014 and this $5M project provides improved parking, vehicular circulation, two new permanent
restrooms, a playground, renovation of the dog park area, ADA accessibility throughout the site including
a handful of view areas and many educational opportunities. Part of the project is a new tidal channel which
daylights Willow Creek, currently in an 1100 linear foot pipe underneath the park. This provides access for
salmon into the Edmonds Marsh estuary area at the only access point where this channel can currently cross
the railroad, an existing bridge. This crossing is a fixed point for both the park project and the marsh
restoration project on the other side of the tracks.
In March 2020 , the Council approved the grant applications for RCO. This project has had public process
in a Master Plan adopted in 2015 and this project was added to the 2016 PROS Plan as an addendum in
order to qualify for grant applications. The Council adopted the 2021 Parks CIP which identifies current
funding allocation and timing of this project using REET funds for $750,000 and the Parks Capital Budget
Fund for the balance of the $4.25M. This project is scheduled for design and development from 2022 to
2025. Traditionally the Council likes to look at agenda items twice before voting, but unfortunately
documents are due to the State RCO next Monday. This agenda item was on last week's agenda but was
bumped. Staff respectfully requests Council approval of this item tonight in order to submit by Monday's
deadline.
Council President Paine commented there had been lively emails earlier today about this funding. She
clarified this item was only authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant and the Council could address accepting
it later. Ms. Feser agreed.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Feser for the answers she provided via email. He clarified this did
not tie the City into any design or channelization, that is all still open and part of the larger, holistic
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 5
approach. Ms. Feser answered absolutely, this is a step in the grant process where jurisdictions identify
their match source. Most cities and counties have to put up their own money as match. Edmonds is in the
great position that both grants can match each other. This step does not commit the City to the grants; the
Council will accept that during another process. The current design, the adopted Master Plan, is at the 30%
design level which identifies the location of the tidal channel and general footprint, but the details of that
channel along with every other component of the renovation will be developed and refined over the next
couple of years as the project approaches 100% design and construction documents. The key point where
the channel ties into and crosses the railroad is an existing bridge and is a definite and hard point in the
design, but the details associated with the channel shape and form, cut on the sides, etc. will be worked out
through the design process and refinement of the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was unsure the emails were lively, the goal was factual
information. She recalled when former Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite left, the Marina Beach
project was separated and marsh restoration was put into the storm utility paid by utility ratepayers. It is not
a holistic approach, she has seen many grants; if this was approached from a salmon recovery standpoint,
a 100% match would not be required. She said 100% is not often seen, a 10-15% match is more typical, as
evidenced by WRIA 8 grants she has seen. If the grants offset each other, she questioned what happened if
the City got one grant and not the other. She expressed concern with the lack of information in the proposal.
Citizen do not realize the City is committing to pay for the Marina Beach renovation when in fact there are
plenty of state and federal funds available via salmon recovery which begins at Puget Sound. If Marina
Beach were treated as a nearshore estuary which it is, just like Meadowdale Beach Park is part of the
Meadowdale nearshore estuary, all the grant funds could be consolidate and realized as a holistic approach
for salmon recovery. The City also needs to change its Comprehensive Plan; this is incongruent with the
Comprehensive Plan. She did not support the requested action. These grants are always available and there
are plenty of them. She preferred to step back and look at the CIP/CFP and take a holistic approach.
Councilmember L. Johnson congratulated staff for qualifying for two grants totaling $1M.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE CERTIFICATION OF
APPLICANT MATCH FORMS FOR TWO GRANTS OF $500,000 EACH FOR THE MARINA
BEACH RENOVATION PROJECT.
Councilmember Olson asked for clarification what this commits the City to. In the past, there have been
instances where certain steps were taken and it looks bad or it's a political gaffe to walk away and she
wanted assurance that the Council was not going down that path. She understood the grants offset each
other; her concern was the obligation to the other $4M which the City could be on the hook for as other
grants are not lined up. Ms. Feser explained this authorization is only saying the City is identifying what
would be used for the match for the grants. It is not signing a contract to accept the grants; that will come
later this year and will require Council approval. The Mayor can sign this document, submit it to RCO, and
when it comes time to sign the contract for the grant, the Council can turn that down if they wish. This does
not commit the City to the grants or the project, it only identifies the matching source of the grants.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification from the Public Works Director regarding funding
from stormwater. Mr. Williams said there has been a great deal of discussion about the park project, the
channel through the park, the work on the open channel and the marsh itself, how all that can be/should be
coordinated. He acknowledged it is a very complex space to operate in. Like any good capital project, all
the grants will not come in at the same time and there is always the question of getting across the goal line.
This is a good thing to be able to start funding the park project. The one known is where it goes through the
Sound Transit bridge on the BNSF railroad tracks. From there to the beach will be designed as part of the
open channel when the time comes to do that. He believed Ecology would come forth in 2021 with an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 6
interim action plan and a draft final consent decree and what happens with the Unocal property will be
known sometime this year. Ecology has been in the process of writing that for several months; it will go
out for public comment and he expected clarity regarding the property transfer by the third quarter. This
may then turn into one large project. Both sides of the railroad tracks have to match up to that one point, all
the hydrologics have to work, etc. The issues mentioned by the public such as tidally cut channels,
appropriate natural geometry of the channels, etc. will be addressed in design when the project reaches that
point.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard it said that WRIA 8 has grants for salmon recovery.
She asked how much money Edmonds as gotten from WRIA 8 for salmon recovery. Mr. Williams said he
did not have the exact number, but they have provided a significant amount of funding to get the concept
of marsh restoration to this point.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is a very brief agenda memo, only one page with three pages
of attachments. She had to read it six times to comprehend the nuances and is still confused. If staff wanted
the Council to move through an agenda in ten days' time, she recommended providing a complete packet
with all information for the Council to make an important value judgment. She expressed concern that the
individual grants were listed in different amounts, Prism 20-1296 listed the project as $5,203,000 and Prism
project 20-1320 listed it as $4,615,549. That raises the question whether these are two projects that would
be added together for over $9M or whether the project amounts listed are incongruous to each other. She
asked the total cost of the project. Ms. Feser answered there are two applications for same project estimated
to cost $5M to complete. The first grant application was for WWRP local parks category with a grant
request for $500,000 which is the maximum. The $4.5M remaining was the City's contribution regardless
of whether those are City funds or other grant funding. That is the total amount of the project.
Ms. Feser explained in the second grant application to Aquatics Land Enhancement Account (ALEA), the
project cost was submitted for $4.6M because the balance of the $5M were elements that are not eligible in
that program. ALEA is an aquatic's land program tailored toward salmon habitat and supporting it and
things like playgrounds are not eligible costs. Therefore any elements that were not eligible to be covered
by the grant program were removed which left $4.6M In that category, the project was listed for eligible
expenses for $4.6M minus the $500,000 grant ask for the City's match for $4.1M. She explained this would
be like going to RCO for a grant for $500,000 for a $5M project and then requesting $1M from the Hazel
Miller Foundation. It is wo different grant applications for the same project, using different grants as
different sources of funding. The fact that they are side -by -side in the Prism account is confusing but that
is how they are submitted. They are two different grants, two different programs, and two different
eligibility costs related to those programs.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the Council accepts the grants now, do the funds have to be spent
within a specific amount of time. She asked the City's obligation in the future. Ms. Feser clarified tonight's
request is not to accept the grants. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was a step toward accepting the grants
so she was interested in the City's liability. Ms. Feser said she wanted to be clear, the Council was not
committing to the grants tonight. If the Council decides to accept the grants at a later date, there is usually
a two or four year window for the grants to be used and applied toward the project. This project is identified
in the CIP to go through 2025. This is a stepping stone into the project to move into design development as
well.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to proceed to 30% design with these grants or wait until
more is known about the entire project. Ms. Feser answered the Master Plan is 30% design and that design
was used to apply for the grants. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to figure out what the
grants obligate the City to perform, construct, build, design, etc. and what that timeframe was. Ms. Feser
said if the Council decides to accept the grants at a later date, they are committing to building the project
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 7
which would require finishing the design process and construction. The RCO grants allow 20-25% of the
grant funding to be used for architecture and engineering so a portion of the grant funds could be used for
those design services before the project gets to construction.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that the grant funds will be finalized next month on
June 29". Her concern, as was raised earlier, was there was not a comprehensive approach to restoring the
Edmonds Marsh and doing it piecemeal like this, she wanted to know what kind of stranglehold that would
place on the overall design. The overall design for Willow Creek is unknown because it depends on the
land ownership. If the City is constrained by the land it owns, it will be a very narrow passage way along
the existing pipe. However, if the City can attain ownership of all the land, there could be a braided channel
that it is hoped will go into the underpass that Sound Transit built. It is very hard to construct Marina Beach
without knowing what will happen in the marsh. She feared by allowing the Mayor to sign the grants by
May 10t" will lead to accepting the grants by June 29"' and not knowing emactly what that means. If the
Council was expected to accept the grants on June 29"', the City's obligations need to be laid out, both
financially and construction, otherwise she would not be able to accept the grants on June 29"'.
Ms. Feser clarified the June 29' deadline was for the RCO funding board recommendation to fund all the
grant programs. That goes to the state legislature and when the budget passes in July, the grant funds are
eligible and notification is provided to the City that the grants have been funded and asking for authorization
to accept the grants. It would be after July before she was before Council again. Councilmember K. Johnson
commented that was not clear in the memo; the memo was abbreviated with almost too little information
to make a decision. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that one grant will match the
other and the City has no immediate responsibility. However, if the City accepts the grant in July, the City
does have a responsibility for over $4M. Ms. Feser agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the timeframe
for spending that $4M. Ms. Feser answered RCO usually funds 2-4 years out and extensions can be provided
if progress is being made on the project. That will be presented to Council later this year during
consideration to accept the grants.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if any consideration had been given to going to the Salmon Recovery
Council to request a large grant for the whole project rather than a small one for Marina Beach and then
another for the marsh. Ms. Feser answered the entire suite of grants available from RCO run the gamut.
That process was done before she hired and Marina Beach fit into two categories, local park and ALEA.
Staff applied for this project in those categories and was successful. She has not studied how this project
would fare in the other programs. This a park project with a daylighted tidal channel in it, a lot of park and
some salmon recovery. Not every piece of the project was eligible for ALEA. A limiting factor for this
piece of the entire marsh estuary restoration is that Marina Beach is a park.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested it was possible to do just the salmon component and keep Marina
Beach as is. Ms. Feser answered that would cut off dog park. Councilmember K. Johnson said the dog park
and Willow Creek daylighting could be done and still have the remainder of the existing Marina Beach
Park. Ms. Feser said there are a lot of options, but this is what the community approved in the Master Plan
in 2015. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was on that committee and there were many vocal groups,
and everyone wanted as much as possible. To Ms. Feser's comment that it is a park with a salmon beach,
Councilmember K. Johnson said it could be just the salmon recovery portion and not the park.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented RCO awards grants every two years. She asked if the City was
eligible for additional grants for Civic Park in this cycle. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers'
questions stick to the topic. This agenda item was scheduled for five minutes and has turned into a 30
minute debate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to send Ms. Feser information on Meadowdale Beach which is also a
park, commenting that is being worked on now and includes WRIA 8 grant funding. She recalled the City
applied for and received NOAA grant funding for further design and NOAA ended up pulling the grant due
to the property issue. She asked if the ALEA grant could be pulled due to the Unocal property being in flux
and not knowing the salmon recovery portion. Ms. Feser answered for the ALEA grant, the project was the
Marina Beach Park footprint and has nothing to do with what is on the other side of the tracks. This project
ranked 41 in the ALEA program and has been used as an example because it is both restoration and
education due to its location in a park setting. It was a very strong application and went in under both
categories in ALEA and fared very well. It is not tied to the Unocal property whatsoever.
Councilmember Buckshnis said ALEA is for salmon recovery and the grant is #1 because it has a 100%
match. Salmon recovery starts at Puget Sound and goes into the marsh restoration. Last year NOAA pulled
their grant due to salmon recovery standards. The complete channel under the railroad tracks into the
nearshore estuary restoration has not been designed. She asked for clarification, that ALEA does not care
that the design not continuous. Ms. Feser answered that was correct.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the statement that the City will be committed to
providing the remaining funds for the project cost of $4M. She referred to examples she has provided in
the past, Wayne Golf Course received $14.5M via grants, Rainbow Bridge and several other projects.
Meadowdale is another example of a project that received a lot of grant funds.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the steps to get to this point including an amendment to the PROS
Plan and stakeholder outreach. She asked about stakeholder support for the grant applications. Ms. Feser
answered one of the big requirements of RCO is community support and showing that community support.
For this project, support is shown via the Master Plan, identification of the project in the CIP and PROS
Plan, and letters of support and funding match. Seven letters of support were provided by community
organizations including Students Saving Salmon, Sound Salmon Solutions, the South County Marine
Resources Committee, Port of Edmonds. Off Leash Area Edmonds, and Save Our Marsh. Those letter were
submitted with the grant application showing community support for the project. There is a tremendous
amount of community engagement and support for this project.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING
YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
Council President Paine requested Item 5 be moved up as the previous 5 minute item had taken 30 minutes
and there were consultants waiting to present regarding Item 5.
5. PROJECT UPDATE ON CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Mr. Williams introduced Ken Lauzen and Grace Garwin, Blueline. He commented there has been a great
deal of public outreach and a lot of input into the design. The alternatives that were presented previously
have been modified as a result of comments.
Ken Lauzen, Blueline, reviewed:
Project Overview: Project Summary
o Citywide project to add bike facilities on both sides of multiple area streets
o Funded by a $1.85 million Sound Transit Access grant
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 9
o Adds over 6 miles of bike facilities, bringing Citywide total to 17 miles — an increase
0 of approximately 50%
o Project corridors:
100th Ave W/9th Ave S: 244th St SW to Walnut St
Walnut St/Bowdoin Way: 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W
228th St SW: 78th Ave W to 80th Ave W
80th Ave W: 229th St SW tc) 2?0th Rt RW
Project Overview Map (green only used for identification on map)
Project Overview: Timeline
o Efforts to Date
* 2009-2019
Citywide Bike Plan/TIP/Sound Transit Grant Pursuit
* July 2020
Public hearing with City Council
* August 2020
City Council approved accepting funds
* Oct/Nov 2020
Blueline selected to assist City with outreach and design
■ Nov/Dec 2020
Survey, parking study, traffic analysis completed
■ Dec 2020
Listening sessions held with the community
■ Jan 2021
Preliminary design alternatives submitted to City for review
■ Feb 2021
Public outreach — website, survey, Zoom meeting
■ May 2021
Project update to Council
Project Overview: Design Timeline
o October 2020 Notice to Proceed
o Dec 2020
Community listening sessions
o Jan 2021
Preliminary design submittal and public meeting
o May 2021
60% design submittal
o July 2021
90% design submittal
o Aug 2021
Public meeting
o Oct 2021
Final design submittal
o Mar 2022
Construction begins
Project Overview: Data Collection
o Efforts to Date:
■ Mapping/Field Survey
■ Parking Analysis
■ Traffic Analysis
■ Methodology for Alternatives
■ Preliminary Design
■ Public Involvement
— Listening sessions
— Public open house
— Public survey
• Alternatives Analysis
Grace Garwin, Blueline, reviewed:
■ Data Analysis: Parking
o Data Collection
Data was collected over 3 days in Nov 2020
— Wednesday
— Friday
— Sunday
■ Number of cars parked was recorded every hour from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
o What does data show?
■ Total of 518 spaces along project
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 10
- 310 on Bowdoin Way/Walnut St
- 208 on 9th Ave S
t Average of 7% of stalls are used at any time throughout project
- 481 parking stalls available
■ COVID correction factor
- Use rate is similar to results collected in 2018, pre-COVID
- No correction factor applied
Data Analysis: Traffic
o Data Collection
Road tube counts were collected
- Nov 17th, 2020 -Nov 23rd, 2020 (1 week)
Turning movement counts were collected
- Wednesday Nov 18th, 2020
- Turning movements counts indicate how traffic volumes are split at the intersection
COVID-19 correction factor applied
- Based on change in volumes at 238th St SW and Hwy 99 between Aug 2019 and Aug
2020
- Morning:l.7x
- Afternoon:l.3x
Dedicated Left Turn Lanes
o Northbound and southbound left turn lanes will be added at 9th Ave S and Pine St
o Data collected in April 2021 during afternoon peak hours meet WSDOT Design Manual
requirements to add lanes
Public Outreach
o Efforts to Date:
■ Listening sessions - 12/10/2020
- 90 residents who previously showed interest in project were contacted by email to
attend, 21 attended
■ Public open house - 2/24/2021
- 90 residents contacted by email to attend
- 150 door hangers distributed
- Message board announcing meeting placed along project
- Postings in Edmonds Beacon, My Edmonds New and City Facebook page
- 60 attendees
• Public survey - Closed on 3/1/2021
Public Outreach Results
o Key Issues
■ Parking at Yost Park
■ Improved pedestrian crossings throughout project areas
■ Speeding vehicles
o Survey results
■ 91 responses
100th Ave W/9th Ave S - Alternative 2A
• Bowdoin Way/Walnut St - Alternative 3
Mr. Lauzen reviewed:
• Public Outreach: Parking at Yost (Bowdoin Way & 96t" Ave W)
o Schematic diagram of ideas
• Public Outreach: Pedestrian improvements
o Bowdoin Way & Pioneer Way/90th Ave W
• Flashing beacons
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 11
on 220"' to a proposed bike lane extension on 228"'. That north -south route was in the Transportation Plan
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to north of 80"'. Mr. Hauss answered the intent is a bike lane corridor
that connects bike lanes. Wayfinding signs were added on that route 3-4 years ago as part of the Bike2Health
project.
Councilmember K. Johnson said what is lacking is the segment north along 80"'. Although there are bike
route signs, the two segments are not connected.. Mr. Hauss commented the 84"' Avenue overlay done last
year included bike lanes on the north end as well as sharrows. Sharrows would be simple to add in the
future but not as part of this project as the project boundaries have already been established in the Sound
Transit grant. Mr. Hague assured there are sharrows on 80"' from Five Corners to 220"' and 80"' to 228"'.
Council President Paine thanked the team for including input from the community and from the Council
during the previous presentation. As a bike rider who dreads crossing SR 104 at 100"', she was pleased to
see the recommended configuration and safety improvements. She hoped there would be a lot of signage
so people understand there are bike lanes for bicyclists and hopefully it would slow vehicles. Once an
alternative is chosen, she recommended reviewing it to ensure the right level of safety. There are a lot of
accidents at that intersection, people get careless while driving, making bicyclists even more vulnerable.
She supported the concept of slowing traffic with bulb outs. She recalled two years ago a neighborhood on
Pine Street requested speed mitigation on Pine Street due to the hill off 9' and drivers using that street as a
shortcut to the ferry lanes. She wanted to ensure that was addressed with the proposed left turn lane on 9"'.
She summarized this was nice work and she looked forward to the next round.
With regard to the option for a southbound sharrow at the Westgate intersection, Mr. Williams said
consideration is also being given to adding bike off ramps to provide bicyclists the option of taking the off
ramp, getting off their bike, walking through the intersection like a pedestrian and then getting back on their
bicycle. He noted the serious bicyclists won't make that choice and will remain in the sharrow or the
dedicated bike lane. The off ramps offer additional safety to cross the street as a pedestrian. Council
President Paine commented she has done both and it is nice to have that as an option during rush hour traffic
or during ferry offloading which tends to be a dangerous time for bicyclists.
Councilmember L. Johnson requested the team keep in mind that Pine Street is a spur between SR 524 and
SR 104 and residents have expressed their concerns regarding vehicle speeds. As someone who walks in
that area frequently, she can attest to the issue of speeding.
Councilmember Olson appreciated the amount of information in the packet since there is a lot of citizen
interest in this project. She learned more today about bulb outs and why they are used. It had been her
perception that more space was safer for everyone, but evidentially bulb outs slow the traffic somewhat and
also provide less distance for pedestrians to traverse which makes it safer for them. She suggested the
engineers to keep a balance in mind, instead of the bulb out being 7', maybe it could be 5' so it is the best
of both worlds, more room for bicyclists to stay out of a vehicle's way as well as stay out of the way of the
curb.
Councilmember Olson said she had a different take than Councilmember Distelhorst on the SR 104 & 100"'
intersection and suggested that may be an area for citizen input. Some windshield bias is appropriate and
the solution that was developed may be the right balance for the community. However, she hoped before
the project proceeds, there could be a one week pause to wait for citizen insight and input in terms of how
the bike lanes will affect their residences and their life as well as from bicyclists. She recalled the indication
in the presentation that the green color was only to identify the location of bike lanes. When/if there is a
discussion about painting the bike lanes, she suggested that be brought to the Council and the public due to
the effect on the beauty, vibe and feel of the street.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 16
Mr. Williams asked for clarification regarding how to proceed. In response to the request to wait a week,
he asked if staff could wait a week for further input and then return for approval of the general concept for
all the sections.
Councilmember L. Johnson suggested putting it on the Consent Agenda in two weeks. Mr. Williams agreed
it could be scheduled on the Consent Agenda in two weeks and if anything needed to be brought to Council
in the meantime as a result of further input, that could be done.
Councilmember Buckshnis said some citizens wanted to know if there would be a public hearing; she did
not think a public hearing was needed and the public could contact staff. Citizens have told her that there
were significant changes between this and the original proposal. She asked how citizens would contact staff
or if staff preferred to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Williams did not see a need for a public hearing. The
last slide in the presentation includes a number of ways to contact staff including emailing Mr. Hague, Mr.
English, Mr. Hauss or him and citizens can include the Council if they wish.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested the feedback received tonight be incorporated and any questions be
answered because she did not want to see the same document on Consent. She recommended the team
digest the comments from the public and the feedback from the Council and make the appropriate
modifications. Mr. Williams acknowledged there were a lot of comments, but was uncertain any rose to the
level of Council direction.
Councilmember Olson suggested if the Council supported decreasing the size of the bulb outs on Bowdoin,
that would be a good change. Mr. Hague assured the bulb outs on Bowdoin would not be exceptionally
large.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented everybody has their own opinion and have been lobbied by
various people, groups and organizations. She suggested the team come back with a project based on
information and the background of employees and consultants. If some things can be added that make
Councilmembers feel better, fine and if not, she was fine with the proposal. She was concerned with telling
staff what they need to do when they are the professionals.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled she raised three safety concerns in her neighborhood along Bowdoin
Way, 1) lighting, 2) proximity of parking to intersections where right turns occur, and 3) whether it would
be better to have parking on the south side of the street instead of the north because bicyclists will be going
faster downhill and may need more visual distance. She commented it was easier to stop if someone opens
a car door on the uphill side than it is on the downhill side. She requested the team take a closer look at the
three safety concerns she has noticed while walking and riding a bike in the neighborhood. Mr. Williams
explained the north side is better for parking because Bowdoin is not all downhill westbound. The parking
study showed higher parking usage on the north side which is why it was proposed to be retained on that
side. Homes on the south take their access in different ways. Those three things added up to it made sense
to leave the parking on the north side. Staff can look at the lighting and provide a response as well as
consider the proximity of parking where right turns occur. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed there is an
uphill section from Five Corners on Bowdoin Way on the north side and the multi -family properties rely
on Bowdoin Way for parking. Once the top of the hill is reached, it is primarily downhill the rest of the way
to 91h Avenue. Due to bicyclists' speed, she requested the team reevaluate whether to have parking on the
south side.
2. INTRODUCTION REGARDING PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC SECTION
20.75.045.B, ENTITLE1) UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION - APPLICABILITY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 17
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the intent is not to decide anything tonight, but to
brief the Council on the basic idea. A public hearing will be held in the future as well as any other follow-
up meetings that are necessary.
Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained a private code amendment has been proposed to change where the
unit lot subdivision (ULS) process would be allowed. ULS are currently only allowed in the General
Commercial, Multiple Residential, and Westgate Mixed Use zones. This applicant would also like to allow
it in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, and specifically at the site of their proposed 14-unit townhome
project at 614/616 5th Avenue South, which is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board
(ADB). He displayed a map of existing subdivision zoning, General Commercial primarily along Highway
99, Multi -Family zones primarily along arterials such as 212"i, 196"' and Edmonds Way and an area
downtown. The applicant would like to use the process in the BD zones. When this application was
submitted, staff felt it reasonable to add two more zones where ground floor multi -residential is an option,
the Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone and a few parcels in the Office Residential (OR) zone on Sunset.
The ULS process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land
to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both
condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. A ULS does not permit uses
or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the subdivision is proposed. Each
project where a unit lot subdivision is used is first reviewed and approved to verify compliance with all
applicable building, fire, public works, and zoning codes. The ULS then follows and inserts property lines
between dwelling units, typically along shared walls and enclosing a small private yard.
Mr. Clugston identified five locations that have used the ULS process, one in a CG zone on 212"' east of
the high school and four others in the multi -family zones (one in the bowl, two near the high school and
one in the south end of the City). There have not been any applications in the WMU; multi -family is allowed
on the ground floor in some subdistricts and some zones allow townhouse type development as proposed
at 614/616 5"' Ave S. The project at 614/615 5"' Ave is currently under review by the ADB and could be
approved without allowing the ULS process by creating condominiums but they would prefer to use the
ULS process. The packet includes the current ULS code with brief markup in the applicability section that
would identify the BD zone as an additional zone to allow use of the ULS process.
Mr. Clugston relayed the Planning Board considered the BD, Firdale Village Mixed Use and OR zones and
initially supported broadening the applicability but in the end recommended the BD zones. The owner of
the site provided testimony last week during audience comments, but he was unsure if they were available
on tonight's meeting. Ms. Hope advised there would be an opportunity at the public hearing for the applicant
to speak to the code amendment they have applied for.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the applicant was Pine Park 614, File Number PLN2020-0053. Mr.
Clugston answered that is the application for design review. This amendment is File Number AMD2020-
0003. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is one applicant, but the intent is to expand use of ULS
into other zones. The applicant is only applying for 614 and 616 5"' Avenue South. Mr. Clugston said that
is the applicant's design review project; the applicant would like to use it on their project at 614/616, but it
apply throughout BD zones if approved. Ms. Hope reminded this type of zoning approach must be applied
to an entire zone, not just one parcel. Councilmember Buckshnis commented unless it was a variance. Ms.
Hope said it would be difficult to qualify for a variance. The ULS process does not change the building, it
simply allows instead of a condo or rental units in one complex, it could be divided up for single ownership.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the developer of this one parcel wants to expand the applicability
to Firdale and all the BD zones. Mr. Clugston explained the applicant's request was for the BD zones.
During staffs review of their request, it seemed reasonable to extend it to other zones where ground floor
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 18
multifamily residential is allowed such as Firdale Village and OR. Ms. Hope pointed out the Planning Board
only recommended the BD zones.
Councilmember Buckshnis said with individual units rather than a condo, if a townhouse that used the ULS
provision, it must be sold as a ULS with a business on the first floor. Mr. Clugston agreed. Councilmember
Buckshnis said she has a lot of concerns, commenting she was unsure who has ever lived with the terrible
neighbor next door and there are so many things that can go on downtown and although downtown is great
now, she found it difficult to comprehend allowing ULS in all the BD zones. She said she would keep the
rest of her questions for the public hearing.
Councilmember Olson offered to provide her comments via email to Ms. Hope and Mr. Clugston so they
could be addressed during the public hearing.
Council President Paine said it sounds like the proposal is to add ULS to what can be allowed. Currently
there could be building with condominium or apartments on the ground floor, but this would require
commercial or office on the ground floor. These other ownership or rental properties are still allowed
through the BD zones, but for a ULS, the ground floor use would be different. Mr. Clugston explained a
commercial use is required on the ground floor in any event. Rather than an apartment or condo, this would
be a fee simple where someone could buy one unit; in this developer's project, they are proposing 14 units,
3 in each of 2 buildings facing 5' and another 8-unit building behind. For example, in the 3 unit buildings
on 5"', each would be required to have commercial on the ground floor as part of a live/work unit and 2
levels of residential above. If the ULS process is approved, they could put property lines on those walls
between the units and the units could be purchased separately. That is all the ULS does. Without ULS they
could still create a condominium.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding a fee simple arrangement provided vertical
ownership. What is different about this proposal is commercial on the ground floor. If it were a
condominium, the responsibility would be the developer's, but with a fee simple arrangement, each
individual townhome facing 5"' Avenue would become a commercial landlord and have to find renters, etc.
Mr. Clugston relayed the assumption by the developer is this live/work unit concept exists in other parts of
the country and they see some demand for it here. They are proposing those units in the project that is
undergoing design review and plan to build them regardless of whether they can do ULS. Without ULS,
they have indicated they will do condominiums. Assuming the units are design reviewed and approved and
they get building permits, they plan to construct them with the units facing 5"' each having ground level
commercial space as part of the live/work concept and owners will live above, essentially commuting
downstairs to the commercial use. The range of uses in the downtown area is vast; it could be a small shop,
an office, etc. The intent of the live/work concept is to have people live above their business.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented that would be a challenge in that area of 5"' Avenue because there
are no live/work units to the south and none between there and the fountain. This a new concept and she
wondered who would take the risk, whether it would be the developer or the homeowner. In the case of
Westgate, there are still vacant spaces because some uses cannot be accommodated such as restaurants
because of the fumes. She anticipated it would be a challenge to sell those units with the expectation
someone living above will want to work downstairs or it will be the homeowner's responsibility to rent out
the space. If it were a condominium, that would be the developer's responsibility, but with a ULS, it will
be the homeowner's responsibility. That issue was not discussed by the Planning Board and is a key
consideration.
Mr. Clugston pointed out that is the risk this developer is taking on with this project; selling live/work units
whether they are owned through a condominium or ULS. The developer believes they can sell these units.
It is a unique setup for Edmonds, there are no other live/work units, but that is not to say it won't work.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 19
Providing the ULS process would be one more tool they would have to create ownership of these rather
than a condominium ownership model. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled when the post office site was
developed, a couple units were live/work because there was access from the street but in fact no shops have
located there. Mr. Clugston agreed several units on the north end of the building were identified as live/work
but were not required to be live/work units. Ms. Hope advised staff will provide more information and there
will be opportunity for further discussion.
Councilmember Distelhorst requested staff not use red lines and shading on maps. He requested
Councilmember when talking about housing not to call these terrible things. There are ULS in the city;
those are residents and neighbors and fellow Councilmembers who live in multifamily ULS. They are not
terrible things, they are housing options where people live. He asked if there was a date planned for the
public hearing. Ms. Hope said staff will work with the Council President Paine on a date in the next month.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, THAT DIRECTOR HOPE AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SET A DATE FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARING FOR UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT.
Councilmember L. Johnson said in the interest of time, she will contact Ms. Hope with her questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether a motion was necessary. Ms. Hope said a motion is not
needed. A public hearing is required because it is an application.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-0-3); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the art non-profit building was live/work. Ms. Hope recalled
there was some discussion about that; she did not think it ever happened but offered to double check.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Firdale Village has one owner and there was some type of Master Plan
done for Firdale Village in 2010. She asked if this would be an addition to the Firdale Master Plan. Ms.
Hope explained this would simply allow, if the owner chose to use ULS, to sell units separately; it does not
change the Master Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis apologized to Councilmember Distelhorst, stating comments are comments and
she knew he did not like her vocabulary. The issue that many people have relayed to her is the fact that
condominiums are a lot different than ULS and that is something to be concerned about.
Council President Paine raised a point of order. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from
making personal remarks about other Councilmembers.
3. UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
4. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY (HASCO)
Ms. Hope recalled there were presentations regarding HASCO at the April 20"' Council meeting, one from
HASCO's executive director and another presentation about a potential ILA with HASCO should an
opportunity arise that would allow them to move forward with purchasing property consistent with all City
zoning requirements for households that qualify as low income. HASCO currently owns three properties in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 20
the City and it is possible other properties may be suitable in the future. Having the ability to move forward
with a purchase relatively quickly would be helpful if an opportunity arose. There would still be
communication from HASCO if such an opportunity arose. The Citizen Housing Commission (CHC)
recommended the City enter into an ILA with HASCO. The packet includes the ILA as well as a resolution;
the resolution could be adopted tonight or on next week's Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email asking about the property HASCO owns where rents are
not low income and requested staff respond to the questions in the email. She asked if the ILA is approved
and HASCO becomes the City's housing authority, will they provide Edmonds -only data instead of
comingling data with Snohomish County. Ms. Hope answered there would be data focused on Edmonds as
well as some regional information.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled HASCO Director Duane Leonard saying they will bring information
to the City Council and asked if that needed to be included in the ILA or was this a standard ILA. Ms. Hope
answered it is a standard agreement; it is also very standard for HASCO to come to City Councils. She said
Mr. Leonard was present and could answer questions.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the ILAs that HASCO has with other cities were used as the basis for this
ILA. Those were about 25 years old so this ILA is more robust and up-to-date than the ILAs HASCO has
with other cities. He worked with Sharon Cates, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Leonard, Councilmember Olson and Ms.
Hope to ensure the document was updated. Councilmember Olson worked with Ms. Cates on the resolution.
It was a good group effort with a lot of input from the parties.
Councilmember Olson referred to packet page 222, the slide in the earlier presentation about what the draft
ILA does not do, there are no code or density changes, which basically means HASCO will comply with
Edmonds code, zoning, density, etc. in any of their purchases. One citizen pointed out that express detail
was not in the ILA. Ms. Hope said it is mentioned in the ILA and even if it was not that is the law.
Councilmember Olson referred to a comment in an My Edmonds News thread about the ILA that Mr.
Leonard would be happy to talk with citizens and to write to Councilmembers to get his contact information.
She pointed out the word "market rate" is atitle HASCO will Iikely end up changing, it describes a funding
source and way of buying; it is market rate at the time it is purchased, not that they are market rate rentals.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said when she has talked with citizens, there seems to be a lot of confusion
between the CHC and the HASCO agreement. The only crossover between these is the CHC did not address
low income housing beyond recommending the City reach out to a housing organization to provide that
level of housing. People see this as coming out of the CHC, but it really has nothing to d❑ with the CHC
who acknowledged they were not planning to address low income, disabled, veteran and senior housing.
The agreement with HASCO is a win -win the funding for this comes from a tax rebate that has been in
place since Dave Earling was Mayor, close to $ 1 00,000/year that can be used in combination with other
cities or for Edmonds to use for housing purposes.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Point 5 in the ILA, Planning, Zoning and Building Ordinances,
which clearly states all housing projects of HASCO shall be subject to all planning, zoning, sanitary and
building laws, ordinances and regulations of the City unless otherwise waived in whole or part by
resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE
HASCO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 21
personal information from one of the tabletop testing sites could be devastating. She wished a Happy
Mother's Day to all. ,
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed all the sentiments that Councilmember L. Johnson voiced and expressed
his appreciation for the quick action by residents, and quick response from Mayor Nelson, city staff,
Snohomish County Councilmember Wright and Snohomish County Parks staff. Hate has no place in
Edmonds and it will be addressed.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported this month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month;
the Edmonds School District, Sno-Isle Library and many other organizations are marking that and he
encouraged people to take time to learn more. It is also Mental Health Awareness Month, commenting the
need for mental health support is just the same as an injury to a muscle, finger, etc. It is also Teacher
Appreciation Week; he expressed appreciation to all the teachers who are adapting to the myriad issues
they have experienced last year and this year through the pandemic. He encouraged everyone to get
vaccinated and to wear masks and wished all a Happy Mother's Day.
Student Rep Roberts reminded everyone to take time for themselves and check in with their loved ones.
This and 2020 have been difficult years and we are all in this together and will not get out of it unless we
work together. We need to come out of this stronger together and he was certain we will. Take time, even
five minutes to talk to someone, get vaccinated when you can and wear a mask. People continue to die from
this deadly virus; it's unacceptable that that continues to happen. He wished all a Happy Mother's Day,
commenting moms are super heroes who do so much for us and he was very appreciative of his mom.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 24
personal information from one of the tabletop testing sites could be devastating. She wished a Happy
Mother's Day to all.
Council member Distelhorst echoed al the sentiments that Counci Imcmber L..loltnson voiced and expressed
his appreciation for the quick action by residents, and quick response from Mayor Nelson, city staff,
Snohomish County Councilmetnber Wright and Snohomish County Parks staff. Hate has no place in
Edmonds and it will be addressed.
Councilmember Distelhorst reported this month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month;
the Edmonds School District, Sno-Isle Library and many other organizations are marking that and he
encouraged people. to take time to learn more. It is also Mental Health. Awareness Month, commenting the
geed for mental health support is ,just the same as an injury to a muscle, finger, etc. It is also Teacher
Apprcciation Week: he expressed appreciation to al] the teachers who are adapting to the myriad issues
they have experienced last year and this year through the pandernic. He encouraged everyone to get
vaccinated and to wear masks and wished all a Happy Mother's Day.
Student Rep Roberts reminded everyone to take time for themselves and check in with their loved ones.
This and 2020 have been difficult years and we are all in this together and will not get out of it unless we
work together, We need to come out of this stronger together and he was certain we will. Take time, even
five minutes to talk to someone, get vaccinated when you can and wear a mask. People continue to die from
this deadly virus; it's unacceptable that that continues to happen. He wished all a Ham)y Mother's Day,
commenting moms are super heroes who do so much for us and he was very appreciative of his atom.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
YCE 50N, MAYOR
Cfl PA EY, C
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 24
Public Comment for 5/4/21 City Council Meeting:
From: ACE President
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 6:20 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: RE: New Business Item 7.4: Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of
Snohomish County (HASCO)
Re: New Business Item 7.4: Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish
County (HASCO)
There was an important post on My Edmonds News by an actual resident of the HASCO
Edmonds Highlands Property that perfectly illustrates the concerns we had expressed in a
previous email referenced below:
Christine Koch posted May 3 2021 at 11:31 am "HASCO owns the Edmonds Highlands Apts on
Edmonds Way (232nd-236th) and it is Section 8; HOWEVER, many seniors have been on Sec 8
waitlist for 5-6 yrs and no response. 2018 rents increased $100/mo = $1,200 yr
2019 rent increase $250/mo=$3,000 yr. There is no way that the taxes on a 720sq 1-bdrm
increased $3,000/yr.
HASCO and Coast Mgmt are being obscenely greedy and concern that 2022 rent increases will
put many residents into Nomadland. Our elected representatives need to ACT IMMEDIATELY
for a 5% rent increase cap!! I am 120% rent compromised."
Who is looking out for these residents and how will HASCO be using our gift of public funds to
its best use by enacting this agreement with no local oversight and no ending date? There is
also no language in the ILA that clarifies what authority HASCO will have over future housing
and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted.
Another insightful piece of information is from the HART Funding Workgroup Memo from
September 9, 2019. HART was a housing regional task force that had our Director Shane Hope
as well as Duane Leonard of HASCO and Chris Collier of AHA as members.
A section from that memo reads (can provide this document if desired):
F07, Make Surplus and Under -Utilized Property Available for Affordable Housing
Land typically accounts for 10 to 20 percent of the total cost of developing new affordable
housing.
Furthermore, affordable housing developers are often unable to move as quickly as the private
market toidentify and close on the most desirable sites, such as sites near rapid transit or job
centers.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 25
Does Edmonds, with some of the highest Snohomish County real estate prices, taxes and lack of
light -rail rapid transit and job centers, even fit their own recommendations of the best use of
public funds and local tax dollars for HASCO to achieve their goals?
We urge you not to take action on the HASCO ILA this evening for the following reasons:
• Not enough notice was given to citizens that might be interested in
commenting on this issue. Director Hope's Housing News Update on April 14 referenced
the ILA would be on Council agenda on April 20.
• Citizens responding to the online CHC open house and survey strongly opposed
an ILA with HASCO by a margin of almost 2 to 1.
• Although public funds were spent on public engagement, NO data about public
input to the CHC regarding the HASCO ILA was included in Council's packet when it was
discussed on April 20. Insufficient notice for that discussion was given to
the public on Friday, April 16 .
• In Council's agenda for tonight, there is again no information about public
comments regarding a HASCO ILA. Notice for this agenda for Council was again given
just four days in advance of tonight's meeting, on Friday, April 30.
■ Despite no information about prior public input and insufficient notice to the
public, Staff recommendation is to approve the Resolution authorizing execution of the
HASCO Interlocal Agreement.
We also have concerns about information that is being provided to Council about the
affordability of HASCO properties. In a reply to email questions from an ACE board member,
Duane Leonard said the following:
"the affordability restrictions that apply [to the Edmonds Highlands property] come from the
housing authorities law codified in Chapter 35.82, specifically RCW 35.82.070 (5). The
requirement here is that 50% of the units be rented to persons below 80% of the area median
income."
• Please note that 80% of the AMI for Snohomish County is $66,700/1 person,
$76,200/2 person, $85,000/3 persons, $95,250/4 person. (NOTE: taken from SnoCo
Home rent and income information)
• Given that there are 100 seniors on the Section 8 waiting list for the other two
Edmonds HASCO properties, why is Edmonds Highlands not also ALL section 8 housing
to accommodate demand?
• The Edmonds Highlands property has been operated property tax free for 20
years and is currently valued at 19.716 Million dollars. For the amount of taxes that are
thus being shifted to the un-exempt taxpayers, shouldn't we be getting more for
our money? (see comment from Christine Koch above)
Finally, we are concerned that approval of the HASCO ILA will lead directly to another
recommendation by the CHC which is the 0.1% sales tax increase to go to "affordable and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 26
supportive housing for low-income households". Council member Luke Distelhorst has already
demonstrated his support of this sales tax increase by lobbying the Citizens Housing
Commission on January 14, 2021, just prior to their final votes on January 28. Here is an excerpt
from the agenda for the 1-14-21 meeting:
"Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January
14 meeting."
Quote from the "letter he had supported":
"AHA would like to draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need
to support adoption of a 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing."
Again, we urge you, do NOT take action on the HASCO ILA tonight. There are a number of non-
profit organizations that provide supportive and affordable housing in Snohomish County.
There is no language in the ILA that clarifies what authority HASCO will have over future
housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted.
Respectfully,
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President
Joan Bloom, At -Large ACE Board Member and former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment for May 4, 2021 City Council Meeting
The following Public Comments are taken directly from an email sent to the 2013 Mayor and
the 2013 City Council on October 23, 2013:
Please prioritize the Code Rewrite! Please make sure that the proper amount is budgeted
to complete the Code rewrite, and I mean the entire City CODE!
When discussing the City CODE, it is very important to distinguish between the two parts of the
CODE, the Edmonds City Code (ECC) - (sometimes called Edmonds Municipal Code - EMC) and
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The ECC consists of Titles 1 through 10
and addresses issues such as health, safety, finance, officials, boards and commissions. The
ECDC consists of Titles 15 through 23 and addresses issues such as building, planning and land
use, public works, design and natural resources.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 27
Both parts of the CODE require updating!
The City of Edmonds 2007-08 Budget stated that "A complete rewrite of ECDC over a two year
period is proposed for completion in 2007."
The complete rewrite of the ECDC was never completed. Plus, we need to fix the ECC/EMC!
City Attorney Taraday stated it well during his EXCELLENT Annual Report (Thank you Mr.
Taraday!): There is no end to the tremendous backlog of code fixes needed.
Please consider the challenges related to updating just Chapter 2.10. 1 believe I myself have
well over 100 hours of research into just this section of Chapter 2. The CODE rewrite is a
complicated, huge project. Please make sure it is properly budgeted for.
Former City Attorney Snyder stated that: "The biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the code
rewrite."
As a citizen, I would argue that the Code Rewrite is still the "biggest issue" and that we need to
resolve it. Establishing a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy to administer City CODE
is critical to the City's efforts to provide a high level of government service which INVITES
economic and other beneficial activities to our City.
Thank you.
Ken Reidy
From: Eric Forney
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 20215:11 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree removal ordinance
Good afternoon,
I was wondering what the city policy is regarding large trees on private property that are
causing damage to parking areas and structures on the property? Thank you.
Eric Forney
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2021
Page 28