Loading...
Cmd060821EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 8, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office 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. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst 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." ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. DIVERSITY COMMISSION 2021 ANNUAL REPORT Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced the presentation and Diversity Commission Chair Ardeth Weed and Vice Chair Dean Olson. Chair Weed thanked the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to share the work and accomplishments of the Diversity Commission so far. The support in forming the commission 5+ years ago, the passionate work of the present and past Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 1 commissioners as well as the incredible support of City employees Patrick Doherty, Cindi Cruz, Arwen Mahron and Megan Luttrell have made their successes possible. She recognized Vice Chair Olson who has spent hours interviewing past and present commissioners and preparing this report. Vice Chair Olson reviewed: • Diversity Commissioners o Ardeth Weed, Chair (present at meeting) o Dean Olson, Vice -Chair (present at meeting) o Nikki Okimoto Glaros o Donnie Griffin (present at meeting) o Sekou Kone o Alberto Orejel Malfav6n o Sarah Mixson (present at meeting) o Alison Alfonzo Pence (present at meeting) o Melinda Woods o Caitlin Chung, Student Rep o Luke Distelhorst, Council Liaison o Arwen Mahron, Diversity Commission Coordinator • The City of Edmonds Diversity Commission is the City's Voice for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in Edmonds o As provided by Chapter 10.65 ECC, the mission of the Diversity Commission is: • To promote and embrace diversity through action, education, and guidance. The Commission seeks to foster an understanding that includes, accepts, respects and appreciates each individual member of our community. o To accomplish this, the Commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to other Boards and Commissions, as follows: A. Serve as a commission for city government and the community by providing information, education, and communication that facilitates understanding of diversity and to celebrate and respect individual differences. B. Recommend to the mayor and city council diversity opportunities to promote programs, and provide guidance to assure an accessible, safe, welcoming and inclusive government and community. C. Support, challenge, and guide government and the community to eliminate and prevent all forms of discrimination. • Edmonds Diversity Commission Events & Resources o Accomplishments ■ Diversity Film Series ■ World Cafes ■ Youth Forums • Fourth of July Parades ■ "I am Edmonds" Project ■ Online "Coping with Collective Trauma" event ■ DEI tool kit ■ "All are Welcome" decals ■ COVID 19 Help Flyer translated into 8 languages ■ Initial concept for Evening Market o Objectives ■ Indigenous Peoples Day • LGBTQ+ Pride Day • Community leader listening sessions Research new events Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 2 ■ Renew "I am Edmonds" Edmonds Diversity Commission's Policy Work o Accomplishments • Policy recommendations memo contributed to idea for Mayor's Equity & Social Justice Task force • Participated in Judge and Police Chief interview processes • ADA support for Dayton & 104; added captions that City Council adopted • Safe City Ordinance • Initiated movement that led City Council to change "Columbus Day" to "Indigenous Peoples Day" o Objectives • Research District based Council positions • Develop ADA accommodation & accessibility recommendation Edmonds Diversity Commission's Partnership Work o Accomplishments • Youth Forums @ Edmonds Woodway High School • Equity Toolkit • Sno-Isle Library partnership providing books ■ Community projects support & resources o Objectives ■ Increased partnerships with other cities' DEI groups • Hwy 99 Renewal Project involvement • Expand DEI toolkit to more business districts ■ Expand outreach efforts throughout the community Edmonds Diversity Commission's Grant Distributions o Accomplishments • Provided 15 grants for DEI events/programs • DEI book donations • Contributed to Dr. Martin Luther King Day Lift Every Voice Legacy event • KidStock! • Sherwood Elementary PSO DEI Outreach o Objectives • Continue supporting community DEI projects • Partnership with other cities' DEI projects & events Right Now and Looking Ahead o Recent Work ■ Responses to local incidents • Highway 99 research, proposals, research for Council • First to approve pronoun use ■ Disability inclusion • The City's go -to group for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE1) discussions o Objectives • Explore Potential for Edmonds Office of Civil Rights ■ Increase City ties to Hwy 99 communities • Translation recommendations ■ Edmonds Youth Commission ties • Possible anonymous bias/hate complaint process • Maintain/Increase funding for DEI support ■ Disability inclusion and recommendations + Thanks go to the City Council, City staff, and members of the public for making the Diversity Commission and its programs and activities such a success in our community! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 3 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she enjoyed seeing what the Diversity Commission has been done. She was one of founding members along with former Councilmember Strom Peterson, and spent five years on the commission. She was also glad to see at least half the Diversity Commission in attendance for the presentation to Council meeting. She expressed her appreciation for everything the commission does. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Chair Weed and Vice Chair Olson and the other commissioners who were present, commenting it was exciting to be the Council liaison to Diversity Commission. The commission is involved in so much exciting, authentic, community driven work on behalf of Edmonds residents and he was honored to be able to spend time and consult with them on issues. He looked forward to their continued work in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo and said she was one of Councilmembers who voted to approve the creation of the Diversity Commission. She suggested the DEI toolkit be provided to Council and asked if it had been sent to all business districts or only certain ones. Mr. Doherty answered the toolkit was an outgrowth of representatives of the downtown business community who join forces with the Diversity Commission to help their business leaders understand issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion. It was shared through the Ed! and DEMA organization. The Diversity Commission would like to explore ways to share it with other business districts in Edmonds and lie was happy to share it with Council. Recalling that it was a Councilmember's priority, Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the commission planned to explore the potential for an Edmonds Office of Civil Rights. Chair Weed answered the commission is still exploring how and who to do that with. Mr. Doherty explained it is still at the committee level and each committee member plus staff have been assigned cities with something similar to an Office of Civil Rights to research. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated bravo and thanked the commission. Council President Paine expressed support for all the Diversity Commission's objectives which are focused on inclusion and connections and helping develop community and connections. She suggested sharing the DEI toolkit with the Chamber of Commerce who provide resources for businesses associated with the Chamber. She summarized the commission is doing fine work and leading the way to better access to equity in the City. Mr. Doherty said the DEI toolkit was shared with the Chamber Director who shared it with businesses and that input was incorporated into the toolkit. That input include that some people are very new to the issue of equity and inclusion and some of the resources in first draft seemed overwhelming and voluminous so a couple lower barrier resources were added. Council President Paine commented organizations including non-profit and businesses in Edmonds are showing a lot of leadership related to inclusion. She expressed appreciation for the Diversity Commission's work. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she was aware the Diversity Commission was a valuable City resource, but seeing everything they have done was very impressive and she thanked them for their work. With regard to an Office of Civil Rights, she looked forward to hearing the results of their research. She asked about the Sherwood Elementary PSO DEI Outreach and whether the commission planned to expand that to other schools. Vice Chair Olson explained for the past 2 years the commission has had grant funded programs and plans to continue that work. Each time Sherwood Elementary has requested a grant, the commission has supported their program. There was also a program with Mountlake Terrace High School where Edmonds high school and middle school students attended a showing of a movie about racism in Portland. That was very well attended and included captions. He summarized when applications for grants are submitted, the commission considers them and award funds. Councilmember Olson thanked the Diversity Commission and Mr. Doherty for being open to input from Chamber members. She asked for an email to write to the entire Diversity Commission. Vice Chair Olson suggested sending emails to Chair Weed and/or Mr. Doherty to avoid creating quorum and they will forward Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 4 information to the commission. Councilmember Olson said she will provide information to Mr. Doherty regarding an item on the Council's extended agenda related to voting rights and voting systems so the commission can share any research they have done. With regard to the Office of Civil Rights, she commented sometimes people jump to a solution before truly vetting a problem and all the possible solutions to the problem. She encouraged that committee to think about all the other ways problems could be addressed; some ways have less overhead and are less expensive. She was excited to hear about the community leader listening sessions and would be excited to be included. It would be great if one of the topics was Juneteenth and if it wasn't planned, she encouraged the commission to consider how the community would like to recognize and celebrate it or possibly incorporate it into the 4`1 of July celebration. Juneteenth is an important independence day to recognize in Edmonds and she would welcome the commission's input on how to recognize it. She thanked the Diversity Commission for everything they do. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Vice Chair Olson for the presentation and for his hard work at the legislature, getting an important piece of legislation passed that will help everyone with disabilities and provides leadership to the City on what they need to do. The City has big job ahead to deal with ADA ramps and sidewalks and getting the transportation system up to federal standards and she hoped the Diversity Commission would continue work with Bertrand Hauss on that project. She thanked the Diversity Commission for all their hard work, commenting it was good to see them on Zoom and she hoped to see them in person soon. For the public's benefit, Councilmember L. Johnson asked when the Diversity Commission meets. Vice Chair Olson reported the commission meets the first Wednesday of each month at 6 p.m. unless it is a holiday. They are meeting via Zoom now, but hope to meet at the Waterfront Center soon. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded it is more than physical disabilities and hearing impairment, it is also about visual impairments. She was interested in the Diversity Commission's work related to visual impairments. Chair Weed thanked the Council for recognizing the need and forming the Diversity Commission over five years ago. At that time, no one knew the future focus on diversity that would soon sweep the entire country. She looked forward to continuing to work together to improve relationships in the City through the commission's efforts. She thanked the Council for their support and suggested any comments/questions be shared with Mr. Doherty. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps referred to his previous comments about Derek Chauvin's murder trial being held in district court in Minnesota; Minnesota is in fact one of only three states where that is allowed to occur and he apologized for being wrong. He read a quote from Mayor Jenny Durkan regarding the former U.S. Attorney Michael McKay, There is not another jurisdiction in the country that has been as successful at getting judges on the bench during this time of political gridlock. Former executive counsel [inaudible], served on or co- chaired several judicial selection committees with Michael McKay and says he has been key to the successful effort. Mr. Phelps said the problem with that is according to the RCW, judges in Washington are to be elected in non -partisan elections. That judicial committee, all the judges that are in virtually every Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 5 court in the Western District of Washington with the exception of Edmonds Municipal Court are from Seattle University. The current Judge Whitney Rivera was properly appointed when the City's former Judge Linda Coburn, who was a Seattle University graduate, left. She would have been well served to have had an opponent. Michael McKay's brother John McKay was nominated by George W. Bush in September 2001. Two weeks before he was confirmed, Tom Wells was brutally slain in his home on Queen Anne Hill. When he was fired a few years later by George W. Bush, he went to Seattle University and became a professor. Former Councilmember and former Judge Pro Tern did not fit that bill so they set him up and he did a year and a half in prison and was disbarred. He urged the Council to be careful of an attorney in Edmonds, Tom Brennan. Linda Ferldngstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree issue related to people who own property with trees that would like to build a home. It is the Council's duty to uphold constitutional rights, not remove their rights and the worth of their property. The Council is penalizing them for dividing their property and remove trees so they can build their homes even though they plan to retain 50% o the trees, 20% more than the 30% Edmonds requires. The discriminatory tree taxes do not apply to Edmonds homeowners, only those who wish to divide property and build homes. Everyone who lives in Edmonds has reaped the benefits of dividing property, tree removal and building without tree taxes in the past. Removing trees is not a safety issues as other regulations dictate. The City has 100% taxed the worth of their trees, each 24" DBH and larger tree needing removal, punishing those who are fulfilling the community's housing needs and greatly increasing the cost of building new homes in Edmonds. They hope to build three modest homes on 1.2 acres they purchased in Edmonds four years ago and look forward to building homes from the ground up for the first time, saving as many trees as possible as they divide the land and build to downsize themselves while maintaining their highest value. They are used to overcoming unexpected hurdles but the Council's new tree tax, likely $250,000 for the worth of their trees, is over the top, a taking of their property. Ms. Ferkingstad explained the expense of removing trees, grinding roots, protecting retained trees may be somewhat covered by the sale of lumber, which is desperately needed now, but cannot overcome being taxed for any part of their worth. She questioned whether the City Council was targeting them because her husband is a general contractor. They specialize in remodel improvements for homeowners, supply equipment, coordinate with customers and their employees and generate work for engineers, arborists, geologists, architects, City personnel, fire departments, power and utility companies, inspectors, plumbers, electricians, attorneys, landscapers and other trades. They comply with changing regulations and stipulations in neighborhoods, cities and counties, regulations that most previously built homes would not pass. Projects can be subject to 30 or more inspections. They ensure their employees are knowledgeable, understand and follow safety rules, work hard and have health insurance. They pay payroll taxes, unemployment, paid family leave, labor and industry and liability insurance, and collect and pay sales tax to the city and state. She questioned what part of being a general contractor deserves punishment, what part of wanting to build smaller homes for themselves deserves punishment from the City of Edmonds. She requested the City remove the discriminatory and illegal tree ordinance taxes and allow them to build their homes without this burden just as everyone else has previously done in the City. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on the City's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property, specifically some of the statements Council made during the Stage 2 tree issues discussion at the June 1 st Council meeting. It can be dressed up however the Council likes, excluding the bowl and properties with views from burdens of maintaining an urban forest because it may impact property values while simultaneously requiring others to incur ongoing maintenance, home insurance and significant additional development costs is NIMBY and deeply inequitable. The Council saying they support options 2 and 3 for tracking purposes is not accurate or transparent; both limit or prohibit the removal of trees and there are many other less costly ways to track trees than this regulatory effort. What happened is that the tree funding mechanism was poorly conceived and significantly burdens property owners who have chosen to grow and maintain trees and now the City is stuck because barring the emergency ordinance, there is nothing that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 6 prevents an owner who plans to develop from removing trees as a maintenance action and then being treated exactly like an un-treed property when seeking a development permit. The simplest reason for why the City has chosen to undertake this action against the recommendation of the Urban Forest Management Plan is to protect the tree funding mechanism. This current approach has a wider scope and will affect property owners with no plans to develop and will be inequitable because the tree funding mechanism is inequitable. Ms. Seitz suggested that the solution was in resolving the funding mechanism for development regulations, an action that would likely be consistent with the UFMP and respect all the public input that went into the process. The Council should stop penalizing people for growing and maintaining trees and be transparent with the public; equity is always harder than inequitable options, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be undertaken or the preferred alternative. Equitable options would include revising the tree funding structure to equally burden all properties where trees have historically and could grow again or option to fix with no exceptions which in time would become equitable. Barring those options the next most equitable path forward is to revise the tree fund to require monies be spent in the areas they were taken from (i.e. don't penalize areas annexed in the 1960s and 1990s to pay for trees maintained by public funds in the bowl), restructure Surface Water Management fees to at least account for the difference in surface water benefit provided by trees, no action or ask the Diversity Commission to evaluate the disproportionate amount paid by Highway 99 communities under the proposed tree ordinance for benefits that are diverted to areas outside those communities. Denise Cooper, Edmonds, objected to the tree code. She owns the tree, it is on her property, her property to keep or remove and she should not have to pay a tax to the City to take down her tree. She should not have to ask permission to take down her tree. The City should preserve the trees in the City parks and on City property. She objected to the City taking her property rights away. She owns the property and should have a say on what happens to her property. She recommended allowing the citizens to vote on this issue. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. 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: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MASTER PERMIT AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS (SMALL CELL) FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group, commented this was her third presentation to the City Council regarding the master permit. The Council is being asked to consider the master permit and authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with New Cingular Wireless to place its small wireless facilities in the right-of-way. She reviewed: ■ Local Government Regulation is Limited by FCC o FCC Orders Withstand Recent Challenge in the Ninth Circuit o Competing objectives: protecting the public health and safety while ensuring the rapid development of a telecom network o Local governments can manage ROW (examples below): Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 7 • Coordination of construction schedules ■ Determination of insurance, bonding, and indemnity requirements • Regulate time or location of excavation, preserving traffic flow ■ Keeping track of the various systems using the ROW Council Discretion is Limited o The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY PROHIBIT OR EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT the provision of telecommunications service. o CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS from enacting laws or ordinances that conflict with this mandate. FCC Orders o Orders promulgated under the authority of congressional statute and governing the installation and management of small wireless facilities, including the manner in which local governments can regulate, SPELLING OUT LIMITS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO REGULATE telecommunications providers. • Examples of Effective Prohibition o Examples of Effective Prohibition come from case law & the FCC ■ Includes materially inhibiting a provider's ability to: — Densify a network — Introduce new services — Improve service capabilities — Taking too long to process permit applications — Charging more than the FCC will allow • Regulation of RF Emissions o Permits cannot be denied based on radio frequency emissions o The federal government, NOT THE CITY, has authority to regulate RF Emissions o Resolution 1426 (March 2019) a resolution by City Council regarding RF Emissions with distribution to FCC, the FDA Commissioner, and our Congressional Delegation ■ Resolution No. 1426 o FCC asked to perform and update studies on the potential health risks of 5G radio emissions and publish such findings. ■ Result: December 2019: The FCC adopted a new order examining RF exposure in the environment and concluded that no changes to its 1996 standards were warranted o Congress asked to determine FCC overstepped its bounds in 2018 order titled "Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment" and asked Congress to adopt a bill entitled "Accelerating Broadband Deployment by Empowering Local Communities Act of 2019. is Result: According to govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/lir530, the sponsor was Rep Anna Eshoo, the bill was introduced to Congress on 1/14/2019 and did not receive a vote. ■ If there are concerns about RF Emissions o FCC has published a guide suggesting that interested persons contact the provider of the telecommunication facilities and services because the provider is required to understand the FCC's rules and to know how to apply them in specific cases and at specific sites. ■ If that does not resolve the issues, interested person should contact the FCC directly or contact federal elected officials Master Permit Highlights o General permission given to place small wireless facilities and associated equipment in the City's rights -of -way o Requires site specific permit in accordance with Chapter 20.50 ECDC. o Five year term, subject to renewal by the city council o Other providers may obtain master permits or franchises as well. o City can require relocation of the facilities at New Cingular'S expense Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 8 o New Cingular shall reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs incurred. No franchise fee is charged as dictated by RCW 35.21.860. o New Cingular will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance, and assume risk of damage to its facilities. o Inventory of facilities to be maintained with a copy to the City and provide updates. o New Cingular agrees to comply with all applicable laws, standards, and regulations relating to its facilities and at all times will maintain them in a safe condition in good order and repair. o Procedures are specified in the event of a breach o New Cingular will establish a permanent security fund in the amount of $50,000 to guarantee the performance of its requirements under the Master Permit and payment of sums due the City. o Certain provisions survive expiration or termination of the Master Permit for the protection of the City, e.g., the indemnity and insurance provisions. Ms. Tinker summarized Council discretion is limited by the U.S. Congress which has asserted federal control and has declared that cities cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit the telecommunications industry from providing their telecommunication services including wireless services. Lighthouse Law Group and staff have worked for a long time on this document and believe they are presenting a good document protecting the City's interests up to the limits of the law. She relayed the request for Council to pass the ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday asked whether to have the industry representatives added as panelist to the meeting or speak as members of the public and then be added as panelist to answer questions. Mayor Nelson suggested they speak as members of the public during the public hearing and address any follow-up questions. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, on behalf AT&T, expressed AT&T's support for the master permit presented by City staff. The master permit is the end product of extensive negotiations and the current version was agreed to about two weeks ago. He requested the Council approve the ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute the master permit as currently drafted so AT&T can improve service to Edmonds, residents, business and first responders. Wireless communication plays a critical role in the community. More than 95% of Americans have wireless phones, more than 58% of Washington residents do not have a landline and are wireless only, and 80% of 911 calls come from cell phones. Modern society relies on wireless communication networks more than ever before and the demand for wireless technology is growing. Telecommuting, remote learning and telehealth all rely on reliable connections including wireless connections to provide critical services. AT&T's priority is to provide stable and consistent connections to their customers and they are constantly assessing and upgrading their network to respond to the tremendous increase in demand for mobile data. Small wireless facilities are key to providing additional coverage and capacity to AT&T's network in areas with high demand for wireless data and network usage. In order to continue to offer high quality service and respond to the ever-increasing demands on AT&T's networks, he asked that the Council approve the ordinance authorizing AT&T's master permit. AT&T looks forward to the chance to improve service to Edmonds residents, businesses and first responders. He and Ken Lyons are available to answer questions. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, questioned whether the Council had had an opportunity to review the environmental impact review for this action. Under the National Environmental Impact Policy Act, all federal actions such as the FCC 5G implementation must follow the process of evaluating environmental impacts. She recommended the Council request and thoroughly review the environmental analysis before making a decision about the master permit. She also requested the Council take a closer look at the appeal brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council and several Native American Tribes. In August 2019, a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 9 DC court found the FCC had failed to adequately address the possible harms of its deregulatory efforts and the benefits of environmental and historic preservation review. The DC Court of Appeals also observed that the FCC failed to address cumulative harms that may result from densification of cells as well as determined the FCC failed to address rate of tower densification without completing its investigation of health defects of low intensity radio frequency radiation and that it had not adequately addressed the harms of deregulation among other issues. The court also found the FCC cannot justify the determination that these types of installations are inherently unlikely to trigger potential significant environmental impacts. She encouraged the Council to wait to approve the master permit until the Supreme Court hears the cases brought before them, City of Portland, Oregon v. FCC where the state and local legal center will ask the Supreme Court to review the 9t' Circuit decision because local governments are prevented from serving as stewards of public property, safety and welfare. She requested the Council delay their decision until more questions can be answered about this process which will give the City a better feel for how best to proceed in residents' best interest. Michael Hirano, Edmonds, asked if stations and antennas would be mounted on new structures or affixed to existing structures. Mayor Nelson advised this was an opportunity for comment not for questions. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said there was no language in the master permit that guarantees uniform coverage for the community, leaving it to the companies to spot cover wherever it is beneficial to themselves versus to the community at large. He questioned how it could be beneficial for the entire community and not just individuals or locations that the wireless companies want to service rather than broad services across the community. For instance, his cell phone coverage is very poor and he has to have a repeater in his house to enhance coverage. He was interested in deploying coverage more equitably and encouraged the City to include language that guarantees performance in exchange for giving away the rights -of -way. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised the remaining time is for the Council to ask questions of the Lighthouse team, City staff or the industry professionals. The Council can also use the time to deliberate although no action is anticipated until next week. Councilmember K. Johnson observed some commentors have elevated issues and questions she would like to have a response to. For example, Janelle Cass asked about City of Portland v. FCC; Councilmember K. Johnson asked the status of that lawsuit. Mr. Ogonowski raised questions about coverage and another person asked what the small cells would look like. With regard to the status of the litigation, Mr. Taraday said when they checked it this afternoon, there has been a petition for review to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court has not decided whether to accept a review. With regard to Mr. Ogonowski's comment, as Ms. Tinker stated in her presentation, the City is not allowed to require companies perform at any particular level; performance requirements are not within the City's purview. He sympathized with the comment, it seems only fair if the City is giving away its rights -of -way for free that the City should be able to get performance guarantees in exchange, but that is not how Congress set it up. With regard to Ms. Cass' comment about NEPA, Mr. Taraday said the Council's decision is not covered by NEPA but is covered by SEPA. These facilities are categorically exempt under SEPA and no SEPA is required under WAC 197.11.800, specifically subsections 23H and 25A2. NEPA applies to the FCC, not the City. Issues related to aesthetics are considered at the site specific level, not the master permit level. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the timeframe for the Council to make a decision on the master permit. Ms. Tinker answered the FCC has imposed time limits on cities when there is an application to deploy facilities in the right-of-way. Her analysis was those shot clocks technically apply to a site specific permit but if there is no master permit when the site specific permit is applied for, then the shot clock would also Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 10 apply to the master permit. There is currently no site specific permit application pending. However, it would be dangerous legal waters to indefinitely postpone a decision on a master permit because Congress has said cities cannot prohibit or effectively prohibit deployment of small wireless facilities. Courts have upheld the FCC's interpretation of the time limits, referred to as shot clocks, on site specific permits which are quite short, 60 or 90 days depending on if it includes a new or existing support structure. There is not a definite date certain, but this application has been pending for about a year and the City cannot prohibit them from deploying their facilities. Mr. Taraday agreed with Ms. Tinker's comments and added if the Council felt there was some aspect of the master permit that they wanted Lighthouse to renegotiate or a particular concern they wanted looked into that fell within the categories of things the City is allowed to look, that might be good basis for deferring a decision to continue to that work. However, delay for the sake of delay alone is probably not something he would recommend. To the extent that the Council wanted to wait until the Supreme Court determines if they will accept review, nothing in that litigation would materially change this master permit. There is language in the master permit that preserves the City's rights in the event the legal landscape changes regarding things that are the subject of that City of Portland case. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court were to accept review and even if it were to reverse the 9"' Circuit and do something favorable to cities, there is language in the master permit preserving the City's ability to take advantage of those changes. To the best of his knowledge, what was not part of that case was any ability to regulate RF emission. In other words, even a reversal of the 9"' Circuit by the U.S. Supreme Court would not somehow open the door for the City to regular RF emission or prohibit the deployment of small cell facilities in the event there were concerns about RF emissions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to postpone a decision because there was not enough information in the packet. She recalled discussion about maps, and that that was a huge contention with Version back in 2019 because they did not want to include the location of small cells in the master permit. That information is not included in the proposed master permit. She recalled there was a map in 2019, noting a map was not the same as an inventory which is required. She preferred to see a map of the location of the small cell wireless facilities. She was also concerned that the master permit did not allow commingling on poles or structures. She found that very disconcerting due to the number of providers which could result in a lot of small cell poles. Observing that NEPA was required for the FCC, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the City was not allowed to review that document. She reiterated she did not have enough information tonight to make a logical decision. She recalled the issue of maps was discussed in detail in 2019 and suggested providing the Council the packet from 2019. She referred to an email from a citizen regarding RF effects on bees that she forwarded to staff who indicated they would forward it to the industry representatives, but she had not received a response. Mr. Taraday did not recall whether a response was received, pointing out the industry representatives are here tonight to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would search for the email and ask her question later. Council President Paine asked whether Ms. Tinker in her research and in developing the master agreement, had come across any lawsuits or case law challenging the FCC's management of RF emissions. She noted it had been in place since 1996 and there had been a legislative challenge. Ms. Tinker agreed with Mr. Taraday that there was nothing in the City of Portland case that if it were reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court that would allow the City to regulate RF emissions. There was a claim challenging the Small Cell Order, a 2018 order that limited the fees cities can charge, limited the aesthetic regulations, and put time limits on how long cities can take to process applications. There were scores of plaintiffs in that case, one was Montgomery County who challenged the Small Cell Order on the basis that the FCC had not closed the 2013 docket which was a request for comments on whether the FCC should update its RF emissions regulations. The 9"' Circuit noted Montgomery County's challenge to the Small Cell Order, based on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 11 fact that the FCC did not close the 2013 docket, was moot because between the time the lawsuit was filed and the 9"' Circuit judges wrote their opinion, the FCC came out with its December 2019 order which said they looked at it and decided the standards did not need to be updated. Mr. Taraday added it was not just the FCC that said cities cannot regulate RF, the U.S. Congress has also stated cities cannot regulate RF. Councilmember Olson recalled a previous packet on this subject discussed the difference between how small cell wireless would be handled if the utilities were undergrounded versus not undergrounded. She asked about, 1) differences in how that was handled, and 2) if a street was interested in undergrounding, was there a process in place to initiate that before this takes effect. Ms. Tinker answered the master perinit authorizes facilities to be placed in the right-of-way; facilities are defined as the actual small cell wireless facility which is the structure mounted on a pole and all the associated equipment located within 10 feet of the support structure. The master permit states to the extent it is technologically feasible, everything has to be underground. The antenna on the pole cannot be underground because it would be unable to operate, but the other equipment within 10 feet, to the extent they can be, needs to be underground. If there are no poles in the area where the provider wants to place its small wireless facility, such as no PUD poles, then the aesthetic requirements limit their options to a free standing facility or attached to a streetlight and there are aesthetic standards for what the streetlight post looks like or they could be attached to building which would be outside the right-of-way. The master permit is limited to governing what is in the right-of-way. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding they would still have the option of a free standing pole or was that only if they could not make the streetlight work. Ms. Tinker said she would need to review the location preference hierarchy, but recalled if there was a need for a streetlight, they would need to do a streetlight. Councilmember Olson observed potentially someone could avoid having the infrastructure if they had undergrounded utilities because they would be required to look first to the street light. Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell referred to the site specific location preference hierarchy adopted in the code, advising that hollow utilities poles are the first preference which would include a street light as an option if all the utilities wires are underground. The hierarchy preference is first utility poles followed by free standing small cell facilities; both could be used in an area where utilities are underground. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification regarding the location preference hierarchy. Ms. McConnell answered a hollow utility pole could include a light pole if it already existed. It could also look like a PUD pole changed out to a hollow utility pole although PUD is not set up to have those as part of their utility system at this point in time. Public Works Director Phil Williams said PUD has taken a pretty hard stance on hollow utility poles to replace their existing poles. In excess of 90% of the City's street lights are on PUD poles. For example, in the first application that staff has been working on, consideration is being given to where a light may be needed in that vicinity. If the desire is not to have it mounted on the PUD pole, one of the options is a standalone facility and that is a streetlight. Mr. Taraday said if Councilmember Olson was asking whether the hierarchy ranks a free standing pole higher or lower than a streetlight that incorporates a small cell facilities, the code ranks them the same, they are both location preference number two. Councilmember Olson asked if that was the right approach for the City, would it be preferable to not have additional poles. Mr. Taraday responded the policy choices that were made when the esthetic standards were adopted in 2019 took into account not just the number poles but all the ugliness that hangs on the outside of a wooden pole. That was a large part of the then -City Council's choice to raise the hollow and free-standing poles above wooden utility poles; it was not just a matter of pole count but the ugliness associated with things hanging on the outside of the pole. The Council is not here tonight to deliberate on the regulations in Chapter 20.50. The Council could revisit those if they would like, but the aesthetic regulations are what they are at least for now and the master permit does not regulate aesthetics because those are regulated on a site specific basis. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes .Tune 8, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember Olson said the crux of her question was whether it was in the interest of a citizen, a block or a neighborhood to pursue undergrounding the utilities to avoid some potential ugliness. She asked if that was something they should be thinking about or was that not relevant or valid or would not make a difference. Mr. Williams observed the undergrounding could be paid for via a local improvement district (LID); he agreed that would conceptually be doable although it had not been done in Edmonds before. Councilmember Olson asked from a timing standpoint, would it make sense to do it sooner rather than later before the small wireless facilities come into play. Mr. Williams answered that would not necessarily be an issue; the costs would need to be borne almost entirely by the by LID. When the City makes an improvement in the right-of-way where the PUD poles have to be moved, the City pays the difference between what an overhead installation would have cost and the actual cost of undergrounding. In the case of an LID, something similar could be worked out or 100% of the cost would be paid by the LID. Undergrounding is a very expensive project. Mayor Nelson reminded this agenda item was about the master permit. Councilmember L. Johnson said like other Councilmembers, she had health concerns but given that the City is not allowed to consider health concerns in its policy making, she reiterated her concerns related to the aesthetics implications of multiple small cell facilities throughout the City and the visual pollution. Although the industry downplayed that issue when she raised it last week, if every provider deploys their own units throughout the City, there is a real possibility for a lot of visual pollution. She was not on the City Council when the policy regarding aesthetics was developed, but now that she is being asked to make these decisions, she would like an opportunity to review those regulations to see what could be done to possibly limit the visual pollution. One provider says they are only planning a handful of the facilities now, but she anticipated there would be a lot in the future. Before that door is opened, she needed to have a clear idea of what the City was possibility getting into and how to best mitigate that visual pollution. Mr. Taraday observed there had been a couple comments about aesthetic concerns and he was unclear if the Council wanted that to come back as a study item at some point in the future or did the Council see that as something they wanted brought back next week as part of their continued deliberation on the master permit. He opined it was more appropriately decided outside of the master permit process as a separate study session, but staff could drill down on aesthetics next week if the Council wished. He reminded that that is decided at the site specific level pursuant to City code. To the extent the Council wanted to amend the City code, it would not be precluded from doing so by virtue of the fact that the master permit had already been adopted. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council cannot look at this in silos. If Councilmembers want to look at the aesthetics, that should be done. She expressed her preference for a complete packet, recalling her previous concern that no maps were included in the master permitting process as well as there was no comingling with other providers which could result in visual pollution. This a very important decision and once the door is opened, it cannot be closed. She would like to have the email about health concerns sent to the industry representatives for a response. She recalled the review of the aesthetics in 2019 took a long time. Mr. Taraday said he did not want the Council to think they could not ask questions of the industry about health concerns; the representatives are here tonight to respond to questions; he was just saying the Council cannot regulate based on that. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled last week she asked the question given the difference of 5G from previous generations, what is the expected increase in emissions. Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, on behalf AT&T, deferred the question to Ken Lyons, Wireless Policy Group. In response to Councilmember L. Johnson's question related to the increase in emissions related to 5G, Mr. Lyons explained emissions are a function of the number of frequencies used to transmit wireless signals. They Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 13 provided testimony a few weeks ago about studies they conduct related to site specific locations that describe the amount of RF emissions from a facility to show certification and compliance with FCC regulations. Generally speaking, whether 3G, 4G, 5G is on the same pole, there is only an incremental increase, an overall environment where a typical facility is less than 5% of the FCC's limit on emissions. If 2-3 frequencies are transmitting and an additional frequencies is added, there is an incremental increase, but it does not increase by a certain percentage. The studies that are done show how emissions effect basically where people have exposure near facilities and the maximum permissible exposure under the FCC regulations. He clarified he was not an RF scientist or an RF engineer. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if tests have been done to see if the difference between RF radiation creates an elevated risk for children as their skull bones are thinner than adults and their brains still developing or if any tests had been done to determine if children, smartphones and radio frequencies were of concern. Mr. Lyons answered he is not an RF health expert or a scientist and could not comment on those issues. He referred those questions to the experts such as the National institute of Health, American Cancer Society, the FCC, or the CDC who have expertise in that field. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether AT&T did their own review or testing related to those issues. Mr. Lyons answered facilities are tested with regard to emissions. Every piece of equipment on a facility goes through a testing and certification process with the FCC. He clarified he was unable to comment on specific medical or epidemiological studies. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she would send the email to Mr. Taraday who could send it to the industry representatives. She was interested in the Wireless Policy Group's answers to questions raised about bees, birds and children. She asked if they were familiar with a lawsuit filed by 19 tribes. Mr. Lyons said he was not an attorney and would defer any legal questions to the City's attorney. He was familiar with the lawsuit and could offer comments. He explained there are a number of FCC orders and federal regulations that change all the time. There are NEPA requirements that apply to locating any wireless facility; those regulations stand apart from the City's regulatory authority because the City does not regulate facilities based on NEPA. The City regulates facilities under its code as well SEPA as Mr. Taraday explained. Mr. Lyons referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' specific question related to a separate FCC order, not the small cell order, but a different small cell order related to compliance and what exclusions apply to small cells in certain historic districts. There have been several different orders over the years that talk about wireless facilities. For example, collocating on a facility is a NEPA exemption. A lot of NEPA programmatic agreements have been adopted that would exempt a lot of small cells. There was a separate specific small cell exemption proposed but it only applied to certain types of historic districts, travel areas where there would be TEPA and NEPA requirements. He summarized it is not really connected to aesthetics, the shot clock or the other order the attorneys were discussing tonight. Council President Paine posed a theoretical question for the industry. If a provider was second coming into a facility and they had to collocate, would that cause problems for their equipment. Mr. Lyons answered yes, pointing out the current code requires colocation. However, the City has a height limit for a standalone or light pole of 25 feet; the first carrier's antenna at the top is at 23-25 feet, the second set of antennas would be at 20 feet where there literally would not be room. There would need to be a much taller facility to provide the physical space for multiple carriers on the same pole. The current small cell regulations in Chapter 20.50 require colocation, but the way they are written practically speaking, it does not promote it because facilities are not tall enough to support it. Council President Paine observed that was because the communication space on the pole was not big enough. Mr. Lyons answered yes, the facilities needs to be high enough above the ground to provide service. Small cells are designed as a technology that is deployed between 30-45 feet, the FCC definition is up to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 14 50 feet; the sweet spot for a small cell is about 35 feet. Below 30 feet and down to 25 feet, there is not much benefit because the signal does not propagate very far when the antenna is only 20 feet off the ground. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there are currently cell towers on private property and co - located all over the City and the phone companies pay a monthly fee to the building owner. She knew of at least one building on 3`d & Main that had a number of co -located towers. She asked the difference between using the current 25-foot height limit and not having co -location on 25-foot poles. Mr. Lyons answered they routinely co -locate on towers that are 80-200 feet tall. On towers, antennas have to have separation to avoid interference between each provider. Often on a 100-foot tower there may be 1-2 co -location spaces where as long as the antennas are separated vertically by about 10 feet, multiple carries may fit. He pointed out the equipment associated with the antennas is located on the ground. In a building environment, there may be multiple carriers on the rooftop at the same height, but they are usually separated horizontally by at least 20-30 feet to reduce interference. The challenge with small cells is they are already low power facilities so multiple carriers on the same pole all have to be at same height. Macro sites such as towers and buildings that have larger equipment operate at much higher power and are much higher off the ground. With a small cell pole that is 25-feet tall with two sets of antennas for one carrier flush mounted to the pole or inside the pole, there is simply not enough space below to locate other carriers unless the height of the pole is increased significantly. There is also the issue of where to locate the equipment. It is an issue of aesthetics, whether the City prefers to have multiple carriers on taller small cell poles of greater width to accommodate the equipment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Lyons if he had ever been to Edmonds. Mr. Lyons said he used to live in Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there are no 50 or 100 foot buildings in Edmonds, but multiple companies have towers on numerous buildings downtown. She was perplexed between what currently exists and what the Council is being asked to do. Mr. Lyons said he has worked on the macro sites on building in Edmonds that are typically 50-60 feet high above the building. The function of those facilities is to provide coverage to a broader area. In the Edmonds bowl where the topography is favorable, a larger area can be covered even by a facility on a relatively short building. Small cells are fundamentally different from a network architecture standpoint, they are meant to supplement and provide additional capacity and are not deployed in the same way as macro sites. Macro cells are located around the City to provide broad coverage, but small cells are more area specific. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this technology has never been deployed on such a wide scale, it is new and untested and the potential impact on the environment and health is unknown. Two of the biggest concerns are related to birds and egg development and bees upon whom 1/3 of the food development depends and they are trying to recover from colony collapse. It is suspected that the millimeter waves are linked to disturbances and insect navigation. She asked whether the industry would do its best with mapping to avoid the most environmentally sensitive areas as they deploy this technology. Mr. Lyons said he was unsure how to answer that question because it relies on a presupposition of harm. They have to follow all codes and laws as it relates to deployment of their facilities. Facilities are permitted at the local level, but they must also follow state and national requirements; those relevant certifications are provided. Facility location is generally driven by network demand where there is a need. They want their facilities to be safe which is why testing is done and the certifications are provided. They follow all those requirements, which include the City's rules related to siting facilities, to continue to serve their customers as they are allowed to do. Mayor Nelson asked if Mr. Taraday needed clarification regrading additional information the Council had requested. Mr. Taraday said next week's packet could be prepared with all the materials that have been provided previously along with the map that New Cingular submitted with their application. He pointed out this is 5-year master permit; the map asked for in the application materials is their best estimate for what they plan to build out in the next two years. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis requested a copy of the NEPA for the FCC. She said a map is great but there is nothing that ties the map to the master permit. She suggested providing the entire packets from 2019 so she could compare and contrast the master permits. She recalled the master permit in 2019 included maps. Mr. Taraday said his hesitation in including all the 2019 packet materials in next week's packet was overwhelming the Council with hundreds of pages of materials that might make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. He wanted to provide the Council what they needed to cast their vote, but was unsure it would be helpful to provide that much information. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested any information on City of Portland v. FCC such as the arguments. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if Councilmembers did not want to read historical materials, they did not have to. She felt the more information that was available the better. This is a serious issue for the City and will change the look of the City for years to come. She recognized everyone likes cell phones, but it is a very important issue for a historically beautiful city. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. WAIVING RENT PAYMENTS FOR THE. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR JULY- SEPTEMBER 2021 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Chamber is still operating with less staff. There is light at the end of tunnel with the Taste of Edmonds in August and if that occurs, the Chamber should be self- sufficient from then on. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PROVIDE THE CHAMBER WITH COST FREE RENT FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS FOR A TOTAL OF $2136.57 FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for waiving the Chamber's rent through the end of the year, although through September was also fine. She commented the Chamber is invaluable to the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the proposed waiver is for July, August September. If the Chamber is not able to hold the Taste for whatever reason, she may request a waiver for another few months. Councilmember K. Johnson voiced her support, relaying she has been a member of the Chamber of Commerce since 2012. They do wonderful work for the City although their role during COVID changed. She supported the rent waiver and hoped the Chamber would be back in business by October. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. AMENDING ECC 10.80 SALARY COMMISSION HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this item was discussed at last week's Council meeting. There are no changes to the original proposal as there was no clear direction at last week's meeting. She recapped the options which include adopting the proposed code changes to move the Salary Commission cycle to every four years. There was some discussion about amendments to address continuity of commission members. Another option is to retain the current two-year cycle in the code for the Salary Commission. The Council also discussed the issue of equity, particularly as it relates to compensation of Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 16 and whether it is at a level that allows a diverse group of people to participate as Councilmembers. Mr. Taraday had explained to the Council if that was their interest, it would not be effected through the Salary Commission, that the Council would need to take that action which would likely include disbanding the Salary Commission for some period to allow Council to enact compensation changes. Councilmember Buckshnis said she talked to the Salary Commission members and there seems to be a difference of opinion about time spent. She felt the last commission was the best one the City has had; they did investigative work and interviewed everybody. She referred to an email she sent last week that included a recap from one commissioners and did not recall receiving an answer to the need for further work to be done by the Salary Commission. She did not understand the proposal to go to a four-year cycle and asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson was waiting for this decision before appointing Salary Commission members as the Salary Commission would begin in July. Ms. Neill Hoyson said there is some time sensitivity related to this decision; if the Council chose to move forward with the Salary Commission in the current code, those vacancies would need to be posted very quickly. She reiterated the three decisions for Council, 1) whether to change the code to a four-year cycle, 2) remain as it currently is, or 3) the Council look at establishing compensation. If the Council wants the Salary Commission to remain as is, that decision needs to be made tonight so that process can begin and the commission can begin meeting. If the Council chooses to disband the commission, that decision could occur tonight, but the Council process can occur at a later time. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission or changing to a four-year cycle. Councilmember Olson said she was interested in the possibility of a four-year cycle, recognizing it takes a lot of time for commissioners to do this work and their work had not resulted in a huge changes. The original code with staggered four-year commission terms was a good way to provide continuity. She did not see how that was provided with commissioners appointed only for a three month period every four years. In her opinion, the proposed four-year cycle caused more problems than it solved. Although she initially liked the possibility, in the end, unless she heard something that changed her mind, she was not in favor of four- year cycle and preferred to retain the Salary Commission as it currently exists. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is an equity issue on Council related to the salary because it makes it difficult for people who are working or who have children to participate. She retired as she was sworn in for that reason. She agreed with having a four-year cycle, but she would rather disband the Salary Commission and look at districting as districts would provide more fairness for people running for office. She was not interviewed by the last Salary Commission and did not see that they did anything more spectacular than any of the other Salary Commissions over the last 12 years. She summarized equity was the most important piece with regard to the Salary Commission. Council President Paine recalled from last week that if the Council wanted to address the equity issue which many Councilmembers felt was a good idea, that could not be done via the Salary Commission. Therefore, if the Salary Commission continues, the Council is subject to their recommendations. The Salary Commission did a lot of work, but there were no real changes in their decisions, a $1000 increase/year which is an average of about 8%/year, the Council's salary is $17,000/year and the Council President receives an additional $300 a month. She agreed it probably would not allow someone to give up their side gig or be able to work part time. Being a Councilmember requires a lot of flexibility and the cost of living is steep and getting steeper. Two years is too short for a Salary Commission cycle, three years may be the right number if the Council wants to continue with a Salary Commission. She asked if the Council was interested in pursuing the issue of equity. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine that the issue of equity in pay is much larger and would take much longer and a more comprehensive review. As a full-time employee serving on Council, he can attest to the demands it makes on those serving and their family members. That barrier to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 17 participation and serving on the Council is not something the Council should take lightly and it needs to be considered outside the Council and over a much longer period of time. He questioned whether that issue could be considered in a 3-4 year cycle or if it was better to disband the Salary Commission and reinstate it in the future after that work is done. There needs to be a more comprehensive process than the Council can consider in a near time frame. Ms. Neill Hoyson commented if the Council wants to undertake that work, the decision about how to address equity did not to be made tonight and could be done over a longer period. There are many options for accomplishing that, options that include having a Salary Commission as well disbanding the Salary Commission. Councilmember K. Johnson spoke to the Council culture of no surprises. This was a new item and was a big surprise to her at the last Council meeting. The Council has consistently used the Salary Commission to establish salaries. It was not presented to Public Safety, Parks and Personnel Committee and she did not receive any emails or phone calls about it. She concluded it was in the City Council's best interest to have the Salary Commission at this time. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SALARY COMMISSION AS WRITTEN IN THE CODE. Councilmember K. Johnson explained the City Council has received annual increases of either $1500 or $1000 since 2017. If the Council deferred the Salary Commission for four years, it would create a projected deficit of at least $4000 which is about 24% of the salary. She saw no benefit in postponing to four-year cycle or only seating the commission for 3-4 months at a time. The Salary Commission has done independent work, they make a recommendation so the finances can be included in the budget, and as stated previously, the last Salary Commission did an excellent job and can build on what they learned. Councilmember L. Johnson said her comments were not a reflection on whether the Salary Commission had done an excellent job or not, it was more about the fact that numerous Councilmembers have expressed interest in the equity issue and barriers to serving. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, suggesting Councilmember L. Johnson speak to the motion which does not relate to equity issues. Mayor Nelson ruled Councilmember L. Johnson's comments were related to whether or not to continue the Salary Commission. Councilmember L. Johnson said if Council's intent is to address the equity issue, convening the Salary Commission need to be delayed until at least year three or four. Consideration of the equity issue and reconvening the Salary Commission should not happen at the same time, and if it the Council was interested in addressing equity, that should be done first and then decide whether the Salary Commission should meet on a three or four year cycle. She did not support a two year cycle, and favored either three or four years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem is the difficulty working and serving on the Council at the same time and having the Salary Commission would not allow the Council to address the issue of equity any time soon. She viewed the salary as a barrier to participation in the governmental process. The Salary Commission works on salaries, not what the pay should be. She clarified if the Council votes on salaries, Councilmembers are not eligible to receive the increase until they are re-elected. It was not intended to benefit the existing Council but to create equity in the ability to run for Council. If Councilmembers were interested in equity, she encouraged them to stop the Salary Commission and consider addressing issues associated with serving on the Council during the next year. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed there had to be one or the other. She suggested allowing the Salary Commission to continue on a two-year cycle and at same time create a separate structure to consider Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 18 districting. Citizens are concerned that the Council is addressing Council business instead of City business. She suggested doing both in tandem as addressing equity and/or districting will take 1-2 years. Councilmember Olson commented the Salary Commission's recommendation is in affect for two years. If the Council continued with a two-year cycle for Salary Commission, which she recommended, a voting system task force is looking at options for the way Councilmembers are elected and districting and they could also consider equity. By the time the task force does its research and makes a recommendation, it will probably be 2-3 years and would be the perfect time to disband the Salary Commission and consider another compensation approach for the reasons that the task force would have considered. Speaking against reconvening the Salary Commission this year and in favor of waiting until year three or four, Councilmember L. Johnson clarified when she focuses on equity issues and barriers, it was not to create equity and less barriers to the job for herself. She chose to run and participate with her available time; she wants to make it available for others to do and to have more diverse representation on Council. Based on that, she was not in favor of convening the Salary Commission this year. She favored Council, or by whatever means the Council agrees on, addressing the equity issue and seeing what can be done to remove some of the barriers. Following that effort, the Salary Commission could meet if necessary. She did not want to waste anyone's time, commissioners or City staff. This is an opportunity to conserve time that can be put toward other things and revisit this next year or the following year. Council President Paine supported having a group of Councilmembers to look at equity issues this year. She supported developing an equity plan, but did not support the motion to convene the Salary Commission this year, commenting that would be the reverse order of what needs to be done. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND HER MOTION, TO HAVE THE SALARY COMMISSION CONVENE THIS YEAR AND BEFORE THE NEXT CYCLE, PUT TOGETHER A GROUP TO LOOK AT THE EQUITY ISSUES. Mayor Nelson restated the amendment: TO SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE THE SALARY COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD AND FORM AN EQUITY GROUP. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO NOT REINSTITUTE THE SALARY COMMISSION FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR AND DURING THIS TIME WORK WITH HR TO DEVELOP WHAT COULD APPEAR TO BE AN EQUITY PIECE TO IT. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if that would require changing the City code. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, it would require repealing the code section regarding the Salary Commission. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised if the motion passes, he would bring back an ordinance next week to repeal the chapter on the Salary Commission. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 19 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this will provide an opportunity to consider the issue. The Council has started and stopped the Salary Commission in the past. She encouraged Councilmembers to support the motion, commenting the Salary Commission can be reconvened next year if it becomes too difficult to create equity. She summarized that to her, it was not about the money. Council President Paine supported forming an equity subgroup or bringing in someone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, requesting Council speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned how much time this would take HR and assumed it would take much more than the 150 hours the Salary Commission took. She asked whether the intent was to discuss districting or diversity and equity for Council pay. Districting is already a law that needs to take place. She questioned why HR would be involved in districting. She agreed with having diversity, recalling former Councilmember Bloom raised this issue years ago. She was confused with the intent of the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded it is illegal for the City to proceed with redistricting. Her proposal was for HR to determine how this would be done, noting it had been done all over the west coast and perhaps a group could be formed with Ms. Neill Hoyson at the forefront rather than Council. This is not really Council business as much as it is HR business. She suggested the process take no more time than working with the Salary Commission. Councilmember Olson commented some of the comments are supporting earlier conversations about proceeding with the Salary Commission while this other process occurs. Establishing an equitable pay range for a closer to full-time job or establishing it as a living wage so someone could serve on Council and not work another job would have a significant impact on the budget. and was not discussed in the Council budget retreat. In her opinion, proceeding with the Salary Commission for two years was appropriate and these other issues could move forward simultaneously so the impacts to the budget could be considered in the two-year period. Ms. Neill Hoyson pointed out if the Council took on this issue and chose to set compensation themselves, it would not go into effect next year; the earliest it would impact the budget would be 2024. Mr. Taraday agreed 2024 would be the earliest and if the Council wanted all seven positions to be the paid same amount at the same time, the earliest that could be accomplished would be 2026. Councilmember L. Johnson was in favor of disbanding/delaying the Salary Commission for 3-4 years. However, with respect to the equity component, she preferred that start with Council with assistance from HR as needed. One of the reasons for not having a Salary Commission was limited staff time. Once the Council has done its work, the Salary Commission would be reconvened. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson, but said the Council does not have the expertise and this work is very difficult and time consuming. She preferred to start with the HR Director and then pull Councilmembers into the conversation. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this will have the reverse effect; not making any salary changes until 2026 will depreciate the value of the Council salary as it will remain at $17,000/year until 2026. She cautioned Councilmembers to consider what they were trying to achieve. She anticipated it will require much more work than convening the Salary Commission for three months and may take over a year to accomplish. For those reasons, she did not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 20 Council President Paine observed if the Council developed an equity piece with a monetary aspect, the Council could impose its own salary raise, but it would take effect following the state guidelines, taking effect after the position is up for election. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining because the filing date of the next election had passed, the salary of Positions 4, 5, 6 and 7 could theoretically be increased in 2024, but it is too late to do that for Positions 1, 2 and 3. If the intent is to have all seven seats paid at the same rate in any given year and if the Council wants to set the rate themselves, the earliest that could be done is 2026. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated the motion: TO NOT RECONVENE THE SALARY COMMISSION AND LEAVE THE NEXT 6-7 MONTHS TO WORK ON WHAT EQUITY WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE HR DIRECTOR LEADING AND COUNCIL PARTICIPATING. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to comment on her ability to support that effort. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed having a basic understanding of how compensation analysis occurs would be a good place to start and that would not take much time. For example, if Council positions were to be considered a 50% FTE, how that compared to pay in other organizations. If the intent was for her to do all the research, that would take a more significant amount of time, but providing a basic introduction to compensation analysis was potentially a couple days of work and being available to answer questions. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if that aligned with what Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recommended_ Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered yes. Councilmember K. Johnson commented if the Council is averaging an 8%/year increase and no salary changes occur until 2026, that is 5 years of 8% or 40%. While the Council is trying to make the pay more equitable, this action will have an inverse effect of depreciating the value of the salary for the intervening five years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said $17,000/year is more than someone earning minimum wage since the Council does not work full-time. The Council could consider this again in 2022 and if it looks like it will take too long, the Salary Commission can be convened. Councilmember Distelhorst observed Council would have the ability to reinstate a Salary Commission in 2022. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the adjustments to the Council salaries could occur next year independent of the larger structural changes regarding positions in 2026. Councilmember L. Johnson said the Council would address the equity component and then have the Salary Commission meet 1-2 years later. Councilmember Olson commented on timing and efficiency, repealing and reinstating the code and reconvening a new Salary Commission when there is already a commission up and running with some members still serving. She encouraged Councilmembers to think this through as she did not believe this was in the Council's best interest. She preferred to stay the course, defeat the motion and convene the Salary Commission at the same time the other work is being done and then disband the Salary Commission if necessary. Mr. Taraday said in the interest of efficiency, if the Council is leaning toward disbanding and readopting the Salary Commission later, that is not much different than the administration's original proposal because it moves the Salary Commission to every four years instead of every two years. With one ordinance, the Council could potentially accomplish both instead of repealing and readopting. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 21 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES TO 10:05 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Distelhorst urged everyone to get vaccinated. His younger child received her second shot today. He urged everyone to continue wearing masks, to get vaccinated and be on right path. Councilmember K. Johnson reported Community Transit is offering free rides to vaccination sites. Council President Paine encouraged everyone to enjoy the rocky spring/summer weather. She invited comments/suggestions regarding returning to in -person Council meetings including from Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her thanks to people who continue to email or text her and send her pictures of landmark trees that are being removed which is not good for the environment. She plans to walk Perrinville Creek to talk to the two owners where the City stopped the creek. It is important to look at the environment and why things are happening; the heat wave is another example of climate change. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented people can get a free marijuana cigarette at a marijuana dispensary giving vaccinations or a free beer at a tavern giving vaccinations along with many other state drawings for getting vaccinated. According to the Health District, a lot of the vaccination sites have closed due to lack of people wanting a vaccination as well as a lack of volunteers. The closure of mass vaccination sites assumes people will go to a drug store, etc. to get a vaccination. She encouraged everyone to continue getting vaccinated, being socially distanced and wearing masks. Councilmember L. Johnson commented it has a challenging 16 months and we are just starting immerge from a collective trauma. She encouraged everyone to check in on each other and recognize how we each emerge will vary from person to person based on a multitude of things. She recommended giving grace and checking in on each other. Student Representative Roberts urged everyone to get vaccinated, continue wearing masks and take care of one another. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed COVID rates are now] 03/100,000, the lowest level since March. Snohomish County is at 64% of residents who have received a first dose. The Governor has said the state needs to be at 70% to reopen. Edmonds is leading the way at 69% of residents who have gotten at least one dose. He urged everyone to keep up the good work and to keep on getting vaccinated. He was hopeful for warmer summer weather. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 22 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES TO 10:05 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Distelhorst urged everyone to get vaccinated. His younger child received her second shot today. He urged everyone to continue wearing masks, to get vaccinated and be on right path. Councilmember K. Johnson reported Community Transit is offering free rides to vaccination sites. Council President Paine encouraged everyone to enjoy the rocky spring/suminer weather. She invited comments/suggestions regarding returning to in -person Council meetings including from Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her thanks to people who continue to email or text her and send her pictures of landmark trees that are being removed which is not good for the environment. She plans to walk Perrinville Creek to talk to the two owners where the City stopped the creek. It is important to look at the environment and why things are happening; the heat wave is another example of climate change. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented people can get a free marijuana cigarette at a marijuana dispensary giving vaccinations or a free beer at a tavern giving vaccinations along with many other state drawings for getting vaccinated. According to the Health District, a lot of the vaccination sites have closed due to lack of people wanting a vaccination as well as a lack of volunteers. The closure of mass vaccination sites assumes people will go to a drug store, etc. to get a vaccination. She encouraged everyone to continue getting vaccinated, being socially distanced and wearing masks. Councilmember L. Johnson commented it has a challenging 16 months and we are just starting immerge from a collective trauma. She encouraged everyone to check in on each other and recognize how we each emerge will vary from person to person based on a multitude of things. She recommended giving grace and checking in on each other. Student Representative Roberts urged everyone to get vaccinated, continue wearing masks and take care of one another. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed COVID rates are now] 03/100,000, the lowest level since March. Snohomish County is at 64% of residents who have received a first dose. The Governor has said the state needs to be at 70% to reopen. Edmonds is leading the way at 69% of residents who have gotten at least one dose. He urged everyone to keep up the good work and to keep on getting vaccinated. He was hopeful for warmer summer weather. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. � r MI AEL NELSON, MAYOR Or - .arm! %, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June $. 2021 page 22 Public Comment for 6/8/21 City Council Meeting: From: Deborah Lobe color expert Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 6:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Protect Our City By Adding Your Voice Edmonds is a unique and beautiful city. Unlike Everett, Edmonds does not have the space for Seattle -style housing. Edmonds has to be very strategic. I have seen personally, the results from policies being made while ignoring input from citizens. Two neighborhoods, one in Bothell, one in Mill Creek. Loss of green belt resulting in noise, quality of life for people and animals is greatly impacted. Increase in cars which also blocks emergency vehicles,naturally attracting crime that was not there before. What about safety? The citizens of Edmonds want to be good stewards of our city, personal properties, owning the future of our town. We will not welcome elected servants forcing bad policies on us. We need true citizen input. Add your voice, Deborah Lobe From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 7:22 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica <Jessica.Neill Hoyson@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 8, 2021 City Council Meeting Dear City Council, The attached Agenda and Meeting Minutes show how a Special Meeting that includes an EXECUTIVE SESSION is legally conducted under the Open Public Meetings Act. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 23 Please note —the November 7, 2011 Special Meeting was open to the public. The public had every right to attend and hear in real time if any action would be taken by City Council when Council reconvened the Special Meeting after exiting Executive Session. The public also had every right to hear in real time, after the Special Meeting was reconvened, whether City Council, prior to adjournment of the Executive Session, determined, by consensus, to release any information regarding the Executive Session. Per Resolution 1150 (which has never been repealed or rescinded): "A discussion to release information shall be confirmed by voice motion in open session." The public has the right to hear about this possibility in real time after every single Executive Session once the Regular or Special Meeting is reconvened. Please note that the Minutes for both the November 7, 2011 Special Meeting and the meeting held on May 15, 2020 indicate Jeff Taraday, City Attorney, was present. Please also note that Minutes for the November 7, 2011 Special Meeting indicate 2 Elected Officials were absent. This is another reason it critical that detailed records of what takes place in Executive Session are kept. Without these records, how are the absent elected officials to know what exactly took place and what was represented in Executive Session? So you see — recordkeeping of Executive Session discussions is absolutely essential if a City wants to truly be open and transparent. Without a record ❑f the discussions citizens can be harmed in secret with no documentation. I hope Council reconsiders the poor, misguided decision to rescind Resolution 853 via Resolution 1360. Please address Resolution 1360 as soon as possible and consider improving upon the great practice established via Resolution 853. Resolution 853 was adopted as it was in the Public Interest. I hope the 2021 City Council will choose to improve upon the public interest promoted in Resolution 853 and make the related documentation of discussions in Executive Session an even stronger tool promoting justice for all citizens of Edmonds as well as a more open and transparent government. Thank you. Ken Reidy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 24 FA 0 - ', ACENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Pubile Safety Complex, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds Special Mondayilfeetlng NOVE1IBER77, 2011 I L (Is Nliuutes) c0n'eLIC in 0\=k.-jive .4esior, regarding, potential filigation per RCW 42.30 1 JVjjaUtes) keOnVent! it OPCII. S,-Ssion' poleinial acl-mi 8s are=h Cfoxecutiv' s65j'wl discussion. .ARTOURN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 25 EDMO DS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED ? MINUTES November 7, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:I5 p.m. by Mayor C'ooner ill the Council Chambers, 2�,0 Avenue North, Edmonds, ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESFY17 Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Steve Beraheim. C.OL111CH 01lthCr Adrienne Fraley -114onillas, Cour,cihnembar Diane Buckshnis, Councilrrtc:mber Michael Plunkett, Councilmember ELECTED ED OFTICIALS ABSIsNT: DJ Wilson, Counct.tinerriber ,.,ora Petra, COnnCilmelnbcr STAFFP FRESENT Jcif Taraday, , City Attorney Mark Bucklsin, Attorney..Keating, Bucklin, 4IcCorin::ck Sandy Chase, City Clerk NV r,\E IN E\F:CL-nVE SI: -10N RFGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER ktJ1+1' 4?.3h.1 IQl 1141. Mayor (Cooper announced that the City Council would convene in executive session rcgardi.ng Potential litigation per RUIN' 4230.1t0(1)(i). He stated that the exeanive session was selteCluled to last approximately t5 rninules and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room; located in the Public Safety Complex. He noted that axecutiva sessions are closed to the public, Mayor Cooper further announced that the City Council may take action as a result of meeting in executive session- This action would occur when tho City Council reconvenes in open session. F.,lceted officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper. Councilmembers Plunkett. Scrnheln?- Fraley- Mor:.illas, Buckshnis, and Peterson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday. Attorney Marl Bucklin, and Ciiy Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session conctuded at 5:40 p.m. 2. Rr('ONVF iE I\ OPEN NE:SSIQ3N POTENTIAL ACTION, AS L REMl r or rncrnu N,,CStik0,N DISCUSSION At 5:43 p.m., Mayor Cooper tecor_voned the open smolt Of tltu (:City Council n;ectim7. He asked Council it any action was rec cored as a 'eiust o.?xe;rueite session C.isarssion. The City Council slid not *,aka action. Mayor Cooper next stated the 'City Council will conduct. a Friel rcecati.on in recopulion of Jim Tarts, Financial CConsultant, in the Council Charnbers, foilowod, at 6:00 p.rn., with the Council meeting in CO1l1.IIr.l ttees. ADJ0URNED at 5:4511.m; to the reCepdon and Corunittee Meetilnls, From: HELEN HALL Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2021 7:23 PM Edmond, Chy Council APpAx+m] Mmmes Novemdrer7.'2011 Page I Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes .Tune 8, 2021 Page 26 To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing issues Residents need full access to the City Council meetings to discuss an issue as important as modifying the lot subdivision lot process. Please move the public meeting regarding the subdivision lot process from June 22 to July 12 - or the date in -person meetings for the public resume. All housing proposals are too important to the citizens of this City to deny us in -person participation of all those issues. Thank you. Helen L Hall From: Robert Chaffee Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2021 5:08 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: "public meeting regarding the subdivision of lots" The above meeting is currently scheduled for June 22. On that date the public will not be able to attend in person. The council is proposing opening the meetings to the public(in person) on July 12. 1 believe that the "meeting regarding the subdivision of lots" should be delayed until July 12 or a later date, when the public can attend the meeting in person. Robert Chaffee, Edmonds Resident From: MICHAEL HIRANO Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 8:22 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: in -person City Council meetings Dear All, We would like to start having in person meetings for the City Council, considering that in person meetings is now a viable option provided safety measures are taken according to ( https://mrsc.org/Home/Stav-Informed/M RSC-Insight/May-2021/Face-Masks-and-In-Person- Public-Meetin s.aspxin). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 27 This would ensure that citizens are able to directly interact with the City Council without the restricted bandwidth communication that is inherent in any video conference call. Thank you, Michael and Robin Hirano From: Kathy Brewer <brewerkathyk@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 3:00 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Proposals -- Inform and listen to Citizens! To Council and All, My husband and I live in Edmonds and have a business here. We are aware of the housing proposals because we were attending in -person council meetings before Covid when the commission was being established. We also attended commission in -person meetings. There were big turnouts and much uproar. Then Covid hit and everything proceeded online and behind closed doors. In the last few weeks, many of us have been requesting a return to in - person meetings so we can fully participate and make sure you are hearing us. We have been informing our clients, associates, neighbors and friends who are residents about the proposals. No one, and I mean no one, is aware of the up -zoning that is being planned. Everyone is incredulous that single family zoning could be eliminated. It is YOUR responsibility to get this information out to the citizens and give everyone a say in the matter. Most people weren't aware of the housing surveys. The majority of people who were and participated voted against up -zoning! Everyone residing in Edmonds should be receiving surveys, mailings and updates. (All we have received is Tree Code and Climate Plan mailings -- one each.) There should be signs posted around town. In -person meetings need to be resumed. This is too big of issue that will have a huge impact on our city and residents: more density and development, overcrowding, pollution, noise, traffic, increased infrastructure and taxes to pay for it, and less parking, trees and vegetation. There is already a lot of development going on without zoning changes. Rezoning will destroy Edmonds' charm and livability forever! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 28 Citizens have a right to be informed and listened to. A few individuals tuning into on-line meetings, writing emails to Council and getting little response is not democracy. Be fair. Do the right thing. Inform, listen, respond to emails, and resume in -person meetings asap! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Democracy NOW. Resume in -person council meetings NOW. Founding Father James Madison stated, "in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person." It is time for the citizens of Edmonds to be allowed to participate in in - person council meetings and let our voices be heard. Covid no longer has to be a threat -- we have vaccinations, masks and the ability to socially distance in Council Chambers, spread out in a larger venue such as Edmonds Center for the Arts or, with the pleasant weather, meet outside at Veterans Plaza or Civic Park. Big issues are being discussed that will affect every citizen. No more hiding behind Zoom. We have a right to participate fully and in person. Resume in -person meetings now. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 8, 2021 Page 29