cmd082421EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
August 24, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Susan Paine, Mayor Pro Tem
Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tem
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem
Paine. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Student Representative Roberts read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We
acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors
the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these
lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual
connection with the land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, with the exception of Mayor
Nelson, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Paine advised Item 8.1 would be moved to Unfinished Business Item 9.1 and the
subsequent items renumbered.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Paine invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the illegal bias, discrimination and actions of Edmonds
City government. She is reporting Edmonds Councilmembers who voted for the tree ordinance for their
bias and prejudice against private property owners who legally applied to divide single family zoned
properties to build single family homes. The Council has passed unconstitutional ordinances to facilitate
their own agendas and the ordinances remain in effect until they have been proven unconstitutional in a
court of law as Mr. Taraday as stated. Illegal ordinances are enforced until citizens spend their own
money to prove their unconstitutionality in court. City Attorney Taraday refused to answer publicly when
asked whether Council has the legal right to control what owners do with their trees. As elected officials,
Councilmembers are sworn to uphold the constitution and are obligated to verify that ordinances comply
with it. Passing an illegal ordinance is a malfeasance in office and grounds for a just cause removal of an
elected official, even when ignorant of the law. Most affected property owners are immigrants like them,
they have retained attorneys and asked them to join. They hope to save as many trees as possible, but
removal is needed to build 3 homes on their 1.2 acres. To avoid paying $250,000 in government takings,
they have to retain 50% of the trees which is tantamount to 70% open space on their property as well as
plant 1-3 trees for each tree removed, ultimately maintaining 50-70 trees on 1/3 acre lots which leaves no
room for light, yards or gardens.
Ms. Ferkingstad requested the Council revise its unconstitutional tree ordinance and save Edmonds
taxpayers the cost of defending their actions to make this right. Last meeting the Council considered
allowing a multifamily developer to retain 0% open space rather than the required 5%. However, the City
requires her to retain over 50% open space or pay Edmonds 100% of the worth of the trees, forcing them
to purchase their property twice. This is blatant discrimination and an obvious illegal taking of property
without compensation according to the constitution. Edmonds taxpayers will lose and Councilmembers
will be responsible. Woodway attempted to do the same thing and it was costly; property owners won and
Woodway now has a legal tree code. Woodway homes are allowed a 25' safety perimeter and builders are
allowed to remove only 5% of the remaining trees. Woodway's tree code complies with Washington
Growth Management Act and Edmonds' tree code should do the same without litigation. She concluded,
we live in a free country; please give Edmonds property owners and citizens their freedoms back.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on the City's intent to extend the emergency tree ordinance
requiring the maintenance of trees over 24" DBA. She was very happy the City had chosen to undertake a
robust public engagement effort and hoped that would be the outcome of her persistent public comments
including her comments on May 4'. The robust public engagement effort should have been taken for the
development code. Strategically amending the development code to incentivize and not penalize property
owners who maintain trees prior to development will alleviate the need for maintenance regulations. In
addition to a robust public engagement process, she reiterated her requests from the May 4' Council
meeting for the City to:
• Perform a technical study to quantify the cost of private tree maintenance as well as context costs
for damages caused by trees. As the City is set to extend the emergency ordinance and potential
maintenance of large trees, indefinitely, it is incumbent on the City to use public funds to
understand and be transparent about the costs that will be borne, not by the community, but by
treed property owners for public benefit.
• Perform an equity and environmental health assessment to consider the City's public investment
versus private burden priorities in relation to the Washington State Environmental Health
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 2
Disparities Map. Areas with the fewest City -maintained trees, SR-99 and South Edmonds, have
the highest relative environmental exposure in the City. Trees are proven to reduce air quality
exposures. Why is the City making public health a public responsibility in these areas?
• Consider the significant penalties similarly zoned properties will pay when developed. This tree
penalty will disincentivize people from maintaining trees but will also impact land use and the
ability for certain neighborhoods to accumulate wealth. The City should consider the
disproportionate impacts to neighborhoods with higher proportion of non-White citizens. A study
of costs, equity and environmental health is necessary to have an informed discussion on where
the burden for the urban forest is being placed.
The emergency ordinance is not a necessary step to undertake a robust public process. It is a taking.
Regulating the maintenance of trees has documented negative consequences. Trees are needed on the
urban landscape and she believed that the City's actions thus far and this regulatory tactic will only hasten
their removal. The City needs to form a partnership with treed property owners.
Will Chen, Edmonds, expressed concern with the public safety of the Highway 99 corridor and offered
practical solutions to combat these ongoing issues. In reviewing the August 10-16 Edmonds Police
Blotter, there are at least 22 document crimes; he shared the following examples:
■ 21900 block Highway 99: A man was issued a warning after police found him passed out in a
vehicle with heroin and drug paraphernalia in his lap.
• 8000 block 238th Street Southwest: A man was arrested after he was found passed out in a stolen
vehicle.
* 23600 block Highway 99: A woman's backpack and wallet were stolen from a cart while
shopping. Fraudulent credit card activity was also reported.
While these are just a few examples of the types of incidents that seen more regularly, they provide a
clear picture of the increasing crime rates in Highway 99 neighborhoods. He spoke not only as a business
owner that serves clients in this area through his accounting practice, but more importantly as a resident
whose family also lives in this area. He has witnessed or experienced these type of crimes and problems
firsthand and many of neighbors and other business owners have reached out to him to share daily
experiences they encounter in this unsafe environment. According to the annual report recently issued by
the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), which he provided the Council,
Edmonds' overall crime rose 41.3% in 2020. Clearly, the public safety issue on Hwy 99 has risen over the
past few years. He deeply appreciated that the brave men and women of the Edmonds Police Department
were doing their best to keep the community safe. He offered the following solutions/thoughts:
1. Create a Civilian Patrol Program.
2. Explore the creation of a program that assess businesses and residents for the potential burglary
opportunities
3. Explore establishing a satellite police station on Highway 99 and using it as a training facility and
for group programs.
Paul Webster, Edmonds, said he attended an in -person Council meeting last week for the first time. He
found the experience informative and rewarding and learned more about local government and issues at
hand and felt more like a responsible citizen by attending in person. He was unable to attend the entire
meeting but was very interested in the outcome of the vote the Council planned to take whether to
continue with an in -person public meeting format. He expressed disappointment in the decision that a
majority of Councilmembers made to discontinue in -person public meetings. Last week all protocols and
recommendations of the CDC were in place at the meeting and those few present were all wearing masks,
appeared to be socially distanced with plastic shields in front of an beside Councilmembers. Two
Councilmembers chose to abstain from attending in person and participated virtually. The citizens in
attendance were seated at socially distanced spacing, non -vaccinated persons were required to wear masks
and vaccinated persons had the option to wear masks or not and most chose to' do so. The same CDC
recommendations are in place today. Since the Council chose to take this extra precaution, he questioned
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 3
the trigger for restoring in -person public meetings. The connection he felt last week between City officials
and the public is not the same without the Council present looking each other in the eye. He urged the
City Council to reconsider its decision and restore the in -person public meetings at their soonest ability.
Isaac Greenetz, Seattle, a member of the design team that made the presentation last week regarding the
amendment for Unit Lot Subdivisions (ULS), said it was not made clear to the Council what they were
voting on. The Pine Park project will be built as proposed, the ULS amendment does not change anything
about the zoning, height limits, commercial components, etc. The only thing the amendment changes is
how the units are owned and essentially makes the units more affordable. By voting no on the ULS
amendment, the Council is basically making housing more expensive in Edmonds. The amendment
makes it cheaper to build and cheaper to sell.
Susan Hughes, Edmonds, spoke against the hate portal. Her first Council meeting in 40 years was on
July 27d' where many citizens commented against the hate porta; Asians, Latinos, Romanians and
Americans all voiced their objections. Unfortunately the Mayor disagreed with what citizens said and
delivered false and vindictive statements at the August Yd meeting, saying "they threatened and
demonized city staff and elected officials, calling democratic elected officials Nazis." Ms. Hughes said
this was a false statement and a lie; after listening to every speaker again and reading the minutes, no one
called city staff or elected officials names. She provided another quote from the Mayor, "There's a
packing of City Council Chambers." This again is a lie, the Mayor tried to bully a candidate running for
City Council. The citizens need to condemn Mayor Nelson for his false statements, bullying and shaming.
He has shown bias discrimination against those who disagree with him. She questioned where was the
moral outrage from the City Council on the false statements Mayor Nelson made. The silence from City
Councilmembers to hold the Mayor accountable for these false statements shows Edmonds citizens that
they approve of the Mayor's lies. Only one City Councilmember spoke up to the Mayor concerning his
false statements about a candidate running for office. She quoted the Mayor, "Did you actually thank
them for comparing your City colleagues to Nazis?" which Ms. Hughes said was a lie. Mayor Nelson was
shaming City Councilmembers for thanking Edmonds citizens who spoke against the hate portal. To echo
a Councilmember from last week, Ms. Hughes said she was offended by the Mayor's false comments and
she wanted the record to state this.
Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, addressed her comments regarding the ULS code amendment on the consent
Agenda to Councilmembers and the Mayor as well as citizens who have gathered with her at Veteran's
Plaza outside Council Chambers. The ULS code amendment was voted on by Council last Tuesday with
the majority rejecting it. She thanked the Councilmembers who rejected it. When the Council votes
tonight, the vote should be the same, continue to reject ULS in the downtown business zones. She
referred to development codes and amendment requests in general, commenting there are development
codes and design standards in place for a reason, the Council has decided how they want the City to look,
function and develop. When developers request a change in the development code or design standards to
conform with what they want to build and to benefit themselves, they must be told to conform to the local
codes and design standards. Staff should be supporting the development codes and the City's best interest,
in this case, the downtown business district, not actively working with private developers to amend codes
to maximize their profits. If staff fails to do this, it is up to Council to ensure the City's best interests are
protected. She urged the Council to keep this in mind when asked to vote on amendments to the
development code. If Edmonds is to continue to be a special place with a functioning, attractive
downtown and a health vibrant business district that is not encroached upon by private developer -
instigated code amendments, the Council needs to stand up to these powerful requests to slice and dice the
community. She urged the Council to vote for what was best for the vision of the City, not what was best
for developers and to keep Edmonds a functional charming town.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 4
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, commented he was outside Council Chambers with other citizens. He thanked
the Council for their votes last week to reject ULS in downtown business districts. ULS would lead to
dramatic changes in the downtown core, decreasing business space while increasing density as well as set
a precedent for more ULS in business districts elsewhere in Edmonds. The builder for the proposed ULS
plan stated last week that he wanted to provide a quality build like the post office; however with 14 three-
story walk-up townhomes, only 8 individual garage spaces, no green or open space and no place for the
garbage and recycling bins except on the 5' Avenue sidewalk or in the buffer zone, this building does not
appear to be the same quality as the post office. Instead, it would allow the developer to profit highly
from a simple build that would result in problems for townhome owners and the City. There are better
options for the Baskin & Robbins site than this townhome complex. One option would be a condominium
complex with amenities more beneficial to residents and the City such as business space as allowed by
code, 5% or more green or open space, generous sidewalks with setbacks, a parking garage with ample
parking for residents and patrons, a designated place for garbage and recycling and an HOA to maintain
the property and provide protections for owners. A plan including these options would be a much better
fit for the downtown core. He thanked the Council for rejecting ULS in the business district.
Augustus Bukowski, Edmonds, commented it was clear the City and Council does not understand what
ULS is. He suggested visualizing all the things the Brewers have said about the project and all the things
the Council has said about why they do not like the project, pointing out none of that is affected by ULS.
The project will proceed as is; there will be 14 townhomes as designed in all the specifications and
approved. The ULS is just putting imaginary lines on a parcel. He compared it to a gas station trying to
sell M&Ms but wanting to provide the option of paying with a debit card versus a credit card; that is all
this ask is. A credit card has a 3% transaction fee, condos will have a transaction fee called HOA dues and
increased construction costs. He can still sell the M&Ms because consumers still want M&Ms, the only
question is whether the consumer uses debit or credit. A no vote tonight on ULS will not do any of the
things the Brewers and others talked about; they can construct the smallest units possible because there is
no density in the BD zone, no size requirement, no minimum lot. All they are trying to do is make what
they build cheaper. The City will still get M&Ms, he just wants to make it cheaper.
Carolyn Strom, Edmonds, addressed her remarks to those listening on Zoom and the 20 or so people
standing outside attending tonight's Council meeting. She found it very disturbing that the Council
decided to again hide behind a computer screen. Local government has a long history and tradition
involving residents participating in Council meetings. Meetings are a place where citizens gather to
participate in discussion, listen and be part of the government process. Citizens have a right to fully
participate, see those they are speaking to and to be seen. Council doesn't seem to care and do not view
properly serving their constituents as essential. She questioned how long the Council planned to use the
virus as an excuse to hide from their constituents and whether citizens would ever see Councilmembers in
person again. If the Council was this afraid of the people they serve, it might say something about the job
they have been doing. If Councilmembers are scared of meeting in public, she suggested they resign and
let others willing to hear and listen to the people take their place.
Ms. Strom continued, the Council is using the virus as an excuse; the Council is well protected behind
masks and plexiglass and all have had their shots. Citizens have the right to participate in person in a
government for, by and of the people and do not want or need a nanny state government to tell them what
is best. Citizens in Chambers are all adults and come to Chambers of free will, take precautions they feel
necessary for themselves. The fact the Council thinks they cannot take care of themselves is insulting.
Anyone who feels vulnerable can participate via Zoom; they have a choice not to be present. Citizens
choose to be here and are here now; it is their responsibility if they get sick, not the Council's. Citizens
can think for themselves and have taken care of themselves longer than some Councilmembers have been
alive. It is not the government's job to take care of citizen's health; it is their job to take care of rights.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 5
She urged the Council and Mayor to return to City Hall and face those they are making decisions for or to
please resign.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Distelhorst requested Item 6.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS.
4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GAVIN
HARDWICK
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. RESOLUTION TO DENY UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT
APPLICATION (Previously Consent Agenda Item 6.5)
Councilmember Distelhorst said he felt there has been a great deal of information that had not been totally
accurate regarding this item.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO
TEM L. JOHNSON, TO TAKE UP THIS AGENDA ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2021.
Councilmember Distelhorst explained when staff made presentations to the Planning Board and City
Council there were a number of references to the original idea that ULS would only apply to the BD3
zone which then shifted to all BD zones downtown. He would appreciate having some extra time to
research and evaluate whether there was potential applicability to the BD3 zone which is a bit away from
the core BD downtown zones.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the Council already voted on this last
week and denied the amendment. She questioned why Councilmember Distelhorst was attempting to
bring it back to the agenda and whether it would need to come back as a new item.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, commenting it was always appropriate to bring
things back and re -vote on them.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained why the denial was on the Consent Agenda; City Code 20.01.001.0
addresses legislative decisions, Type V actions. The code specifically states in 20.01.001.C.4, City
Council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective
date of the ordinance or resolution. He recalled explaining this to the Councill last week that it would
have to come back because there was neither a resolution nor an ordinance in the packet because it was
unknown how the Council would vote. He took last week's Council vote as direction to prepare a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 6
resolution to deny. He recalled explaining last week that the Council's vote was effectively preliminary
and that the Council would have to take it up against this week to finalize it via either a resolution or an
ordinance. He agreed the Council voted last week, but because there was no resolution of denial in the
packet, it was not a final action because the code says final action will be taken by resolution or
ordinance. He clarified this is not a reconsideration or bringing it back; it is the final step of the process
that commenced with the application.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked if opened the issue again if the Council voted to move the item to a date
certain. Mr. Taraday answered it did not open it up again, it means the Council's final decision will be
deferred until that date certain and the Council will take a vote at that time to finalize their consideration
of this application. If the Council voted to deny moving it to a detail certain, Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked
if the Council would then vote on the resolution in the packet. Mr. Taraday said if the motion to postpone
to a date certain passes, the resolution in the packet tonight would be in the packet on that date certain and
the Council could make a motion to do whatever it wants with it at that time.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was very disappointed that she just received an email at 6:42 p.m.
from another Councilmember that was not copied to her previously regarding the issue of Type V and
said it would be very helpful if Mr. Taraday provided information to all Councilmembers so they could
explain to citizens. She did not recall Mr. Taraday saying that same thing last week. She did not support
the motion because she believed it opened things up and that the Council's vote last week was final
pending the resolution. She reiterated her disappointment at not receiving this information last week or in
a timely manner today.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said she did not oppose ULS which is simply a form of ownership,
not a development or density change. Her concern is changing the code for the entire BD zone. She
supported further consideration of allowing ULS in the BD3 zone only which is on the periphery of the
downtown retail area.
Councilmember Olson said she also had some interest in considering a BD3 only option, but felt strongly
it should be done via a cleaner approach by closing the door on this application and initiating a new
amendment for the BD3 zone. She did not support the motion but supported bringing back a BD3 zone
only option.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed in discussions with Mr. Taraday earlier today, they discussed
amending the current application versus a new process. That discussion definitely influenced the path and
the motion he made tonight versus other alternatives. Mr. Taraday responded, first to Councilmember
Buckshnis' comment, explaining he is very careful to ensure when discussions involve a quorum of the
Council, they should occur at a Council meeting and he tries to discouraged extended conversations with
a quorum of Councilmembers outside a Council meeting because it is against the Open Public Meetings
Act. The reason there was not an Q&A with a quorum of the Council via email is because it's illegal. He
was happy to answer questions before the Council votes on the motion.
With regard to the question Councilmember Distelhorst raised about whether the Council could take this
up later, Mr. Taraday said that muddies the water a little, or at least lengthens the process. There is an
application for a Type V text amendment pending before the City Council. Final action has not yet been
taken on that application. As soon as the Council approves a resolution denying the amendment, the
process is effectively over. Unless there was a vote to repeal that resolution, it would seem any
consideration of a BD3 zone only option would arguably need to start from scratch with Planning Board
consideration and another round of public hearings. Whereas, as it stands now, the BD3 zone only option
is essentially a subset of the options the Planning Board and City Council has already had hearings on. If
the Council approves the resolution of denial, it makes it a little harder to take the position that any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 7
forthcoming BD3 only option would be a continuation of that same process because the Council would
have finished the process at that point.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was having a problem with this entire discussion. A Consent Agenda
item was pulled to put on the agenda on a date certain, but now the Council is discussing it. She preferred
it had been added to an agenda item for discussion. She referred to an email she received from Mr.
Taraday tonight via another Councilmember, commenting she was not in discussions with anybody so
there was no rolling quorum. Citizens have contacting her extremely upset about the Type V and why the
resolution was not in packet. She notified the City about noon yesterday and it was added to the packet.
She commented the transparency on this issue has been very poor. She preferred adding this as an agenda
item at the end of the agenda for discussion so the Council did not continue to belabor it. She reiterated
there was no rolling quorum, she just wanted to know what was going on and where the resolution was.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION ON THE CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED (7-0),
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS,
AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON AND
MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, OLSON, AND BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM
PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO DENY UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE
AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON
VOTING NO.
8. CONFIRMATION
1. CHIEF OF POLICE - APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION AND EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this item is confirmation of the appointment of Acting Chief
Bennett to Police Chief and the corresponding employment agreement. Chief Bennett was selected as the
appointee by Mayor Nelson. A full background has been completed by Public Safety Testing following
all the provisions of governing WACs and RCWs and she passed with flying colors.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF MICHELLE BENNETT TO THE
POSITION OF CHIEF OF POLICE AND APPROVE THE CORRESPONDING EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed questions she was emailed by the public regarding the process
regarding how the salary comparison for the Chief of Police was done with comparable cities. Ms. Neill
Hoyson answered the Chief of Police is an established position in the Non -Represented Salary Schedule.
Non -Represented positions are reviewed every three years as part of the City's compensation policy and
then established in a three-year cycle. The City is currently conducting that analysis this year and any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 8
changes would be effective next year. The Police Chief is placed on a Range 22 in the current salary
schedule based on the last compensation study that was done in 2018 and implemented in 2019.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would forward Ms. Neill Hoyson's response to the citizens who
asked.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Acting Chief Bennett and hoped after tonight that she will be the
new chief. She expressed appreciation for her comments about building the Police Department up to the
standards she experienced in other communities. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson for clarification regarding
the issue of compression, what the City's policy says about compression and how it is considered in
choosing the step. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there are certain positions where compression is just an
ongoing issue due to fact that when someone is in a director role where they are unable to access overtime
or specialty pay, but the positions below them do have access to those additional compensations. When
setting the salary schedule, there is no way to place the director level position so high in the schedule that
it would address all issues of compression. That is part of reason for the 2.5% pay differential, but she did
not believe that would address all compression issues for this position at all times. There will still be
times then employees below the chief will make more than the chief. It simply says we recognize this is
an ongoing issue due to these other pay categories that employees below the chief have access to. This is
also addressed in the collective bargaining agreement within command positions where corporals are
9.5% above any top step of a first class police officer and sergeants are 19% above the top step of a first
class police officer. It is an ongoing issue in the Police Department where additional pay categories create
compression.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if it was specific to the Police Department or were there compression
issues in other departments. Ms. Neill Hoyson said it may be seen in Public Works because they also
receive overtime and specialty pay assignments. It is more pronounced in the Police Department because
there are so many more specialty pay categories and so much more overtime than is seen in any other
department.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed there was no citywide policy to address this issue in all departments
and it is particularly apparent between commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and different
ranks versus whether a person is in a union. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it is related to eligibility for
specialty pay in the union. The City's Compensation Policy, that the Council recently approved, states
when compensation across the City is considered, issues of compression are considered. It is something
that is considered and there may be different ways of addressing it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chief Bennett thanked the Council for the opportunity. She said it has been a very fruitful six months and
she has learned a lot. Edmonds is a fantastic city with fantastic officers, city .staff and community. She
was very thankful and felt very blessed to be here. She looked forward to working with the Council,
especially in community engagement programs. It is an exciting time for Edmonds, there is a lot that can
be done moving forward and she is excited to work with such a great group of people to help make those
ideas a reality.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY SIGNS
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced the project team: Jim Howard and Rachel Dotson,
HBB, and Clayton Moss, FORMA. He explained the design phase of the Highway 99 Revitalization
Project started in July 2020. It mainly consists of adding a raised median along the entire corridor from
244'' to 212'. Another element of the project is gateway signs on both ends of the corridor. The
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 9
consultants from BBB and FORMA have been working on the sign portion of the project since early 2021
to determine specific locations, architectural sign types, letter styles, messages, lighting and landscaping
types. Tonight the team will present three options for signs on both sides of the corridor based on
comments received at a recent open house as well as stakeholder meetings.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting during the following presentation at approximately
8:07 p.m.)
Ms. Dotson reviewed:
• Process
o Project timeline
■ Background & Site analysis - May - early April 2021
- Task Force Meeting # 1
- WSDOT Art Plan Review
■ Gateway Visioning - Summer 2021
- Task Force Meeting #2
- Community Workshop #1
- Task Force Meeting #3
- City Council Meeting #1
- WSDOT Art Plan Review
■ Concept Alternatives - Autumn 2021
- Task Force Meeting #4
- Community Workshop #2
- Task Force Meeting #5
- City Council Meeting #2
■ Construction Documentation - Winter 2021
- 90% Construction Documents
- WSDOT Art Plan Approval
- 95% Construction Documents
- 100% Construction Documents
■ Construction - 2022
• Project Location
o Map of Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway Corridor with locations of north and south gateway
signs
■ North location: 212'h Street
■ South: Edmonds -Shoreline city limits at SR-104 underpass
• Analysis - South
o Location: Lawn area within WSDOT limited access in front of Campbell Nelson
o Survey Feedback
■ Which south Gateway sign type do you prefer?
■ South Sign A: Vertical
- 40% preferred
■ South Sign B: Horizonal
- 60% preferred
■ Examples of vertical and horizontal configurations
Analysis - North
o Location: Back of sidewalk in front of Magic Toyota and smaller sign in median between
208t' and 212t` Streets
o Survey Feedback
■ Which north Gateway sign type do you prefer?
■ North Sign A (median): Vertical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 10
- 23% preferred
■ North Sign A plus Sign B (back of sidewalk): Vertical
- 33% preferred
■ North Sign C: (back of sidewalk) Vertical
- 22% preferred
■ North Sign D: (back of sidewalk): Horizontal
- 22% preferred
• Survey Feedback
o What should the Gateway signs say?
■ Welcome to Edmonds
- 63% preferred
• Welcome to Uptown Edmonds
- 7% preferred
■ Welcome to Edmonds
- 5% preferred "kind" or "artistic"
■ Other?
- 9% preferred Scenic Edmonds" or "Welcome" in many languages
■ Edmonds
- 16% preferred
o What should the letter style be?
■ Edmonds
- 46% preferred
■ Edmonds
- 54% preferred
o Describe the character of the North Gateway location
■ Simple
■ Modern
■ Business
■ Sea
■ Health
■ Communities
■ Cars
■ Mountains
■ ED
■ Visual Clutter
■ Kindness
■ Multicultural
■ Health
■ Commercial
■ Travel
■ Industrial
■ Signs
■ Linking
■ Welcoming
■ Innovative
o Describe the character of the South Gateway location
■ Mountains
■ Commercial
■ Multicultural
■ Simple
■ District
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 11
■ Business
■ Too many signs
■ Professional
■ International
■ Fundamental
■ Industrial
■ Transitioning
■ Sea
■ Busy
■ Kindness
■ Pavement
Iff ED
o What are element that should inspire the Gateway signs?
■ 55% Natural Elements
■ 35% Sustainability
■ 355 Light
■ 33% Sculptural Art
■ 33% Culture
• 33% Modern
■ 31% Future & Vision
■ 3 1 % Color
■ 21 % Contemporary
■ 14% Traditional
• 8% History
■ Other suggestions
- International cultural influence
- Integrative to environment, useful in some way, make noise when rained on
- Inclusive
- Solar powered lighting
- Native history
- Mountains and Sound
o Should the North and South Gateway signs match?
K 66% they should match each other
• 19% they should each be unique
o Should the Gateway signs match other signs in Edmonds?
■ 46% prefer similar elements to other signs but overall should be unique
■ 22% prefer similar to Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign
■ 22% prefer similar to Edmonds Wayfinding signs
o Sign Character
■ Traditional Gateway character
- 14%
■ Modern Gateway Character
- 55% Natural Elements
- 35% Sustainability
- 33% Modern
■ Contemporary Gateway Character
- 33% Light
- 33% Sculptural Art
- 31 % Color
• Discussion
o South Gateway Alternatives
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 12
■ South Sign A
- Size and shape: Vertical
- Inspiration: Natural elements, sustainability, modern
■ South Sign B
- Size & shape: Vertical
- Inspiration: Light, sculptural art, color
■ South Sign C
- Size & shape: Hybrid vertical/horizontal
- Inspiration: Natural elements, sustainability, modern
o North Gateway Alternatives
• North Sign A
- Size and shape: Vertical with architectural element at the back of sidewalk
- Inspiration: Natural elements, sustainability, modern
■ North Sign B
- Size & shape: Vertical with architectural element at the back of sidewalk
- Inspiration: Light, sculptural art, color
• North Sign C
- Size & shape: Vertical
- Inspiration: Light, sculptural art, color
Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the curb where the vertical sign would be located on the north
will be 22" high which is higher than a standard curb to prevent vehicles from jumping the curb. Mr.
Hauss agreed, commenting a standard curb is 6"; the plan is to increase it to 22" which WSDOT agrees
with.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the open house was in -person or virtual. Ms. Dotson answered there
was a virtual open house, followed by an on-line survey for two weeks and a table at the Uptown Market
to expand the outreach and encourage people to take the survey. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how
many people took the survey. Mr. Howard answered 55. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was
having flashbacks to the process for the gateway sign into downtown and wanted to ensure there was
sufficient input from citizens. She was impressed with the packet and the PowerPoint presentation. She
observed there were too many signs in our lives and she supported something less intrusive that says
Edmonds or Welcome to Edmonds.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many people attended the virtual open house. Mr. Hauss answered
about 9 or 10 residents, there was not a huge turnout. Councilmember K. Johnson said that was totally
inadequate to judge based on percentages. If only 9-10 people attended the virtual open house and 55 took
the survey, that is .001% out of a city of 42,000. She recommended redoing both the virtual open house
and the survey. The responses are very inconclusive in terms of percentages, 33 people preferred the
horizonal sign for the south gateway sign, 43 people preferred the vertical for the north gateway sign, but
66% said they should match which she said invalidated the responses. There was good response to the
sign saying Welcome to Edmonds and no other words. People did not care about the script (28 to 24), no
consensus on the words to be used and 55% wanted the character to include a natural element. She
concluded there was more work to be done before the signs are sent back to the committee such as
repeating this effort, focusing on what is important and until that is done, the signs cannot move forward.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine recalled some consideration had been given to characterizing the area near
Highway 99 as Uptown Edmonds and asked if there had been any discussion within administration such
as Patrick Doherty about using that term. She agree there had not been enough feedback from the public
and recommended redoubling some efforts. She recalled the open house was near a holiday and suggested
going out again.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 13
Councilmember Olson explained there tends to be a lot of interest from the public in projects, if not at the
front end, further down road which can be problematic so there may be value to getting more input sooner
as other Councilmembers have said. She suggested, after having this topic on the Council agenda,
reopening the survey for a couple weeks and advertising it well. She recalled her schedule conflicted and
she did not go to the open house but did complete the survey. The survey had good information even if
someone had not attended the open house. Although she liked the idea of the pedestrian sign on the right
and the taller sign in the median for the north gateway sign, the survey did not say how much the
pedestrian sign would cost. She assumed if the cost of the pedestrian sign were provided, fewer people
would support it. If there were plans to resurvey people, she suggested asking that question. With regard
to a sign with Welcome in numerous languages, she suggested one of the languages be the Snohomish
County Tribe's language. She recognized that visual clutter may be an issue so Welcome in numerous
languages may not be the best unless they could scroll and people could learn how to say Welcome in
different languages. She concluded it was a fun survey to take and hoped others would have an
opportunity to take it.
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there was nothing wrong with opening the survey for a
couple weeks and see what can be done to get the word out better. There may be fewer people on vacation
in the next few weeks, but at some point there is only so much that can be done and the survey gets the
input it gets. He realized the responses were from only a small fraction of the people in Edmonds, but the
50-60 who took survey were people who have opinions which is why they attended the open house and/or
took the survey. There is a certain artistic element to the sign process and it is not really a vote, but if
there is consensus around certain elements that can be incorporated, but art by committee is difficult. He
agreed with trying to get more people to complete the survey and did not anticipate that would increase
the budget much. The team understands the need to get this right.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine relayed there was enough consensus that a little more information was needed and
possibly another meeting with City Council when more information is available so the Council can
provide direction. Mr. Williams agreed the team would try to increase outreach efforts and bring back
what they hear.
Councilmember Olson said there seemed to be a strong preference from the small group of people polled
for some coordination, that there be some similar elements between the two gateway sign locations. She
recalled there were two of one kind and one of another on one side of the corridor in terms of inspiration
so it would make sense to have as many coordinated choices as that was something people were interested
in. Mr. Williams recalled there was conversation around that; Mr. Moss will coordinate colors/elements
that may be similar to existing signage, colors and shapes. The team was seeking early consensus on
location first, options for the sign mass, location and shape, and then there will be a lot of artistic choices
to be made. He recognized the citizens and Council want some cohesiveness between Edmonds signage
but Highway 99 has a very different, unique character and subtle messages that could have local themes.
Mr. Moss has done a very good job on signage for the City for many years.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what other cities have done and whether it was common to have
different signs on one stretch of the highway. She has traveled a lot and did not recall signage on the ends
of cities being different. Mr. Williams said he has seen a lot of horizontal signs with the city name, rocks,
etc. That could be done and it was tried and true. Personally, he was excited about some of the other
options such as vertical signs and due to the sign competition on Highway 99, something more modern
with bolder colors and fonts. The intent of the gateway signs is to point out when drivers are entering
Edmonds; if the sign looks like everyone else's sign, it may just disappear into the background. He did
not think the team was suggesting signs that were completely different from each other on Highway 99;
the intent to have them coordinate. It is not just the words that are the message; the sign has to tell drivers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 14
when they get to Edmonds, but there will be subtext via color, font, and other elements that can match and
contrast to tell a story about Edmonds. He recognized it was important to the Council to have
cohesiveness with the existing signs and certain elements should resonate, but they do not have to be
exactly the same. The team will do their best including more outreach to determine if the signs are on
right track and bring that information back to Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the vertical signs better than the horizontal signs. The city of
Shoreline is on 205' and the Edmonds sign will be across the street. She agreed the signage should be
unique and she like inspiration signage that brings color, texture, artistic.
2. LANDMARK TREE ORDINANCE EXTENSION
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is an ordinance in the packet that was presented for Council
consideration; however, he recommend the Council not take action on it tonight because the Council
needed to have a public hearing before it can be extended. Mr. Lien and he had a discussion about the
ordinance when he was heading out of town on vacation and did not had the statute in front of him. He
apologized for not realizing that earlier. When this ordinance was first adopted, there was a thought that
only six months would be needed to develop something more permanent and move on to adopting a
permanent regulation governing landmark trees. The City is obviously not at that point. His recollection
was staff has sought direction regarding where the Council wants to go or what staff should be trying to
draft, but the Council has not yet given staff clear direction to staff on that issue. From his perspective the
Council was not even close to being able to adopt a permanent regulation governing landmark trees.
To frame the discussion, Mr. Taraday suggested after hearing from Mr. Lien tonight, the Council
deliberate on whether they want to reprioritize some work in order to get a permanent landmark tree code
developed in the next six months which he understood would require a significant reprioritization of
work, or whether to just allow things to return to the way they were six months ago and allow the
landmark tree regulation process to work its way through the normal course of business. There is a lot of
work going through the Planning Board and Planning Department and it was not clear to him whether this
was a high enough Council priority to be the subject of another interim ordinance. If so, he requested the
Council advise staff. He was concerned that in the absence of a priority change and given the trajectory
that this effort has been on, there could be repeated extensions without making any real progress which is
not how interim regulations are intended to be used and he would advise against doing that.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said the key part of what Mr. Taraday said related to the
timeline for the next stage of the tree code. The general direction received during the first stage of the tree
code update was the Council wanted a tree code that applied more broadly to all properties in the City
whether they was being developed or not. The first stage of the tree code update was implementing the
first goal of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or
other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations. Clear direction was provided on that and the first update was tree
regulations that strictly focused on development. He provided that focused code update to the Planning
Board last September and the Council adopted the last version in July 2021, a total of 10 months.
If there is a tree regulation that will apply more broadly throughout the City and have a larger
impact/reach, Mr. Lien said that type of update needs to have broad public engagement and will take
more time. Staff does not have a lot of clear direction regarding that next stage. The interim ordinance
that was being considered tonight was for landmark trees but during discussion of the next stage, there
was interest in reviewing all tree removals. There was also discussion about potential view impacts but
not a lot of clear direction. Another approach would be to begin the public engagement before drafting
code; getting input from Edmonds citizens regarding what they would like to see in a tree code that
applies more broadly and weave that into the next phase of the code update.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 15
Mr. Lien advised that interviews were conducted for the urban forest planner position yesterday and an
offer will be made to a really good candidate. It will likely be at least a month before that person can be
hired. Having one person solely focused on trees will help this move forward rather than adding it to his
job.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was currently not at home so she did not have the history of the Tree
Board's efforts at hand. She recalled there was a designated timeframe and she asked for that to be sent to
her today. She expressed concern that suddenly staff was saying Council had not provided clear direction,
but she felt the Council had. She would like to further define the language in the flexible subdivision
design in 20.048.075. She was perplexed by tonight's discussion and asked if the intent was to start over
at square one and what happened to all the planning documents initiated through the Tree Board and the
Council last year or this year.
Mr. Lien said the code Councilmember Buckshnis was referencing was 20.75.048, the flexible
subdivision design; that is in code and has been adopted. That first stage of the code update was based on
Goal IA of the UFMP strictly focused on reducing clear cutting and other development impacts on the
urban forest. When Stage 1 of the code update started, staff presented the scope to Council in July 2020;
began discussion with the Planning Board in September, the Planning Board held a public hearing in
December and forwarded a recommendation to Council in January 2021 and the Council begin
discussions in January//February. During that review, there were a lot of comments that the code update
was not broad enough and needed to be expanded to cover situations beyond development. In June 2021,
staff brought back the Stage 2 topics to be considered such as tree removal not associated with
development. A few options were discussed at that time. With regard to review on other properties, there
was consensus that the Council wanted that review, but not what that review would look like such as
requiring a permit for all tree removals. With regard to views, the discussion was all over the board
regarding how views would be addressed in the next stage of the update. He concluded many of the topics
were discussed, but he did not feel clear direction was provided at that time.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if he was referring to clear direction from Council or from citizens. She
thought Council has been giving clear direction for a long time. Mr. Lien answered from the Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council approved 20.75.048 but never any language for amendments.
She would like to discuss and refine the development aspect of things. The landmark tree ordinance is
backfiring because trees are going down all over and there is no enforcement. She recalled she did not
vote the last two times because it penalizes citizens instead of developers. She thought Stage 2 of the tree
code would be done by September/October and now it sounds like there's nothing. She concluded she
was completely mystified.
Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about enforcement since there was a moratorium for landmark trees.
Mr. Lien answered staff has been implementing the landmark tree interim ordinance; landmark trees can
still be removed if they are nuisance or hazard trees. Staff has been reviewing arborist reports with regard
to nuisance and hazard landmark trees. Staff does enforce the tree code including the landmark tree
interim ordinance. People call frequently when tree cutting is occurring and planning staff, code
enforcement or building officials in the field visit those properties.
Mr. Lien clarified some of the tree cutting that has occurred since the interim ordinance went into effect
was the result of developments vested prior to adoption of the new tree code and prior to the effective
date of the interim ordinance. Subdivisions have five years from preliminary approval to begin
development; for example, a development that was approved 2-3 years ago under the old tree code is just
now getting to the development stage and removing trees. He assured staff was enforcing the tree code
and the interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 16
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many violations had been cited. Mr. Lien answered he knew of
two violations in regard to the interim ordinance, only one may have been related to the landmark tree
ordinance or potentially the other moratorium on subdivision properties that restricted cutting trees on
properties being subdivided. He did not think any were related to the landmark tree ordinance, one was a
critical area and the other was related to the moratorium ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how practical this moratorium has been. Mr. Lien answered it has
prevented 24" trees from being removed. The word is out, staff get calls all the time from property owners
that haven't heard about it until told by their neighbor. Nuisance and hazard 24" trees are being cut as
well as trees on developments vested prior to the adoption of these codes.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented it was great news that an urban forester had been hired. She
supported getting more public input even after this has been discussed for years. She personally thought
the moratorium had done more harm than good; she hears so many trees being cut down in her
neighborhood and although they may not be landmark trees, the word is out, if you want to get rid of a
tree, do it now. She would not support this ordinance when it comes back because she believed more
needed to be done to protect citizens and there needed to be better enforcement. She loves trees,
particularly protecting large native trees, but did not see that this has accomplished that goal. She will
keep her mind open to that possibility based on Mr. Lien's comments, but she did not see that the
moratorium had done what it was intended to do, save trees.
Councilmember Olson said she came to tonight's meeting with three reasons for not supporting this and
Mr. Taraday's comments addressed a lot of them. She originally voted for a six-month Band-Aid until a
code for private property could be developed because that seemed reasonable, but not only has that part of
the code not been started, a public input process is planned which she totally supports. Ms. Seitz'
comments have been valuable to her thought process and there are things that could help direct a code that
is better received and more incentive based rather than enforcement based. She also expressed concern
with treating this like an emergency ordinance when it wasn't and holding a hearing until after fact. From
her personal case studies, she did not share the opinion that this has been more of a positive than a
negative. Possibly some bigger trees are being protected, but there are a lot of big trees between 12-24".
She recalled three parties making comment to the effect that they were going to take down the 12-24"
trees before they would be protected forever. She was not sure the bigger trees were always the better
trees. She supported the ordinance originally, believing it was a reasonable thing to do, but no longer
believed it was serving the purpose of protecting and encouraging the tree canopy and is working counter
to that. She did not plan to support the ordinance tonight and was unlikely to support it in the future.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he would definitely like see it prioritized as he preferred not to regulate
through ongoing temporary extensions. He voiced his support for a reprioritization if necessary so there
can be a permanent code regarding landmark trees, trees that have been here the longest, can be here into
the future and take the longest to grow. Recognizing the exponential benefit these trees provide, he was
interested in prioritizing a long term landmark tree code and expressed support for shuffling work if
necessary.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said she was also perplexed because she remembered sitting
through numerous Council meetings and meeting with directors on this and being repeatedly shown a
schedule of how this would be accomplished and the Council providing input. This emergency ordinance
was supported by the Administration. The message the Council is receiving now is totally different than
the message they received before. She has been communicating her desires to protect the old growth as
much as possible. It was not particularly comfortable protecting them through emergency ordinance and
she had hoped the City was well on the way to a real plan to accomplish this and now is hearing staff has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 17
no idea what the Council wants. She recalled staff describing at meetings how this would be
accomplished and other meetings where Council provided feedback. She concluded she was really
confused and said there needed to be better communicating between the two branches.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine expressed frustration, commenting this was the first she was hearing about this and
feared a lot of momentum had been lost. She was unclear where the momentum was lost, recalling the
City was marching down a great path, having an interim approach to preserving the largest trees, the ones
that will not easily grow back due to the climate crisis. So much progress has been made this year; it was
a priority for the Administration and the Council to do tree preservation in large blocks. She said some of
her questions have never answered; for example, how many permits are vested where everything can be
removed, including every last blade of grass. Mr. Lien said he did not have that information, but could
track it at least for subdivisions that are vested and maybe multifamily sites.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine said it was terribly frustrating to see large swaths of trees coming down. Another
thing the Council wanted to prioritize was the use of incentives such as stormwater fees to reduce the
impact of preserving tree canopy. The Council has been supportive of alternative methods and doing
updated subdivision planning for land use practices to build housing in a more creative way. She did not
want to throw the baby out with bathwater and did not understand why the process was returning to zero.
She asked when the tree canopy assessment would be available, anticipating that would assist with
database decision making as most properties are privately held and not under development. Mr. Lien
answered the tree canopy assessment is underway and should be completed by the end of September.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked for a practical timeline to complete Stage 2 of the tree canopy work. She
acknowledged it involved the Planning Board and other staff and Administration time. She recalled there
was a path to get this done in a year or so. She recognized COVID had slowed things, and asked what
would be a reasonable time to go through the Planning Board and public hearings. Mr. Lien asked if she
was talking about the code or the canopy assessment. Mayor Pro Tern Paine answered she meant the
Stage 2 of the code. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave said there is a short summary in
the cover memo in the packet describing some of the things that are underway. The problem is there are a
lot of moving parts. Staff has been working on a number of things such as the tree canopy assessment,
street tree plan, establishing a tree fund, and hiring a urban forest planner who can devote all their time to
this effort. The one thing that will take the most time because it will require a lot of public outreach is any
code regulating private property which is different from a landmark tree ordinance. He recalled the last
time a proposal generated by the Tree Board came forward, it created a hailstorm of criticism from
general public.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine interrupted, saying she was on the Tree Board at that time and part of their charter
was a comprehensive tree code which included private property. Mr. Chave said a lengthy public outreach
is critical before bringing forward a tree code that addresses what happens on private property. The
Planning Department has been inundated with people asking questions, wanting assessment done of their
trees, etc. There is a lot of engagement by the community but there are a lot of different opinions and it is
difficult to know what the community expects until that outreach is done. The regulations related to
landmark trees can be completed sooner, but without clear direction regarding regulating trees on private
property, it will take a lot of time to figure out. There are a lot of pieces of the tree code that are moving
forward, but the private property piece, other than landmark trees, is a big question mark.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine asked what would be required and how much time would it take to resuscitate and
extend the landmark tree interim ordinance one more time. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can use the
ordinance in the packet to do that, there just needs to be a public hearing first. The only real question is
how quickly that public hearing can be noticed and he deferred to Planning staff to answer that question.
Alternatively if that timeline was not acceptable, the Council could entertain the possibility of an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 18
emergency ordinance of a different scope adopted at a special meeting in the next few days that would
take immediate effect. The exact same substance cannot be adopted without first holding a public hearing.
Mr. Lien advised the soonest a public hearing could be scheduled would be September 14' if notice was
sent to the Herald tomorrow.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed two requests, 1) Mr. Taraday hold an executive session to discuss the
legal ramifications; this had been requested but it had not been scheduled, and 2) consider alternatives to
the landmark tree moratorium, specifically ways to incentivize retaining landmark trees. The Council has
typically put aside $300,000 in the budget for open space; the Council could consider during the budget
process making one-time payments to people who own landmark trees to reduce their taxes. She was
interested in alternatives that were more palatable, helpful and positive to the community.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson requested an update on what was referred to at one time as
upcoming tree related items and timing. She recalled this was last reported to the Council on June I" and
was what the Council has been using to gauge progress. The upcoming tree related items included view
corridors, open space acquisition, and other things that staff mentioned earlier that they had not received
direction on. She disagreed that direction had not been given. She requested an update on that timeline
and whether the timing of some items needed to be adjusted from what was reported in June.
Mr. Lien He disvlaved Staae 2 Uueoming Tree -Related Items:
Item
Timing
Inventory of downtown street trees
Q2 2021- 3 2021
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Q2 2021-Q4 20221
Tree canopy assessment
Q2 2021- 3 2021
Heritage Tree Program
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Incentive pr2gam using stormwater utility fee reductions
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Exploration of other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open sace acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on private roe not related to development)
4 2021
Partnerships with other organizations
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Annual reports on City tree activities
Q2 2021
Tree ive-awayro ram
2022 or TBD
View corridors
2022 or TBD
Wildlife & habitat corridors
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Expanded public education & Information
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Stormwater & watershed Analysis
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Mr. Lien explained the above was a timeline developed by former Development Services Director Shane
Hope. He commented on the items highlighted in gray which were discussed at the June 1 St Council
meeting:
• Heritage Tree Program - clear direction was provided about moving forward and it will
potentially be completed in Q4 2021
• Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions - identified for Q4 2021 — 2022
• Tree retention on private property - will require robust public engagement. Director Hope
identified that as potentially being completed in Q4 2021; when this list was developed, he
thought that a little ambitious.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 19
• \View corridors - identified for 2022 or TBD.
• Wildlife & habitat corridors - identified for Q34 2021. He is tying wildlife and habitat corridors
to the tree canopy assessment which will be completed in late September.
Mr. Lien commented on the progress of other items on the list:
• Street plan update — in process
• Inventory of downtown street trees — completed
• Assessment of staffing and other resource needs — ongoing. Hopefully Urban Forester starting
soon
• Tree give-away program — tied to tree fund. Some current subdivisions applications will have fee -
in -lieu
Mr. Lien referred to a May 18, 2021 memo regarding Tree Code Stage 2 and options identified for Tree
Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development. Goal LA of the UFMP provides:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations
Mayor Pro Tem Paine interrupted, stated this is not the time for an update. She suggested they work
tomorrow to identify a date for an update and a solid outreach plan to discuss this with the community.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson clarified her request was for staff to come back with an update as
given the information the Council was provided tonight, she assumed some changes had been made. She
recalled a slide provided to the Council at one point stated outreach and public engagement would start
Q3, it is now the middle of Q3. She was not expecting those answers tonight, but requested some thought
be given to it. If staff felt they did not have clear direction, although she felt she has given direction, she
was perplexed why they did not ask again because the Council has been clear this is a priority. She
recalled speaking rather passionately at the beginning of the year about her frustration that the Council
just keeps talking about this and not doing anything. She thought staff and the Council was on a path to
doing something and now it feels like they are moving backward. She concluded she was confused and
frustrated as well.
Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized many cities have very good tree codes that address private
property. This was one of criticisms that Council had of the Administration when the UFMP was prepared
as well as the Tree Board because it glossed over the private property aspect. She thought the Council had
provided clear direction and now she is baffled.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine proposed concluding this discussion and she will work with staff to find a date to
come back quickly with more information, an update and to get questions answered. The Council agreed.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE
ITEM 9.4, COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO OCTOBER 5TH.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the rules could be considered in September since their approval has
been put off for over a year. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said she would try for September 28'.
Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged there were more agenda items than time allowed. She
suggested delaying outdoor dining because the Council was unlikely to finish by 10 p.m. at rate they were
going.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; AND
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 20
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON
VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
With regard to Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion to delay the outdoor dining item, Mr. Chave said
he did not have a presentation, it was intended only for Council deliberation.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine declared a brief recess.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine reported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left meeting earlier due to mouth issues
that will require oral surgery.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine asked Mr. Taraday how many votes were required to extend. Mr. Taraday
answered five votes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:15 P.M.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson explained there has already been a Planning Board process and
public hearing and City Council discussion and public hearing regarding outdoor dining. Future agendas
are full. She anticipated in the remaining 19 minutes with possibly an extension, the Council could
conclude this item tonight. She expressed concern that the Council kept putting things off and needed to
get things done.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking why the Council was voting to extend to 10:15
p.m. when the meeting may be done earlier.
MOTION ON CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present
for the vote.)
3. CONTINUED DELIBERATION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC. ENTITLED "OUTDOOR
DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC
Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the Council held a public hearing on July
27, 2021 late in the meeting so the public hearing was closed and discussion continued to this meeting.
For the public's benefit, Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson asked for a detailed definition of the
difference between streateries and outdoor dining. Mr. Chave explained outdoor dining is dining that
occurs outside a building on private property. Streateries occur in the street or a public right-of-way.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson asked what constitutes private property. Mr. Chave answered it is
anything outside of the right-of-way. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson asked for examples,
commenting parking lots were one option. She relayed questions regarding whether outdoor dining would
reduce parking, noting this would only be allowed in a parking area that was not required for the building.
Mr. Chave agreed it could be converting an unused parking space; more often it is residual property
outside the building on private property that is not being used for another purpose. For example, Red
Twig previously had parking in front of their building and a couple spaces were converted to outdoor
dining. Most of the downtown buildings have parking behind or under the building so they do not have a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 21
lot of excess parking to convert. Another example would be Walnut Coffee where they created a small
outdoor dining space in the parking area. He emphasized any required parking cannot be converted to
outdoor dining, only parking that was not otherwise required could be converted. For example, in a mixed
use building, some of the commercial space may not require parking but residential would, so that
required residential parking could not be converted to outdoor dining space.
Councilmember Olson said the Council receives a lot of communication from the public and although
there were mixed opinions about streateries, the public unanimously likes and appreciates outdoor
dinging. She thanked Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson for requesting clarification that this is not
related to streateries, but outdoor dining which is a separate and different thing.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the packet was pretty complete and she was prepared to vote.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented in the strip mall at Five Corners, there were two restaurants with
outdoor dining, the Oaxaca Mexican restaurant and Bar Dojo. In both cases, they converted parking
immediate in front of the building and built outdoor dining areas. Mr. Chave said he not familiar with
those and would need to check into them. He presumed they were allowed or permitted.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this amendment was originally tied to COVID and was a good
thing. Restaurants are now allowed go back to indoor dining at almost full capacity as long as there is 6-
foot distance. She recalled this was to be valid one year and the permit could be extended by the
development services director for a single year upon submittal of a written application prior to the
expiration of the original permit. Circumstances have changed somewhat since it was initially allowed
and she preferred to put the brakes on that automatic one year extension. Mr. Chave clarified streateries
have a one-year extension but outdoor dining does not have that restriction.
Councilmember K. Johnson disagreed, referring to Section 1 of Ordinance 4210, and language regarding
a one-year extension by the development services director which Mr. Chave indicated only applied to
streateries. said did not match the language in the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said Section 1 addresses
Chapter 17.75.
Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, advising Councilmember K. Johnson was referencing
packet page 210, Section 2, line 3. Mayor Pro Tem Paine ruled point taken.
Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated her question with the language in Section 2 of Ordinance 4210. Mr.
Chave responded that section generally applies to temporary buildings which is different than outdoor
dining. Councilmember K. Johnson observed there was no automatic extension. Mr. Chave answered no,
the outdoor dining does not have a time limit; the extension only applies to a temporary building.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that if the Council approved outdoor dining, there
was no sunset date. Mr. Chave answered that was correct and there has not been a sunset in the past; once
a property owners requests and is grant approval for outdoor dining, it lasts as long as the use continues.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson referred to an earlier comment that restaurants can return to indoor
dining, commenting she did not think people were ready to go back to indoor dining. Not only do people
appreciate outdoor dining now because of the pandemic, people enjoy eating outside.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND
A RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 22
Councilmember Olson referred to Councilmember K. Johnson's earlier comment that this came up due to
COVID, clarifying that it was not brought to the Council due to COVID. Outdoor dining has always been
available in the code as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); what arose during COVID was allowing it via a
simpler permitting process or ultimately if a restaurant met certain requirements, it was allowed. She
summarized it was not initiated due to COVID; there was always outdoor dining, only the method of
allowing it was simplified. Mr. Chave agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine clarified it removes the requirement for a CUP.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not want to be argumentative, but the first four out of five
whereases talk about COVID and why this ordinance was needed. She was concerned with the removal of
parking spaces, particularly handicap parking, in front of restaurants. She cited Five Corners as an
example, envisioning that as a temporary measure, not something permanent.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she tends to agree with Councilmember K. Johnson. She understood the
proposed change, but she did not agree with the way some ordinance and resolutions are being written.
She agreed it was discussed because of COVID, but outdoor dining was always allowed via a CUP. She
had a larger issue with streateries, noting a lot of people are concerned with them.
With regard to the two properties Councilmember K. Johnson identified at Five Corners, Councilmember
Buckshnis said that is not a private parking lot so they cannot technically maintain that outdoor dining.
Mr. Chave said he was not familiar with those two properties. He asked if the outdoor dining on their
property or in the street. Councilmember Buckshnis answered she was unsure if it was a private or public
parking lot; the dining area is in the parking lot. Mr. Chave said they may have excess parking on the site
and he would have to check into it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will follow-up with an email to
Mr. Chave, recalling this was discussed with regard to available space at Westgate.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson pointed out if it was not privately owned, the restaurants were able
to do that via streateries. Although everyone may assume streateries are adjacent to the street, but she
recalled dining areas were also allowed in parking areas. Mr. Chave responded streateries are only
allowed in the public right-of-way such as an alley or street. If it is on private property, for example a
parking lot owned by the building owner, the restaurant could make use of parking that was not required
with the permission of the building owner. It depends on the situation; Five Corners is different than
downtown because most commercial uses downtown do not require parking so if there is excess parking
on a downtown site, it could converted. Conversely, there are commercial parking requirements at Five
Corners so they could not convert required parking spaces to outdoor dining. Before he could provide an
answer he would need to ask enforcement staff to investigate.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said who the applicant would be if one property owner owned the
parking lot and individual businesses wanted to use the parking lot for outdoor dining. Mr. Chave
answered the applicant would be the property owner. The restaurateur may be granted permission from
the owner, but the owner would have to agree. Parking requirements are site wide; on a site that is
commonly owned by one owner but space is leased to restaurants, the parking is calculated by use. Every
use in the lot has a parking requirement so a restaurant could not claim someone else's parking for their
own.
Councilmember Olson referred to an earlier reference to parking for the disabled, relaying that is a
requirement for certain businesses and zoning so she assumed that would be covered and protected
without being expressly mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. Chave said the ordinance does not allow
required ADA spaces to be removed and if parking is being converted and there is no ADA space that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 23
would normally be required, an ADA space would need to be provided. There is protection for ADA
spaces on a site regardless of the parking requirements.
Councilmember K. Johnson said as it stands now, she will have to vote no or abstain because when she
was on the Planning Board many years ago, they considered outdoor dining and according to the code, it
was for major outdoor dining like the Five restaurant and Scott's, but this is a relaxation of the code
making it less costly and less time consuming. She viewed this as something developed due to the
COVID situation and a desire to help restaurants, but she was not willing to make the change because
there were other ways of dealing with this beyond the pandemic.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
This item was moved to the September 28"' or October 5t' meeting via action taken at the conclusion of
Item 9.2.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Olson reported the Taste was a lot of fun. She thanked the Chamber, volunteers and
attendees for their support. As part of the Housing Commission recommendations, multifamily design
standards were assigned to the Planning Board. She wanted to prioritize adding green space to
multifamily design. She requested the Administration communicate to her whether this could be done just
via her suggestion or if further Council action was required. She announced the Arts Festival launch party
on Friday, an outdoor party at the library with food service with COVID safety in mind. The $50 ticket
includes two drink tickets, food and a live band. Tickets are available at EdmondsFestival.com.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she heard from many citizens who are unhappy with the Council's
decision to go back to meeting on Zoom. She suggested exploring ways get the public more involved in
meetings, noting it was possible to have the public participate on Zoom and for the Council to see their
faces. She requested the Administration look into that, commenting the public feels left out when the
Council is by themselves.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested a public hearing be held on whether to move forward with the hate
portal because she wanted to hear from citizens. She did not support the hate portal and although there
may not be enough votes to ban it, she wanted to hear what people thought about it. For the fourth time,
she requested the Council President schedule an agenda item regarding Walkable Main Street.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said she has been asked about her stance on housing
recommendations. She did not yet have an official position because to date the Council has not had
thoughtful deliberations on the bulk of the recommendations that came out of a year plus work by the
Citizens Housing Commission. On a personal level, where she lives, the Bowl, is full of a variety of
zoning and housing types. When she purchased her home she was excited to have a variety of housing
options nearby. Just two blocks west, hundreds of neighbors live in multifamily zoned housing. She did
not fear her neighbors, many of whom are friends, nor did she judge their housing choice or feel they
have less pride in where they live.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 24
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson recognized that density takes many forms including the current
trend of tearing down modest older homes and replacing them with larger homes, sometimes two.
Personally she would welcome instead of the large new homes being constructed around her to instead
have a few duplexes with the same footprint. Duplexes can be built to look virtually indistinguishable
from single family homes and she has seen plans where there is an ADA accessible unit on the ground
floor and another home on the second story. There are already homes in single family neighborhood like
that; many residents have modified split level homes to have a similar setup.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said she was recently reminded of a comment she made regarding
change, in this case it concerned redevelopment of the waterfront, where she stated change can have
devastating and irreversible consequences. Her interest was a thoughtful balancing of economy and
environment. She stood behind that; without a plan, there will be haphazard growth that does not
prioritize carbon reduction or diversity of housing options. The Sierra Club Seattle testified in 2019 in
favor of an ADU bill, saying the bill was crucial and that ADUs are critical for climate strategy.
Washington State Sierra Club said that housing affordability and support for all housing types and income
levels by requiring jurisdictions to identify and make plans to undo racially biased and inclusionary
housing policies of the past while taking measures to prevent community displacement means allowing
more people to live where they work and reduces transportation emissions. In addition, it allows for more
energy efficient homes as opposed to the energy insufficient mansions that house only a handful of
people. She suspected the larger homes being built in Edmonds fall into that latter category.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said as a City, Edmonds has started to work on ensuring more
environmentally protected development through stormwater updates, green infrastructure, tree code, bike
lane expansion and more. She appreciated the comments Councilmember Olson made earlier about
ensuring green space in multifamily design. There needs to be an Edmonds specific plan to address how
housing fits into this. Instead of yelling and fear mongering, she desired a science -based discussion on
how housing choices drive carbon output as well as a discussion that examines the continued impact of
the long history of exclusionary housing practices. If done well, the City may end up with a plan that
allows residents' adult children to stay in Edmonds and a plan that has options to downsize when larger
homes no longer suit residents' needs. This won't solve all the housing and environmental challenges but
it may open the door a bit more and will go a long way toward building a more connected, sustainable and
environmentally friendly Edmonds.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L.
JOHNSON, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:20 P.M. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER
MAJORITY (4-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Mr. Taraday provide a review of the liability aspect of the portal,
recalling she asked for that last week. She hoped Council President Paine would begin the process of
investigating city attorneys because the Lighthouse contract ends next year. It will take much longer than
a year to go through that process, recalling the process was kind of botched last time so she hoped the
process would start sooner rather than later. She also recommended going at it pragmatically versus the
way it was done two years ago.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Joe Scordino and his team of volunteers continue to clean the marsh.
There are now ducks on the east side and Shellabarger Creek is visible. Volunteers meet 10-2 on
Thursdays and Saturdays; they have a wonderful time and are helping improve water quality. She
reported the Edmonds Arts Festival with 140 artists is open 10-6 on Friday and Saturday and 10-5 on
Sunday. The Rotary is operating the beer garden. There will be great COVID restrictions, masks and
vaccinations will be available.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 25
Mayor Pro Tem Paine began to adjourn the meeting. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson raised a point
of order, stating the meeting had been extended to 10:20 p.m. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the
vote on the motion to extend required five affirmative votes so the meeting had not been extended.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
a ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 26
Mayor Pro Tem Paine began to adjourn the meeting. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson raised a point
of order, stating the meeting had been extended to 10:20 p.m. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the
vote on the motion to extend required five affirmative votes so the meeting had not been extended.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
MICHA NELSON, MAYOR
f
OTT P S5EY, CI CLE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 26
Public Comment for 8/24/21 Council Meeting:
From: Will Chen
Sent: Monday, August 23, 20216:45 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Safety in the Hwy 99 corridor neighborhood
Mayor Nelson and Council members,
My name is Will Chen, Edmonds resident. I am writing to express concerns about the current
state of public safety in the Hwy 99 corridor and offer some practical solutions to combat these
ongoing issues. As I reviewed the Edmonds Police Blotter for the week of August 10-16 alone,
there were at least 22 incidents and crimes documented. Here are few examples:
Aug. 12
Aug. 12
1. 21900 block Highway 99: A man was issued a warning after police found
him passed out in a vehicle with heroin and drug paraphernalia in his lap.
2. 8000 block 238th Street Southwest: A man was arrested after he was found
passed out in a stolen vehicle.
3. 23600 block Highway 99: A woman's backpack and wallet were stolen from
a cart while shopping. Fraudulent credit card activity was also reported.
1. 22000 block Highway 99: A possible known suspect attempted to burglarize
a gas station convenience store.
2. 22500 block Highway 99: A business employee discovered the front
entrance had been shattered and items were stolen.
3. 24300 block Highway 99: Subjects stole tools from a business.
4. 24100 block Highway 99: A suspect stole clothes from an outlet store but
was arrested at a neighboring department store. A possible theft at the
department store is still under investigation.
While these are just a few examples of the types of incidents that we are seeing more regularly,
they do provide a clear picture of the increasing crime rates in HWY 99 neighborhoods. I am
speaking before you today not only as a Business Owner that serves clients in this area through
my accounting firm, but more importantly as a resident whose family also lives in this area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 27
I have witnessed or experienced first-hand some of these increasing problems, and many of my
clients, neighbors and other business owners have reached out to me to share the experiences
that they encounter in this unsafe environment day -in and day -out.
According to the Annual report recently issued by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs (WASPC), which you should all have received a copy of, Edmonds overall crime
rose 41.3% in 2020, including some of the more egregious acts such as fraud, murder, and
property crimes.
Clearly, there is a public safety crisis on Hwy 99 and while I know you don't have all the
answers, I pose the question: What are some solutions to combat this rise? I deeply appreciate
and know that our brave police men and women from EPD are doing everything that they can,
with the tools they have and under the circumstances to keep our community safe but it is even
more clear that our dependence solely on the police department is NOT ALONE ENOUGH. So, I
offer a few practical ideas as a resident and business owner to help address our worsening
public safety concerns.
I would like the council to consider exploring the following:
1. Creating a Civilian Patrol with the goal of creating a bigger patrol presence on Highway
99 and the rest of the city. (This program could also serve as an opportunity to educate our
residents and provide other volunteer services)
2. Explore the creation of a city led program/partnership to provide a vulnerability
assessment to local businesses and homeowners that assesses potential for burglary or other
types of theft. (Of course these assessments would need to be done by a third party to ensure
that there is no liability for the city, and the results are only shared with the homeowner and
the organization/individual doing the assessment).
3. Explore the benefits of establishing a Satellite Police Station on Highway 99 and using
it as a community center and training facility to better engage with uptown Edmonds. It would
also be nice to hold a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting in this area at least once per
month.
While these ideas are focused on HWY 99, they also apply to our entire city and are only
intended to initiate a discussion so that both the council and the community can work
collaboratively to make our city safer.
To respect the council's time and agenda, I am happy to meet and discuss these ideas at
another time. I appreciate your consideration of these important issues to our community.
Thank you.
Will Chen, CPA
Edmonds resident and business owner, Hwy 99.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 28
From: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 10:26 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Dave Teitzel
Subject: Fwd: Streateries
Please include this email with our public comments.
Thanks,
Susan Paine, (she/her) M.P.A.
Edmonds City Council, position 6
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dave Teitzel
Date: August 23, 2021 at 6:56:48 AM PDT
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Passey, Scott" <Scott.Passe edmondswa. ov>
Subject: Streateries
Please make the following comments part of the record of the 8/24/21 City Council meeting.
Folks,
The temporary "streatery" structures have been helpful to our local restaurant/bar industry
during the pandemic and have enabled our citizens who may still be uneasy about gathering
indoors to enjoy restaurant dining during this difficult time. I applaud you for approving
temporary measures to allow the structures to be placed in our streets. I understand you will
consider at Tuesday's Council meeting making permanent the ordinance allowing streateries to
remain in place. Rather than making the ordinance permanent now, I urge you to extend the
temporary provisions for one year. During that time, we can monitor the status of the
pandemic and you can solicit additional public input about the benefits and drawbacks of
streateries. There are many important issues to consider about streateries, such as the risk
they may represent to pedestrian/traffic safety, ADA challenges, loss of downtown parking,
aesthetics, etc.
Please defer a decision about allowing streateries permanently until the pandemic is behind us
and until you have had an opportunity to fully vet all pro/con issues around streateries.
Thanks,
Dave Teitzel
Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 29
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 7:48 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Chave, Rob
<Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for August 24, 2021 City Council Meeting
In general, Interim Zoning Ordinances such as Ordinance 4209 and 4210 may be effective for no
longer than six months. An Interim Zoning Ordinance may be renewed for one or more six-
month periods if a subsequent Public Hearing is held, and findings of fact are made prior to
each renewal.
That original six-month life, however, assumes City Council holds a Public Hearing on the
Interim Zoning Ordinance within at least sixty days of its adoption.
Edmonds City Council failed to hold the mandatory Public Hearings for both Ordinance 4209
and 4210.
Please inform all Edmonds citizens, property owners and businesses what the full impact of
both failures to conduct Public Hearings is? I believe a properly functioning City Government
would have clarified this long before now. Please do so at once.
How do these violations of State Law impact Ordinance 4209 and 4210 and all related
approvals and permits issued?
If a required public hearing on an interim regulation is not conducted within sixty (60) days of
its adoption, was the related interim regulation ever effective as law? If so, was it effective
up to the end of the 60th day? Please clarify. At a minimum, is it not true that all uses of
rights -of -way and commercial property under Ordinance 4209 and 4210 have been illegal
since roughly February 14, 2021?
Next, should the Edmonds City Council adopt new Rules of Procedure, please make sure such
includes the following new Rule. The reason for adding this new Rule is so that citizens of
Edmonds who make the effort to provide Public Comment to City Council get the last word
before decisions are made by City Council.
New Rule:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 30
If the City Attorney or City Staff speak specific to a Citizen Public Comment AFTER the Public
Comment is made, the Citizen will be granted one additional minute to speak. The City
Attorney or City Staff are not allowed to make the final comments to City Council specific to a
Citizen Public Comment that has been made during an Open Public Meeting. If the City
Attorney or City Staff speak specific to a Citizen Public Comment AFTER the one additional
minute has been granted, the Citizen will again be granted one additional minute to speak.
This process will repeat until the Citizen is provided the opportunity to make the final
comments before decisions are made by City Council.
Thank you in advance for adding this Rule as it is very important.
If Edmonds City Council does adopt new Council Rules of Procedure, please determine ahead of
time how the Rules will be fairly enforced. The last thing we need are more rules and codes
that are not fairly enforced.
Thank you.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 31
n
L
IL