Loading...
cmd092821EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 28, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor 1. CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Dave Turley, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Zack Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Paine. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, with the exception of Mayor Nelson, participating remotely. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT Economic Development & Community Services Director Doherty explained the Economic Development Commission (EDC) was established pursuant to City Council -approved amendments to Chapter 10.75. The nine -member, volunteer board is appointed by the Mayor and City Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 1 The Commission is charged with advising and making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate, to other boards and commissions of the City on strategies, programs or activities intended to generate economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue. Topics of study may be referred to the Commission by the Mayor or City Council, or independently generated by the commission. The commission is also charged with providing an annual report to City Council. Given the vagaries of COVID-19-related meeting restrictions and other complications over the past 18 months, the EDC did not make a presentation in 2020. Tonight's presentation is intended to provide an overview of the activities the EDC has been engaged in since 2019 and activities it is considering undertaking over the next 12 to 18 months. The EDC is interested in Council and Mayor input regarding these proposed activities. In addition, they look forward to any ideas or suggestions Council and/or the Mayor may have regarding their proposed activities for the next 12 to 18 months. Mr. Doherty introduced EDC Chair Nicole Hughes and Vice Chair Kevin Harris. He referenced a written summary that was provided to Council today via email. EDC Chair Hughes reviewed: = EDC Overview and Focus - 2020/2021 o EDC Purposes = Advise the Mayor and Council on ideas, strategies, programs or activities intended to support economic vitality o Visibility: How We Work = Project committees focused on priority areas explore ideas related to areas of interest - Neighborhood Business Districts - Edmonds Business Booster Website - Waterfront Business District Opportunities - Parking and Shuttle - Data and Comms (internal) o Strategic Topics = Economic Resilience • Revenue Growth = Balance ALL Geographic Business Areas = Diversity and Equity across Different Business Types ■ Recognizing the Intersection between Community Health and Economic Health EDC Vice Chair Harris reviewed: Updates/Impacts o EDC has diverse experience and perception of economic development o COVID and reorganizing the team o Project Workgroups ■ Neighborhood Business Districts - identify strategies to attract business activities to all districts. Perrinville, Firdale, Healthcare Dist., International Dist., Downtown, Waterfront Zone, Five Corners, Highway 99 ■ Edmonds Business Booster Portal - create a navigation platform for business start-ups and development. Steers entrepreneurs and business scalers to training, mentoring and coaching support. ■ Waterfront Business Zone Opportunities - collaborate with the Port and Waterfront to diversity business activity in the Waterfront Zone ■ Parking and Shuttle - explore ways to address the long-term impact of population and business growth on the city's parking inventory. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 2 Data and communications — internal resource to assist data -driven projects and support communications processes between the EDC, Edmonds officials and partners. Chair Hughes reviewed: • Ideas in early consideration (from the EDC retreat, the public, conversations with Councilmembers, etc.) o Develop vision for vitality across all business geos o Cohesive brand development and marketing for different geos o Strategies to attract visitors through non-traditional arrivals o Mobility between different areas of Edmonds o Children's Museum and recreation o City facilities available in Uptown renewal zone o Attract corporate satellite workspaces o Downtown Preservation District o Leverage the best of Walkable Downtown o Promoting small business expansion along Highway 99 and International Dist. o Support the arts across different districts Working Together/How to Engage with EDC o Meet regularly with your appointed Commissioner o Contact Vivian Olson (Council liaison to EDC) o Contact Nicole Hughes (Chair) or Kevin Harris (Vice Chair) o Contact Patrick Doherty o Visit us at a monthly EDC meeting as our guest — 3rd Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Public comments are welcome and agenda items can be created to explore specific ideas Chair Hughes welcomed the Council's input on the list of ideas as well as other ideas. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked how Vice Chair Harris addressed the elephant in room, parking. Parking has been an issue for a long time; there have been parking committees off and on in the past. She asked if a downtown preservation district was the same as a historic district. She supported having parking looked at especially in conjunction with the streateries and Walkable Edmonds because many people are opposed to Walkable Edmonds. Although some people think we are moving into an era where no one needs to park and we will be riding bikes or taking the shuttle, sooner or later the issue of parking will need to be addressed especially with increasing ferry traffic and increasing tourism with the Creative District. Councilmember Olson thanked all the members of the EDC, commenting they are an amazing group of people and the community is lucky to have them serving. With regard to the list of ideas, the items that affect business districts and business owners need to be considered first and foremost. With regard to prioritization, she was excited about developing all the neighborhood business districts. Each one already has an identity of sorts, in almost all cases it could be bolstered and made more of a thing to make it more of an attraction and something the neighbors would take pride and excitement in claiming it as their own as well as cross marketing between districts. She was surprised to hear someone at the Ranch Market say they had never been to the downtown or waterfront area. That raised her awareness that that may be true of all neighborhood districts, that there are places people go and they do not know what other areas of the City have to offer. Cross branding between the districts would be a real opportunity. Councilmember K. Johnson commented she hadn't realized it had been two years since the EDC made a presentation to the Council. She recalled about a decade ago when she was on the EDC for a number of years, one of the things they looked at was form based code at Five Corners. It was implemented for Westgate, but Five Corners was put on hold. That project was initiated by the EDC under former Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 3 Community Development Director Stephen Clifton and Planning Manager Rob Chave in conjunction with the University of Washington. She suggested more work be done on that. Echoing Councilmember Buckshnis' comment, she wished the EDC had been asked or been more involved in evaluating Walkable Main Street and the streateries. It may be appropriate to look back on the successes and failures, the impact on different business types, etc. and it would be a great way to engage with local businesses on lessons learned. Councilmember K. Johnson said she loved the idea of a downtown preservation district; she is on the Historic Preservation Commission and would to love to talk to anyone interested in that. She was also passionate about parking and the shuttle, recalling at one time there were discussions about a trolley to connect the waterfront with the downtown area. There were also discussions about parking time limits to address ferry riders parking downtown for long periods of time. There has been talk about a ferry reservation system for over a decade; if that ever comes to fruition, it could have a beneficial impact because it would give people time to explore the waterfront, downtown, Five Corners and all of Edmonds. She looked forward to talking to EDC members in the future. She also liked the work being done on the Creative District, noting the EDC could have a lot of important input into that. Mayor Pro Tern Paine expressed appreciation for how well the presentation was put together. She asked that the presenters send the list of nine ideas to the Council so they could provide input on them. She appreciated the effort to provide Council the ability for dialogue and ensure there was enough Council buy -in on projects the EDC wanted to pursue. The Council will get back to the EDC after they review the ideas and possibly provide additional ideas. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how often commissioners are expected to contact the Mayor or Councilmember that appointed them. Chair Hughes said there is not a specific expectation, it is left up to the commissioners although they are encourage to do it on a regular interval, at least once a year, twice a year, or quarterly. VC Harris said Councilmember may have different expectations about how often they want to be updated. With regard to people living in east Edmonds not going downtown or to the waterfront, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said with traffic, it takes 15-20 minutes to drive downtown and going downtown is not a priority for probably 50% of the people living on Highway 99 who can reach Lynnwood or Shoreline in 10 minutes. Connections to downtown, the Creative District, etc. are not priorities for people living in east Edmonds because they do not go down there very often due to the distance. Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson commented she supported a lot of the ideas on the list and she will get back to the commission with her input in the future. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 12, EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.30.110(1)(F) TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE COMPLAINTS AND CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the City Attorney had been consulted to ensure this meet the legal threshold. Councilmember Olson answered it had been. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he was provided a copy of the complaint and it was sufficient for Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) purposes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Paine invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. She noted there is a continued public hearing later on the agenda; this agenda item is for comments not related to the public hearing. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the Edmonds tree ordinance passed earlier this year. They love trees; they purchased a steep 1.2 acre property filled with trees and would like to build three homes amongst them but doing so requires removal of some trees. The City has taken their property rights and the value of their trees, forcing them to buy each tree back for $3300-$12,000 before allowing a permit to divide the property, pay for tree and root removal and build homes that fund the City's tax base. She recalled hearing a Councilmember say that trees should be saved at all costs; it isn't at all costs, it hasn't cost the City a thing. The City has only target them and other families who seek to divide property to build much needed homes in single family zoned residential areas. This Council discriminates against hardworking people who assume the risk to fulfill the community's housing needs and have lowered property values by the assumed worth of the trees. Not only is the Council extorting over $100,000 for their trees, but have delayed their application by yet another year with the application moratorium and changing permit goalposts which make it difficult for their engineers, arborists and architects to keep up. This is precious time taken from them to live closer to assist her sweet 86-year old parents who were 81- years old when this process began. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the City is listed as fully participating in the Washington Growth Management Act. This Council has violated the following GMA initiatives in the past year, 1) encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner, 2) reduce sprawl, 3) applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability, and 4) private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of land owners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. The term taking comes from the final clause of the 5' amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Washington State has a similar clause in section 16 of Article 1 of the state constitution as does Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan. It is based on the premise that when government action reduces the value of property, the governmental entity that has taken that action, whether by ordinance, zoning, regulation, legislation or any other regulatory action, must pay the property owner compensation for the reduced value of the property. She urged the Council to abide by the laws of the country, state and city as the rest of the community has to. She asked the Council to give them back their trees and make this right before Edmonds taxpayers have to pay and compensate for these illegal actions in a court of law. She urged the Council to please listen and help them. Cynthia Gutierrez Sjoblom, Edmonds, said constituents are requesting Council return to Chambers; they approve of a hybrid version for those who feel more comfortable saying at home with cameras on. It was her understanding that the number of COVID hospitalizations were down and in general the numbers were dropping. On behalf of Edmonds citizens, she requested volunteers from the community be allowed on the task force; some people are uncomfortable with how the task force was initiated. She understood allowing citizens on the task force was rejected by Shannon Burley, an employee who should not be deciding on this very important matter, but instead handled by the Council. She referred to her email regarding a complaint process used by the Snohomish County Council; the City does not need to reinvent Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 5 the wheel and must have a process for filing formal complaints for Code of Conduct violations. There is no point having a Code of Conduct if it is not enforced and since this matters to constituents, it should matter to Councilmembers. Otherwise people will resort to the hate and bias portal. She recommended creating a baseline for standards for those receiving housing services from the City; services should be reserved for people who are drug and alcohol free. She did not support eliminating car lanes for bike lanes, anticipating there would be a lot of bike accidents due to people unaccustomed to seeing bikes on 9' and Edmonds Way. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for helping hold the line there. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding park inequity and asked the City to consider Civic Center and other parks appropriately and accurately within the PROS Plan update. City code identifies that community parks are designated to provide opportunities for the immediate community with a maximum service range of 1-2 miles, likely less in the case of Civic Center due to the lack of parking. She objected to the insinuation that this park serves the entire city; doing so only seeks to obscure the lack of resources provided to east Edmonds communities and that public event spaces are only provided for the benefit of downtown businesses. With regard to electrical vehicle standards, she shared comments she previously provided to the Planning Board. She hoped the City would not create exceptions for businesses and development to pay for upgrades to the electric system in conjunction with electric vehicle standards. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SR-99 corridor has underdeveloped electric infrastructure to accommodate the City's proposed electrical vehicle standards, an area the City has targeted for low income development. Highway 99 is an area of concern for utility upgrades because it is a 7 of 10 for environmental health disparities, 9 of 10 for environmental exposures and 7 of 10 for socio and economic factors based on the Washington Health Disparities Mapping. Nine of 10 means that only 10% of communities in Washington have more environmental exposures than this area. The environmental exposures in the SR-99 corridor are primarily due to vehicle emissions. Ms. Seitz continued, it is more important that electric vehicle investments happens in the SR-99 corridor than any other area of the City for purely public health reasons. The City's desire to site low income development here in conjunction with the exemptions will delay this investment, prolong negative exposures and result in a lower building standard for this area than the rest of the City. There is an agreement that this type of development follows growth but she did not understand how investment in electrical infrastructure would happen when exemptions are written into the code and there are no plans for the utility to upgrade the system in this area. Although Highway 99 is not mentioned, the existing conditions and lack of infrastructure and the City's desire for low income development will mean exemption will impact this area. She acknowledged having no exemptions will delay development which is why she suggested the City should seek partnerships so the fundamental electric system upgrades will occur. The City should have planted trees along the corridor long ago to help address pollution; this is another fundamental way the City can address public health needs of this area of the City. Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, relayed she recently made a report to the hate portal and recommended the City "step up the game on this site" because she never received confirmation of her submission or heard anything back from the City. To ensure her report of hate, bias, threatening and deliberate aggression toward her were on public records, she repeated her report to the hate portal and expected it to be investigated by the City for hate actions that do not arise to the level of crimes. She requested the names mentioned be a permanent part of the government list. She provided her report, "During public comments on 9/7/21, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas flashed a loser sign at me while making comments to the Mayor and Council. She proceeded to also call my comments hate speech which is untrue and hateful in itself. She called me out by name twice, referred to my comments as hate speech and falsely claimed my comments said she was drunk. This is hateful and degrading behavior. It is threatening to me, my safety and my reputation. It slandered me and showed bias against me for speaking truth at a public meeting, also violating the Code of Conduct of the Council. City electeds that show this kind of hate and bias toward a constituent carries heavier weight than that coming from other citizens. She did this on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 6 public record and can be witnessed by everyone_ who chooses to watch it. This hateful, threatening and bias behavior should be addressed by the City. Adrienne further accused me of making up stories in a reply to a letter to the editor on 9/13/21 in My Edmonds News slandering me. This was done as she spoke for the entire Council, signing it as such. That puts this slander on public record. I am also now reporting bias, slander and hate coming towards me, a citizen, from the entire City Council she is supposed to represent. If these reports need to be separated into two reports in this portal, please advise and I will resubmit. I await your investigation into this. Thank you." Ms. Strong asked to be informed how this investigation is proceeding because she has not heard anything from the City. She hoped the Council votes to meet in person again at future meetings. Kirsten Paust, Edmonds, said they have lived in the Bowdoin corridor for a year and also own a home on Main Street. She urged the Council to give strong consideration to the parking situation associated with Yost for the residents who live on Bowdoin. Having lived on both Main Street and Bowdoin, they are very different neighborhoods and have different home styles. On Bowdoin, many houses do not have garages and rely on street parking. Events at Yost Pool or at the park seriously limited parking in the area, also putting constraints on parking for homeowners. With any bike lane considerations or choices that are made, she urged the Council to find alternate parking arrangements, recalling that an option for additional parking was being considered. Parking would be hugely valuable to residents in the area and would improve usage of Yost Park and the facilities there which are so dear and treasured by the community. She also recommended vehicle travel lanes not be removed in the Westgate/Edmonds Way area for bike lanes. Real improvements have been made in the speed and safety of vehicle and transit which she wanted to retain. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RANDALL J. HODGESPHOTOGRAPHY 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2021 SEPTEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed ■ There are 5 requests tonight, detailed decision packages begin on packet page 137 • If approved, budget amendment would increase forecast revenues by $85,528 and increase budgeted expenditures by $181,457 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 7 • Budget Amendments o Unfreeze salary and benefits for new Deputy Director of Administrative Services position o Request budget authority to transfer the remaining year-end balance out of the Firemen's Pension Fund into the General Fund. The purpose of the Firemen's Pension Fund was to pay insurance and healthcare benefits for firefighters employed by the City who were employed before 1970. Four people remain in this plan. A statewide play was implemented in 1970 to cover retirees. The City receives approximately 1/3 of the required amount from a state fire insurance premium tax. The state auditor determined this is no longer considered fiduciary money and should be account for in the General Fund. o This budget amendment is to request the budget authority to transfer the remaining year-end balance out of the Memorial Street Tree Fund. This fund has been dormant for several years and we would like to move the remaining balance into the recently created Tree Fund so that these funds can be utilized by the City. o Add the City's new Urban Forest Planner salary and wages to the 2021 budget. This position was approved on June 22, 2021. o Request budget authority to transfer $25,000 from the General Fund into the Risk Management Fund to pay small settlements Councilmember Buckshnis recalled during the presentation to the Finance Committee there was an amendment related to the bond receivable that was not included in this amendment. Mr. Turley explained it was presented to the Finance Committee two weeks ago as the intent was to have it approved before the budget book was prepared. The amendments did not fit on last week's agenda and because the budget book has already been printed, there is no advantage to making that budget amendment at this time. It was included in the budget book as an estimate. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to transferring $25,000 into the Risk Management Reserve Fund, recalling the Finance Committee recommended policies and procedures be established for making payments, replenishing the fund, etc. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4234, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4230 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. With regard to the Memorial Tree Fund, Mayor Pro Tem Paine asked if there were any contingencies or stipulations related to the ordinance authorizing the collection of those funds. Mr. Turley said he looked up the fund today; there were two purposes, donations for a specific memorial tree, and donations to benefit the urban forest and trees in general. The second purpose fulfills the purpose of the new fund. Mayor Pro Tem Paine expressed support for the budget amendment. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Stormwater Engineer Zack Richardson and City Engineer Rob English. He explained this information was first presented to Council in July; a public hearing was held last week and continued to this week. He reviewed: • What's Changing? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 8 o Most changes are updates to match Ecology reorganization and/or to provide clarity where staff have experienced commonly missed or misinterpreted information by manual users & designers. o See 2022 ECDC 18.30 and Stormwater Addendum Summary of Changes (agenda packet) ■ Direction from Ecology (Orange) = Ecology prescribed/required ■ Direction from Staff (White) = City -proposed clarification, reorganization, or update without substantial change/impact • Direction from Staff (Green) = Staff -proposed change with potential impacts o Department of Commerce and SEPA approval required prior to formal Council adoption. • Change #1: New connections of existing hard surfaces o Old: Current code allows for connection of existing hard surfaces on case -by -case basis with a focus on maintaining City pipe capacity. o New: Revision proposed to require new connections of existing hard surfaces to be treated like new hard surfaces requiring full drainage mitigation. * This is specific to new connections; where residents have an existing connection, they are permitted to replace the connection in -kind without any mitigation requirements. o Rationale: These new connections of existing surfaces are still new or altered impacts to the City system and any surfaces water they drain to; they should be mitigated for as new impacts. o Potential Impacts: Affects a very small number of applicants. For the handful that would be impacted, this could potentially be the most -costly change proposed this year. Full drainage design and BMP implementation for these size projects can cost between $6,000 to $20,000. However, the impacts of allowing every pre -drainage code residence or business to connect to our system could result in a continuation of the negative impacts from historic unmitigated development and detrimental to our ability to manage the capacity of our systems. • Change #2: Removing Edmonds Way as a direct discharge basin o Old: Current code recognizes the Edmonds Way drainage basin as a partial direct discharge basin with reduced requirements for LID (MR #5) and flow control (MR #7) o New: City proposes revisions to remove all exemptions for the Edmonds Way basin, resulting in equal application of drainage code requirements to the Edmonds Way basin. o Rationale: The Edmonds Way drainage pipe (WSDOT) is known to overflow to the Edmonds Marsh under certain conditions; since this demonstrates a capacity issue and now discharges to a non -manmade water body, the direct discharge exemption should no longer apply. o Potential Impacts: This change removes a discount which previously existed in one specific basin within Edmonds and brings projects within Edmonds Way to be equal in cost to other projects through in the City. The additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. Larger projects which trigger full flow control (MR #7) will have the most significant cost increases. Small SFR projects can expect between $500 and $2000 cost increase, but larger (15,000 SF) commercial/multifamily projects could see increases of $20,000 to $50,000. Change #3: Increasing protection of Perrinville Creek o Old: Current code applies the drainage code uniformly to all areas of City, including the Perrinville Creek Basin. o New: City proposed revisions to increase the retrofit requirement for LID and increase the flow control standard within the Perrinville Creek basin (only). • Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated surfaces to remain): 25% _> 50% ■ Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3 Standard) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 9 o Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by past development and needs enhanced protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek.. o Potential Impacts: Both changes result in additional cost that is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. The flow control component will only impact larger projects with minimal impacts on large project budgets; estimated to add between $12,000 and $16,000 for a larger (15,000 SF) commercial development. The retrofit requirement has the potential to impact homeowners who are expanding existing homes, but minimally; estimated to add $400 to $600 for a SFR project which keeps most of the existing home (2,500 SF). Change #4: Detention preferred over perforated pipes o Old: Current code adopted the Ecology BMP list for MR #5 and then added an Edmonds - specific detention BMP to the end of the list, making its priority less than that of a perforated pipe connection. o New: Staff proposed revisions to elevate the Edmonds -specific detention BMP to be considered before a perforated pipe connection. o Rationale: Perforated pipe connections are only used when infiltration has been found infeasible for very specific reasons, and when broad infiltration is infeasible, perforated pipes usually will not work very well either and they may well get proposed in undesirable locations where instability and failure could result. Our modeling comparisons have shown detention to provide significantly better outcomes. o Potential Impacts: Neary all projects within Edmonds over 2,000 SF of impervious would have to provide stormwater detention, at a minimum. Additional cost is generally limited to increases in volume for already proposed BMPs, as compared to the full cost of drainage design and BMP implementation. Detention systems, as compared to a perforated pipe system, may add between $500 and $4,000 for a larger SFR project (5,500 SF). Mr. Williams asked Mr. Richardson to explain how Change 44 would improve stormwater impacts. Mr. Richardson explained perforated pipe connections is the lowest BMP on the list and it is generally used in a place where it has already been decided that regular infiltration is not a good idea and has been ruled out, often due to a safety concern. A perforated pipe connection creates a gap that sometimes results in a system that proposes infiltration where it was not desirable. In addition, the uniform size means the amount of mitigation provided in an area that is already known not to infiltrate well is very minimal. Much better protection is provided with detention tank standards. Mr. Williams said in addition to the above changes, the remaining changes are reorganizational changes by Ecology or clarification of standards. He continued his review: ■ What Comes Next? o SEPA review underway (-60-days) o Department of Commerce review underway (60-days) ■ additional changes can be made based on public comment and/or Council review and submitted to Department of Commerce for review o This public hearing ■ Held now to avoid conflicts with budgeting process o Brought back for formal approval pending Commerce & SEPA approval. o Questions/concerns: Zachary.Richardson@edmondswa.gov Mr. Williams clarified staff was not seeking approval tonight but rather input on changes to the current version of the draft code. Those changes can be incorporated and sent to the Department of Commerce for review and later this year or early next year, the changes to the code can be adopted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 10 Mr. Williams apologized for confusing some residents as was evident by the number of emails that were received. The changes to the code will have these effects, 1) bring the City into compliance with Ecology requirements, and 2) the more substantive impacts staff is recommending would improve the stormwater code and speed the transition to lower impact from stormwater to natural resources from development projects. A lot of people think this is a once in a lifetime change to the stormwater code; that is not the case, the City can make changes to the stormwater code following this same process anytime the Council wishes so this does not have to be the end -all -be-all or result in a perfect code. This hearing is about these changes but further changes can be discussed in the future such as considering how to incorporate the Salmon Safe recommendations into the code when those are available. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Salmon Safe funding was approved in the budget ten months ago and asked when the contract was signed. Mr. Williams said he was not sure there was a contract yet. Mr. Richardson said the Parks Department is handling that. Mr. Williams relayed it was a decision package in the 2022 budget. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled it was approved via a decision package last year. Mr. Williams said he was uncertain about the funding but work not begun and is scheduled to be completed in 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson requested a more definitive answer be provided after tonight's meeting. Councilmember K. Johnson said many of the problems with Perrinville Creek, which have been known for 20 years, are due to upstream runoff. Therefore, it would be advantageous to have an interlocal agreement (ILA) or common understanding between Edmonds and Lynnwood regarding Perrinville Creek. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson noted the requirement to update the stormwater code is 10 months out and rather than repeating this process, she suggested working on an ILA and understanding with Lynnwood before this is due so there would be stronger development regulations for the upstream area. Mr. Williams commented Edmonds is also part of the upstream area although not as many acres as Lynnwood, but a lot of the acreage in Lynnwood is in the park and the developed areas are similar. He agreed Lynnwood was a significant player in the basin. Once Edmonds' code is adopted with these changes, the intent would be to approach Lynnwood and suggest they entertain including the same requirements in their development code. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested starting that process earlier rather than later. Mr. Williams agreed, but that does not need to stop approving these changes in Edmonds code. These changes can have immediate impact in Edmonds and provide a product that can be presented to Lynnwood for their consideration. Councilmember K. Johnson recognized it was a balancing act, there is a desire to have these changes apply to Edmonds as soon as possible, but the process would need to be reinitiated to incorporate the results of the Salmon Safe evaluation. Mr. Williams said it could be that the Lynnwood issues would be ripe at the same time as the Salmon Safe changes and could be handled in a combined process, but they also occur at different times. The process of holding a public hearing and making changes to the code can occur any time it is justified. He preferred to adopt the changes now, reach out to Lynnwood for a more formal review on their part, and when the Salmon Safe output is available, evaluate it and decide what changes need to be made. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson clarified if the Council approved the changes sooner rather than later, any application submitted would have to meet these updated requirements. Mr. Williams answered yes. Mr. Richardson said the proposal was for the changes to begin on January 1; if it was delayed until the NPDES deadline, that wouldn't happen until July. Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said approving this now, whether or not it is perfect or there are additional things that could be added, means the additional protections are in place for any applications that are received and that happens six months sooner. Mr. Williams agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember Buckshnis said a number of emails and public comments have been received. She asked why the SEPA was not provided in as part of the packet. Mr. Richardson answered the SEPA process is a separate process and is not part of the public hearing. There is a link on the City's website. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email from Lora Petso regarding an anti -degradation policy in WAC 173-200 that the Edmonds code does not address. Mr. Williams said he read that carefully and disagreed with the analysis at first blush, although he had not had an opportunity to discuss it with the City Attorney. He agreed there was an anti -degradation policy at the state level; Ms. Petso works with the Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) Board who have strong feelings about infiltration and direct underground injection of stormwater based on some experience in the past couple years and OVWSD has fought that issue with the state. The state sets UIC rules, not the City of Edmonds; and although the project involved in that debate was in Edmonds, it was up to the state to regulate. This code does not have anything to do with that. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Richardson to comment on Ms. Petso's email on packet page 384 and the injection of the word "hard" into the sentence. Mr. Richardson said he only skimmed the emails as he just returned from vacation two hours ago. That battle is bigger than the City; Ms. Petso is hinting at something occurring at the state level. Ecology was challenged on almost exactly that same wording and the water and sewer districts are reaching a settlement with Ecology. Their issue with hard surfaces was Ecology's addition of hard surfaces to a statement. There are thresholds for non -hard surfaces, pollution generating pervious surfaces, as well. There are few places where that occurs, primarily schools and parks and fertilization of lawns. There are other thresholds for that and mechanisms for requiring treatment of pervious areas that are considered pollution generating and there is a definition and requirements for pollution generating pervious surfaces. Ecology manages the UICs and this update provides new guidance regarding deep injection which are the issues of concern. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had concerns with this code in its current state and it was her understanding it had already been submitted to the Department of Commerce and Ecology for approval. Mr. Williams clarified Ecology reviews the code but does not approve it; only the Department of Commerce approves it. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Council would ever see the SEPA. Mr. Williams noted it was only a checklist. Mr. Richardson said a SEPA checklist was prepared and the SEPA DNS (Determination of Non -Significance) could be included as an attachment when the code comes back to Council for final adoption; staff expects a DNS. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Petso's email which opined it was not a DNS. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled what happened with the tree code and wanted to get the stormwater code right due to is importance. Mr. Richardson suggested contacting Kernen Lien with SEPA specific questions. Councilmember Buckshnis requested staff provide Council the SEPA checklist. She questioned whether there would be a DNS, noting she understood Ms. Petso's logic. Mayor Pro Tern Paine opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, relayed her understanding of the amount of work that has gone into updating the stormwater plan and she was grateful for Councilmembers Distelhorst and Buckshnis raising the issue that SEPA needs to be accomplished prior to making a final decision. Because SEPA is meant for decision -makers and public involvement, she felt the public hearing put the cart before the horse. The SEPA checklist and DNS was dated September 22", a day after the public hearing, and the public has until October 6' to submit comments on the SEPA checklist. She suggested delaying approval to ensure the process was cleaner and less confusing for the public. Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, requested all public comments submitted in writing for the public hearing be read aloud and to ensure the Council is following all laws as they consider this code update. She hoped Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 12 the hearing would not conclude without having read several comments that were submitted. Reading the written comments would give listeners additional advice and information and it was her understanding that that was supposed to be part of standard practice during Council meetings. John Lyons, Edmonds, President, Shellabarger Creek Homeowners Association, said his comments relate to Shellabarger Creek which runs through a section of their property. Like Perrinville Creek, flooding of this section of Shellabarger Creek has gotten considerably worse in the last four years he has lived there. He referred to an email he sent to the Council, Mayor and Public Works Director last week and appreciated receiving responses from three Councilmembers and the Public Works Director. He asked that that email be made part of the record of this meeting. He explained whenever there is rain for any significant time, debris carried by stormwater rushing down Shellabarger Creek from the hillside above blocks the entrance to a culvert that runs under 5U' Avenue. The creek turns into a lake that rises steadily, threatening to flood their building and eventually 5' Avenue South along with anything in its path west of 5' Avenue including Ace Hardware and the Pancake House. The Public Works team, who have been very responsive, have a very difficult time clearing the debris, falling into the flood water at the culvert entrance. It is clear based on the depth of the water and the position of the grate well below the street that at some point it will be impossible for someone with a rake to clear the debris. It is a matter of time before a major flood event occurs. He requested, 1) rather than individual residents, condo owners or businesses trying to address this problem, the City take ownership, 2) the City be proactive in addressing the problem before the damage in Perrinville Creek occurs which could include 5,h Avenue, utilities under 5' Avenue, other buildings, businesses and condos, and 3) the City develop a comprehensive plan to analyze and fix the problem. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, expressed concern that the Council had not received sufficient information on the severity of stormwater issues in Edmonds. There are problems in all the creeks, in many residences that are flooded in various parts of Edmonds. Although this is an update to the stormwater code pertaining to new development, he did not see how the Council could comment on the sufficiency of that without knowing what's being done to address all the current problems from past development. He assumed the SEPA analysis would address some of this, but the SEPA document was not even presented to the Council as part of this decision package. State law requires cities prepare SEPA documents as part of the decision process. The Council is making a decision and it is totally inappropriate for staff to say it is a separate process; it should be part of the process so the Council has all the information. An environmental assessment must be done. He was troubled by the fact that a scope of work was prepared over a year ago for the Salmon Safe certification analysis and now a year later the contract hasn't been issued. He wondered if that was an intentional delay so the stormwater code amendment could be done without addressing some of the real issues. Mr. Scordino thought staff would have latched onto the Salmon Safe certification analysis, an independent expert review that could be used to update the code. Instead staff is putting that off to the future, the same response residents always hear, yet problems continue. He was frustrated because this stormwater issue, as he mentioned to Mr. Williams some time ago, was clearly defined in 1998 in a report to the City on the severity of what was happening on Perrinville Creek and would result in flooding of lower residences. No one can say that wasn't predicted; it was predicted 20 years ago. He was also troubled that nothing has been said about the Perrinville restoration plan which should also be taken into account in the stormwater code update. The Mayor promised that in March but nothing has been seen. The public feels they are being kept in the dark about what is happening related to stormwater issues which is not right. The Council needs to hear this information before they give a green light. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, thanked the Council for continuing the public hearing on the stormwater code, as it is an extremely serious issue for Edmonds and needs careful attention. She echoed Mr. Scordino's comments. Perrinville Creek is just one very visible example of the City's stormwater problems. Citizens Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 13 deserve to know how the tragic destruction of Perrinville Creek will be dealt with and those with flooded home and yards especially deserve answers. Emergency flood control such as dumping truckloads of dirt at the mouth of a former salmon -bearing stream cannot continue. The City must look at the big picture, the entire watershed and the cause of flooding. Prevention is always the most effective treatment. For instance, how can City policies on tree removal mitigate stormwater runoff damage. Preventative measures must be a major part of the stormwater code. To the comment that Edmonds does not have control over the stormwater because Lynnwood is part of the problem, she was glad to hear staff was planning negotiations with Lynnwood and agreed that needed to be part of the plan. Not as visible as flooding is the content of stormwater that runs through streams into Puget Sound. Lora Petso has pointed out possible violations of pollution control laws in this stormwater proposal; this is a major concern and must be addressed. Edmonds needs a clear plan to reduce toxins and other chemicals in stormwater. These are all big issues and need to be part of the stormwater plan. Edmonds citizens are counting on City government and staff to improve practices. Dave Barnes, General Manager, Olympic View Water & Sewer District, relayed the District's objection to the issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance as part of the SEPA process regarding the City's update to the stormwater management code as they were not part of the distribution list. OVWSD reserves the right to further supplement its comments related to the DNS issued by the City. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Paine closed the public hearing. She advised no Council action was required tonight. Mr. Williams said staff was interested in Council input. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have enough information and did not want to pass the code simply to pass it. She wanted to have the SEPA information, to include OVWSD in the DNS and was interested in what Ms. Petso had to say. She agreed public comments should be read into the record. Sufficient information has been received from scientists and people who know more than she does and she would like to get answers for them. She referred to the project thresholds which state within the Perrinville basin, the retrofit value shall increase from 25% to 50%. She asked why 50% was selected versus 40%, 60%, 70% or 100%. Mr. Williams said staffs recommendation was to double the rate at which existing hard surfaces are incorporated into BMPs for stormwater; it could be higher or lower. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question from a resident regarding whether Perrinville homeowners will be expected to pay for some of the repairs/restoration. Mr. Williams agreed that phraseology created some confusion. Changes are proposed in the rate at which existing hard surfaces are required to do full mitigation in the Perrinville basis and that will cost money on development projects in the Perrinville basin, more than in other parts of the City. The Perrinville basin is a unique circumstance, a critical area, and the intent is for people in the Perrinville basin, whether in Lynnwood or Edmonds, to recognize that it that more would be done there than in other places. It was not intended to punish anyone financially in the Perrinville basin but get a more rapid transition to BMPs on new development. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to public comments about Shellabarger Creek, noting Shell Creek flooded last year. Mr. Williams said these changes will improve conditions and the management of stormwater in Shellabarger and Shell Creek and other areas of Edmonds. To those who are complaining about flooding, these changes help to address that and more changes could be entertained over time. These are not a step backward, the changes are not intended to provide actual solutions or capital projects in Shell or Shellabarger Creek or any of the basins, they are simply changing the rules for development so that the upper parts of the basins where the stormwater is generated will get less over time. It is not the end -all -be-all of stormwater regulations that will solve all the City's flooding problems. He recognized residents are frustrated by flooding; staff is too. Not all the stormwater problems are the result of development but development can be part of the answer. Stormwater problems are also caused by Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 14 changing storm patterns and additional flows that increase velocity and erosion which increases sediment that fills in areas that otherwise could hold more water. Mr. Richardson advised the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update will also begin this year which will provide some of the information that the public is expecting. Councilmember Buckshnis did not disagree that an improved stormwater code was needed but she wanted to ensure it was pragmatically addressed. No one likes flooding. It is helpful to have good information and consistent packets. If it was accurate that SEPA had already closed, Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked if it was possible to reopen it for additional comments. Mr. Richardson said he would defer those comment to Kernen Lien. The 60 day comment period is still open. It is very typical for code updates to have parallel processes, one with Council and the other with SEPA. He apologized for not including the SEPA checklist in the packet. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained SEPA is intended to inform decision makers, the Council in this case. The Council is not making a decision tonight and will have that information before voting on an ordinance. For future reference, it is true SEPA encourages that information be circulated and provided at the earliest possible stage in the process so there isn't too much momentum behind a decision before the environmental consequences of that decision are known. In this case, there is a DNS so at least in the City's opinion there are no significant environment impacts associated with the proposal. It is always important to get information out early, and particularly important in an EIS situation. Mr. Williams said these changes actually have a positive environmental impact which is why the DNS is justified. Some may wish the changes were more aggressive or had more impact and they could be modified to do that. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said in reading the code, the proposed changes are more protective. She took constructive notice that there are seven stream basins through Edmonds that run through downtown, Perrinville, Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek, areas that are more highly impacted due to the climate crisis. She was grateful the City will be updating its Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. She requested trees be treated as essential stormwater infrastructure because in a rain event, a large conifer can soak up 500 gallons of water. She understood from an engineer's point of view a tree is not permanent but everything helps. Mr. Williams said that sounds complicated; he has not seen a model for that but staff will immediately begin searching for one. He wondered if that could be a good part of the Salmon Safe certification. Mayor Pro Tern Paine recalled one of the Council's regular commenters suggested looking at the King County stormwater modeling. Mayor Pro Tern Paine declared a brief recess. 3. HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY SIGNS In light of the time and the amount of discussion Councilmember K. Johnson said 45 minutes would not be enough time for this item and she preferred to delay it to a future meeting. Mayor Pro Tern Paine preferred to continue with this item as there were consultants present. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE WHEN IT CAN BE GIVEN PROPER ATTENTION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this is an important piece of moving forward with the redevelopment of Highway 99 and she did not want it repeatedly pushed off for other agenda items. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 15 Public Works Director introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss City Engineer Rob English and the project team Jim Howard and Rachel Dotson, HBB. Mr. Hauss explained this is a follow-up to the August 24' presentation to Council on the Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway sign options for the north and south ends of the corridor. The public was surveyed in August and approximately 50 people responded. There was also a community workshop and a task force meeting. At the August 20 meeting, the Council requested more public input and survey responses. A second press release was done in late August as well as posted on the City's Facebook site requesting additional feedback. The second round of the survey closed September 151 and there were an additional 330 responses. Ms. Dotson reviewed: • Project Location o North gateway location: 212t' Street o South gateway: 205`h at Edmonds -Shoreline city limits • 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 - 47% preferred (was 40%) ■ South Sign B: Horizonal - 52% preferred (was 60%) ■ Examples of vertical and horizontal configurations • Analysis -North o Location: Back of sidewalk in front of Magic Toyota and smaller sign in median between 208' and 212' Streets o Survey Feedback ■ Which north Gateway sign type do you prefer? • North Sign A (median): Vertical - 25% preferred (was 25%) ■ North Sign B (median + back of sidewalk): Vertical - 32% preferred (was 32%) ■ North Sign C: (back of sidewalk) Vertical - 21 % preferred (was 21 %) IN North Sign D: (back of sidewalk): Horizontal - 22% preferred (was 22%) • Survey Feedback o What should the Gateway signs say? ■ Welcome to Edmonds - 70% preferred (was 63%) • Welcome to Uptown Edmonds - 6% preferred (was 7%) ■ Welcome to Edmonds - 2% preferred "kind" or "artistic," "beautiful, "City of," "picturesque," or "evergreen" (was 5%) ■ Other? - 4% preferred Scenic Edmonds," "Welcome" in many languages or "It's an Edmonds Kind of Day" (was 9%) • Edmonds - 17% preferred (was 16%) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 16 o What should the letter style be? ■ Edmonds - 38% preferred (was 46%) • Edmonds - 62% preferred (was 54%) o North Gateway Character ■ Business ■ Multicultural ■ Commercial ■ Industrial o South Gateway Character ■ Commercial ■ International ■ Welcoming o Gateway Character & Inspiration * 55% Natural Elements (was 55%) ■ 34% Modern (was 33%) ■ 32% Sustainability (was 35%) ■ 27% Sculptural Art (was 33%) x 26% Light (was 35%) ■ 26% Color (was 31 %) ■ 24% Culture (was 33%) ■ 23% Future & Vision (was 31%) ■ 22% Contemporary (was 20%) a 18% Traditional (was 14%) a 15% History (was 8%) a Other suggestions - Welcoming - Integrative to environment, useful in some way, make noise when rained on - Inclusive - Solar powered lighting - Native history - Mountains and Sound - Vibrant o Should the North and South Gateway signs match? ■ 71 % (was 66%) they should match each other ■ 21 % (was 19%) they should each be unique ■ 8% (was 15%) Other o Should the Gateway signs match other signs in Edmonds? ■ 51% (was 47%) prefer similar elements to other signs but overall should be unique ■ 22% (was 22%) prefer similar to Welcome to Downtown Edmonds sign ■ 22% (was 22%) prefer similar to Edmonds Wayfinding signs ■ 6% (was 9%) Other o Sign Character ■ Traditional Gateway character - 18% (was 14%) ■ Modern Gateway Character - 55% Natural Elements (was 55% - 34% Sustainability (was 33%) - 32% Modern (was 35%) ■ Contemporary Gateway Character Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 17 - 27% Sculptural Art (was 33%) - 26% Light (was 35%) - 26% Color (was 31 %) Discussion o South Gateway Alternatives * South Sign A - Size and shape: Vertical ■ South Sign B - Size & shape: Hybrid Vertical/Horizontal o North Gateway Alternatives ■ North Sign A (median + architectural element at back of sidewalk) - Size and shape: Vertical with architectural element at back of sidewalk ■ North Sign B (median) - Size & shape: Vertical Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the car dealership on the south end indicated they were more interested in a horizontal sign. Mr. Williams said the survey results were 52% and 48%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the car dealership was concerned a vertical sign would block the dealership and was more interested in a horizontal gateway sign. She noted the south sign would affect the car dealership more than just about anything on the highway. Ms. Dotson said the car dealership's representative will be involved in the upcoming stakeholder meeting and a separate meeting will be held with him as well. Ms. Dotson continued her review: • Process o Project timeline ■ Background & Site analysis - May - early April 2021 - Task Force Meeting #1 ■ Gateway Visioning - Summer 2021 - Task Force Meeting #2 - 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 Ms. Dotson explained the next presentation to Council will include landscaping, actual sign concepts, lighting, daytime and nighttime views, etc. At that point, further feedback from the public will be sought via an online survey. Mr. Howard advised there would be 3-4 options for each of the north and south signs. Councilmember Olson expressed her thanks for all the work that went into the presentation and getting additional feedback, finding it helpful to see what remained consistent and what changed based on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 18 additional input. She was unsure how difficult it would be to reach those areas, but suggested it may be possible to extend the flower basket program as the vertical element. Mayor Pro Tem Paine requested comments stick to the agenda item. Councilmember Olson said she was providing input on the Highway 99 gateway signs. Councilmember Olson continued, suggesting the flower pole could be the vertical element in the hybrid sign if that would be an option to reach it for watering. With regard to the north sign with the architectural element on the side, she wondered how much value that added and at what cost. It may be slightly preferable to just the vertical sign in the middle, but people in the survey were not asked if they would preferred it if there was an additional cost. She did not think the architectural element on the side added much and there would be an additional cost. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there had been a determination from WSDOT about using median for a vertical element. Mr. Howard answered WSDOT said it would be acceptable. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if consideration had been given to moving the north gateway sign further north where Edmonds began such as in front of the old PUD building where there would not be so much visual distraction with the car dealership. Mr. Howard answered three different north location were evaluated. Given that there was so much competition with the Toyota sign further north, that corner did not lend itself to two signs in such close proximity. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the old PUD location in Edmonds was considered. Mr. Howard said the PUD building is directly south of the proposed location. Mr. Hauss said the proposed location is on the northern end of the old PUD site. Mr. Williams advised the car dealership and the old PUD site are owned by the same property owner. The proposed location is the furthest north and closest to the city limits. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the team for opening the survey again which resulted in a tremendous number of additional responses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said further north of that location is Lynnwood not Edmonds. This location is far north in Edmonds as it could go. With regard to flower baskets, they are only good for three months of the year and could be considered as redevelopment of Highway 99 occurs, but she was unsure that a location in the middle of Highway 99 would be appropriate. She appreciated the team reopening the survey, commenting she was present when a lot of input was provided at the Edmonds Uptown Market from people who live in the area. That was a great place to do the survey and to talk to people who live in the area. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the next step was developing designs based on the survey responses. Ms. Dotson explained 3-4 options for each sign location would be developed for the public to vote on. They will work with the steering committee and WSDOT throughout that process. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was really impressed with the number of people who completed the survey. Ms. Dotson clarified there will be one more survey after the design concepts are developed. It was the consensus of Council to authorize development of further conceptual designs. 4. COUNCIL VOTE TO RETURN MEETINGS TO VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN LIEU OF IN - PERSON MEETINGS Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, the packet says instead of in -person in Council Chambers, but that is not the option under discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Paine clarified the decision is a hybrid versus strictly virtual. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 19 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if the Council had voted to return to hybrid meetings versus in -person or Zoom. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said the Council voted to return to virtual only meetings. Councilmember Olson said the Council had previous voted to go to hybrid meetings and then voted to go to virtual. At this point, the decision is whether to remain virtual or return to hybrid. Councilmember Distelhorst said at last week's Alliance for Housing Affordability meeting which includes jurisdictions across the county, another mayor asked whether any Councils were meeting in - person and the answer was negative; all 15 cities represented at that meeting are all continuing to meet virtually based on public health guidance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to an Associated Press article in today's Herald that states COVID numbers are looking better in Washington. That is a good thing but it does not mean it is good enough for everyone return in -person. The article addressed the number of hospitalizations and the high percentage of critical hospitalizations. The most recent information is 92-93% of COVID-related deaths are people who are unvaccinated. Her biggest problem is the City cannot require people who come into Council Chambers to be vaccinated and cannot asked them their vaccination status because it could be viewed as withholding their ability to participate in government. She was not super comfortable at this point getting together in close quarters without preventative things that are occurring in other locations such as airlines, restaurants, etc. She anticipated restrictions will continue to increase until more people get vaccinated. She anticipated all Councilmembers were vaccinated; she has had three shots. She was uncomfortable not knowing whether people in Chambers had been vaccinated and summarized she was not sure whether it was worth her life. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson said she researched what surrounding cities are doing; as of last week Shoreline, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Everett are all meeting virtually. According to the Health District the numbers have plateaued but there were at the highest so while plateauing is good, it is not out of the weeds. Plateauing does not mean transmission rates are not still at an all-time high, that ERs are not full, or that healthcare professionals are not overburdened. It also doesn't mean that Edmonds overreacted and is an anomaly; all the surrounding cities are meeting virtually right now. She was confident in the decision the Council made a month ago and continuing to meet virtually given the facts of what is going on and decisions that surrounding cities have made, that it is best to continue meeting virtually while waiting for the numbers to not only plateau but drop to a transmission rate that is acceptable for meeting in person. Councilmember Buckshnis commented people are going to Mariner games, football games, going out to dinner, and going out. She supported a hybrid model, and although the City is doing its best, there are citizens who want to be heard who do not like to call in and not be seen, noting a thousand things can be learned from a person's face. She believed citizens should be listened to, pointing out Port Townsend reads all their public comments into record. She was in favor of a hybrid model, commenting Councilmembers can decide whether to attend in person or not. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled when the Council decided to meet virtually, three Councilmembers wanted to stay with a hybrid, Councilmembers Buckshnis, Olson and Fraley-Monillas, and she and three other Councilmembers wanted to go virtual, Councilmember Distelhorst, Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem Paine. She recalled the first hybrid meeting where 75 people attended, very few wore masks and there was no social distancing. Her reaction was to the delta variant and her concern that the space was not controlled. After that vote, she heard from many constituents and Councilmembers who convinced her to go back to the hybrid model because anyone who is fearful for their life can attend virtually and anyone who is comfortable attending may do so, both Councilmembers and the public. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 20 summarized she now supports a hybrid model, believing it will help the community and provide two options for Councilmembers, continue to attend virtually or attend in person. Mayor Pro Tern Paine said remaining in the virtual world adds layers of protection for the community. Councilmember and staff ensure productive meetings are held in the virtual environment. No other governmental agencies are meeting in person; this is not an overreaction but an effort to continue to meet in a safe manner. There is still a high level of occupancy in the area ICUs, it is a terrible disease and she would hate for anyone to be impacted by it. Councilmember Olson said the Council knows how to gather safety and should do that using the air filtration systems the City has invested in, wearing masks, providing and encouraging the use of hand sanitizer, and spacing out seats in Council Chambers. If businesses and schools are open, it seems counterintuitive that the government, fully funded by taxpayers, would not be open. As a taxpayer, she was not comforted by the fact that no other governments were open, that is inappropriate and she considered Council meetings to be an essential service. She reiterated the Council knew how to gather safely. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was glad to hear that some are feeling safe meeting in person. She was concerned about having staff present in the room. Without knowing the public's vaccination status, that is a very dangerous situation to put staff in which is why most cities are not meeting. She understood constituents' comments, but if the Council returned to live meetings it should be required that all Councilmembers are present, not some present and some not. As was pointed out to her lately, if someone was sick they should stay home and not participate virtually. Having a combination of virtual and live confuses the situation and makes it very difficult to make decisions. She was also concerned with putting staff in danger at live meetings. She assured her life was not worth going live because after having lung cancer and essentially only one lung, she cannot go on a ventilator so if she gets COVID and has to be hospitalized, she will die. Although she originally voted to stay live, the more she has heard about giving people a choice whether or not to be present, she wondered what was the point. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, stating the vote was not whether to be live versus online, the vote was hybrid or virtual. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said she understood that and ruled point not taken. Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said to the best of her knowledge, the air filtration system in Council Chambers had not been updated to COVID standards, the windows do not open, and even at the meeting where more people wore masks, they removed them to speak. She recalled attending virtually in Spring 2020 from the protection of her own home and watching staff be inundated by the public not wearing masks and coming into their space. People have different values and space requirements and they may not respect staff. She found it offensive for the Council to vote for a hybrid model and probably stay home because it was safest, knowing what that would do to staff. If it was safest for Councilmembers to stay home, that same safety needs to be provided for staff members. The statement that everybody can make their own decisions is not necessarily the case. Councilmember K. Johnson said if the Council chooses to remain virtual, she requested IT figure out a way for people making public comments and speaking during public hearing to be seen by the Council. Many other entities display speakers but Edmonds Council only hears them. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion. If the Council remains virtual, it is important for the public to be seen when speaking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR 20 MINUTES UNTIL 10:20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said she appreciated staff but the city hasn't closed down and people are out and about. She suggested if people are getting too close to the City Clerk, a barrier could be put up. She was unsure how people could protect themselves other than wearing a mask. She summarized the numbers have stabilized and she supported a hybrid approach because people want to come back to Council and have their voices heard. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed according to the Snohomish Health District, the area of exposure is 8-10 feet. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO CONTINUE TO MEET VIRTUALLY FOR ONE MONTH AND REVISIT AT AN APPROPRIATE COUNCIL MEETING AT THE END OF OCTOBER. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND FRALEY-MONILLAS, MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. 9. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson referred to an article in My Edmonds News regarding the concerns of some of the City's frontline workers. She thanked them and all the frontline workers, most of them in Parks and Public Works, for their efforts on behalf of the community and recognized and appreciated their sacrifice. She requested the Administration look at all the COVID safety practices such as how many people, are in the cab of a truck and ensure that everything possible is done to keep these workers safe. Councilmember Olson reminded that the last of the six budget town halls is Thursday, September 30 at 6 p.m. at Hickman park. If a dozen or so people attend, the total for the town halls will be over 50. She looked forward to hearing residents' spending priorities for 2022. Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson reminded on Thursday as part of National Suicide Prevention Month, Wendy Burchill, Snohomish Health District will do QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) suicide prevention training. Further information can be found at WeCare.Edmondswa.gov. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a City staff email that showed up in My Edmonds News, commenting she would have preferred to hear about it live versus hearing about it on social media. The Council was not notified of the problems and her empathy would have definitely been toward staff. Her son's father works for WSDOT and when COVID was very contagious and people weren't vaccinated, he drove in a truck alone, and cleaned the truck with Clorox wipes when he got in and out. There are things the City can do to include compensation for that level of work. She wished staff had reached out to the Council instead of reaching out to the media. There is a way to resolve this and she looked forward to having further discussions about it. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson's comments regarding Wendy Burchill's QPR training. He saw it last year and felt it was very valuable for people of all ages and he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 22 encouraged the public to attend on Thursday evening. He thanked the community panelists who participated in the Suicide Prevention Panel last Thursday evening. He looked forward to the City posting the recording so it could be shared more widely in the community. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Olson for the informative event at Seaview Park. She relayed a neighbor's comments that she was very impressed by the discussions. She expressed appreciation for the input she has received from citizens at the town halls. She announced Halloween Howl on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. T-shirts will be sold as well as a costume competition at 1 p.m., Senior Animal Control Officer Shoemake will answer questions, and OLAE will pay for dog licenses for the first 10 people. Mayor Pro Tem Paine commented she looked forward to a busy week with the suicide prevention QPR and the budget meet ups which have been well attended. With regard to the article in My Edmonds News, she agreed the frontline crews have not had the same opportunity to work from home. She was hopeful that the Administration would look at options. She expressed appreciation for the work staff has been doing non-stop, recognizing that their work -life balance has not been in sync with other employees and she was hopeful that a way could be found to make it right. Councilmember K. Johnson echoed the thanks to Councilmember Olson for providing an opportunity for discussion about the budget. There are usually 1-2 people involved in budget discussions; Councilmember Olson's town halls have increased that at least 25 fold. The town halls have been a wonderful thing and should be done every year. With regard to the article in My Edmonds News, she was concerned that so many people were unhappy and believed the Administration should take steps to meet with them and address their concerns. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the Council can go into executive session and if extra time is needed, come out and say additional time is needed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the meeting time needs to be extended for as long as the Council thinks will be needed for executive session. The executive session can be extended by having someone come out, but the actual Council meeting cannot be extended during executive session. He recommended extending the meeting now so the Council did not have to go in and out of public and executive session. Councilmember Distelhorst asked the length of the executive session. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said 30 minutes. City Clerk Scott Passey said the link to the executive session was the same for all executive sessions. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO EXTEND 10:40 P.M. Mr. Taraday clarified if the Council meeting was extended to 10:40 and not all that time was needed for the executive session, the meeting could be adjourned earlier. If the Council announced the executive session would go until 10:40, then the Council would need to wait until then to adjourn. He suggested extending the executive session in increments, but extending the Council meeting in one fell swoop. Councilmember K. Johnson requested the link to the executive session Zoom be sent to her via text as her server was down. At Councilmember Distelhorst's request, Mayor Pro Tem Paine restated the motion: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 23 TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:40. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE COMPLAINTS OR CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(F) At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Pro Tern Paine announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to receive and evaluate a complaint against a public officer or employee per RCW 42.30.110(1)(f). The executive session is scheduled to last until approximately 10:30 p.m. Elected officials present at the executive session were Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Olson, Paine, Distelhorst, and L. Johnson. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was also present. The executive session concluded at 10:30 p.m. Mayor Pro Tern Paine reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 24 TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:40. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. C NE IN EXECUTIVE SE SION TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE COMPLAINTS pR CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PER RCW 42.30.110(I)(Fy At 10:16 p.m., Mayor Pro Tern Paine announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to receive and evaluate a complaint against a public officer or employee per RCW 42.30.110(1)(f). The executive session is scheduled to last until approximately 10.30 p.m. Elected officials present at the executive session were Councilmembers K. Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Olson, Paine, Distelhorst, and L. Johnson. City Attorney Jeff Taraday was also present. The executive session concluded at 10:30 p.m. Mayor Pro Tern Paine reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MICH L NELSON, MAYOR P . CITY CLE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment for 9/28/21 Council Meeting: Please Note: Comments submitted for inclusion for the 9/21/21 Public Hearing were inadvertently left out; please scroll down to see those comments below. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:09 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Michelle Dotsch Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Continuation of Public Hearing 9/28/21 on ECDC 18.30 Thanks, Michelle. This alone should invalidate this process and require them to START OVER. How much of this obfuscation and jacking us around should we be expected to take? Joan Bloom From: Danielle Hursh Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:28 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment on Virtual Meetings Dear Edmonds City Council Members, Please consider this public comment regarding tonight's meeting and public hearing on whether or not to continue to have Council meetings virtually. I would implore you to keep these meetings virtual. I am immune compromised, with an auto -immune disease AND I am on an immune suppressing medication for the auto -immune disease. Attending a Council meeting in person would be a huge risk for me, even though I am vaccinated. Having these meetings conducted virtually allows me to "attend" and participate, whereas I would not be able to if done in person. Additionally, it is just not safe in general to have large, indoor, in person meetings at this time. It is the safest, wisest option to continue these virtually for the time being. For EVERYONES safety. Furthermore, for long term planning, please consider continuing these meetings as virtual or a virtual/inperson hybrid. My spouse is disabled and it is not easy for them to attend in person events during covid times or not. The virtual option has opened up an opportunity for them to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 25 view these meetings now, whereas they had not been able to before the virtual option due to covid. Having the virtual option really is an accessibility accommodation in my spouse's situation. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, Danielle Hursh Edmonds, WA From: "votepetso (null)" Date: September 21, 2021 at 18:38:40 PDT To: mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov Cc: Adrienne Monillas <Adrienne. Mon illas@?edmondswa.goy>, Vivian Olson <vivian.olson@edmondswa.gov>, Diane Buckshnis<diane.buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>, Susan Paine <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>, Luke Distelhorst <Juke.distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>, Laura Johnson <laura.iohn_son@edmondswa.gov>, kristiana.iohnson@edmondswa.gov Subject: Public hearing on stormwater Please accept these comments for the public hearing record, and for the SEPA record. Please continue the hearing so further comments may be made. Please prevent further water from reaching our neighborhood. Previously we had a couple of homes with flooding issues during winter rains, now we have more, including my property. Detain the water on site until the ground can accomodate the flow. Also, please ask about item d on packet page 384. It looks like the insertion of the word "hard" may change the treatment of crumb rubber playfields and other pollution generating pervious surfaces (defined on packet page 369). It used to say we can't discharge untreated stormwater from pollution generating surfaces to ground water. Now the protection is limited to "hard" surfaces. This seems likely to contaminate the ground water that reaches our streams (including those used to supply drinking water) and eventually discharge to puget sound. If you push staff to explain the rational and potential impact of this change, then continue the public hearing, interested citizens could provide comment at the second hearing with a better inderstanding of the effect of discharging untreated stormwater from pollution generating pervious surfaces to ground water. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 26 Why would you change the code to allow the discharge of polluted water to groundwater??? Around here, most groundwater hits the clay layer, then the streams, then the Sound. Lora From: michelle dotsch Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 20214:54 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Continuation of Public Hearing 9/28/21 on ECDC 18.30 I would like to address the packet inconsistencies on this continuation of the SAME Public Hearing on ECDC 18.30 from 9.21.21. The one I will give as an example is in the 9.21.21 Packet with the same Title of "2022 Stormwater Management Code (ECDC 18.30) Update Presented by Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer" starting on Page 463. Every page after that is different from the 9.21.21 presentation packet on this same Public Hearing. If you look specifically at Page 469 from the 9.21.21 packet it is written: "Staff Opinion: The Perrinville has been beaten up by past development and needs better protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek. Staff believe its fair to ask the residents who have directly benefitted from the impacts on the creek to chip in a little extra towards its recovery." In today's Packet which is a CONTINUATION of the same exact Public Hearing of 9.21.21, from today's 9.28.21 Packet Page 331 it is completely different and now is re -written to: "Rationale: The Perrinville basin has been greatly affected by past development and needs enhanced protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek." I had referenced the 9.21.21 information in a comment on MEN from the public hearing and another citizen today told me they could not find it in today's packet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 27 It is so confusing for a citizen to have to figure out in such a short amount of time what is new information, same or edited information. I do believe the same information should be included for tonight's CONTINUATION of the exact same public hearing at this time for all parties. How would anyone know they now need to re -read this 9.28.21 packet in full to know if this Public Hearing information is different from the same Public Hearing information provided to them from last week as this section shows it was altered. That would involve reading all the pages from the Public Hearing packet information from 9.21.21 to now read ANOTHER how many pages and try to compare between the 2 as to find what has changed to be able to competently comment at this continuation of the same public hearing? How can the public be asked to participate in such a confusing and inconsistent process tonight? AFTER the final date of the continuation of the same public hearing from 9.21.21, only THEN would any new or updated information be included. Is that not the proper process for a public hearing to make it fair for the public to have access to the same information as the Council, Administration and Staff? Otherwise could this now be 2 different public hearings we are having and not the continuation of the same one? What are the rules of a public hearing and are they being followed? Who is ultimately responsible to make sure this is being carried out properly? Michelle Dotsch Edmonds Resident From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 3:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) Public Hearing Council, Thank you for continuing this public hearing. Please include my comments in the public record and in the SEPA record. I am writing to urge Council to delay finalizing the Stormwater Management Code for the following reasons: (1) As Lora Petso stated in her public comments for this evening, the SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) is in error: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 28 "The SEPA DNS is in error, as it indicates the proposal does not violate any laws. In fact, the proposal violates WAC 173-200, particularly the antidegradation policy in 173-200-030. The policy links to the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) and the Water Resources Act (RCW 90.54)." (2) The "Salmon Safe Certification" process should be completed prior to finalizing the Stormwater Management code. Per Joe Scordino, this would "provide an independent review and verification of the City's environmental practices for protecting water quality and habitat. The process included an expert review of the City's Stormwater Management Policies and Practices relative to protecting the health of the watersheds in Edmonds." (3) The Perrinville watershed is in serious trouble, causing flooding for many homeowners. This watershed continues to be impacted by development by Lynnwood. Agreements with Lynnwood should be finalized. Per Joe Scordino, "The stormwater flow from winter rainfall events in Edmonds and Lynnwood, which are predicted to be more frequently intense due to climate change, has destroyed Perrinville Creek and caused repeated flooding of Edmonds residences." And, "what changes can be made to stormwater management and practices in Edmonds and Lynnwood to resolve (or at least minimize) the excess stormwater problems occurring from past development and roads?" (4) The public should have an opportunity to review the SEPA document, which was not included in the staff's presentation. It's concerning that this document was not included for public review. (5) Staff believes that residents should "chip in" towards Perrinville Creek recovery. What is meant by this? How is it "fair" that certain residents would pay "a little extra" toward a creek's recovery? On p. 469 of the 9-21-21 Council packet: "Staff Opinion: The Perrinville has been beaten up by past development and needs better protections. The change in flow control standard is typical for impacted water ways and the retrofit requirement attempts to rectify some of the past abuses on the creek. Staff believe its fair to ask the residents who have directly benefitted from the impacts on the creek to chip in a little extra towards its recovery." (6) Lack of transparency by the COE in making all public comments available to the public in a timely manner. Excerpt from minutes of the first public hearing, pg. 42 in Council's packet, 9-28-21: "City Clerk Scott Passey answered they would be part of the public record and are entered into the minutes. Councilmember Olson reiterated her surprise that there were no public comments Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 29 during the public hearing since there was great deal of interest via email. Due to possible technology issues, she suggested continuing the public hearing to next week." Despite this statement by the City Clerk, the only comments from last week's public hearing on the Stormwater Management code "entered into the minutes" in your packet this evening are from Joe Scordino and Ken Reidy. I am aware of two comments that were not included in your packet. I'm guessing there are others. (7) The Stormwater Management Code does not need to be finalized until July 2022. Given the seriousness of the issues raised, why would you rush approval? Please ensure that the above issues, and any others presented to you, are resolved in advance of approving this code. Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Council member From: Marjorie Fields Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 12:47 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa,g_ov> Subject: stormwater code hearing Hello Council friends, Thank you for continuing the hearing on the city stormwater code. As you know, this is an extremely serious issue for our city and needs careful attention. Perrinville Creek is just one very visible example of our stormwater problems. Citizens deserve to know how the tragic destruction of Perrinville Creek will be dealt with, and those with flooded homes and yards especially deserve answers. We can't afford to continue emergency flood control such as dumping truckloads of dirt on the mouth of a former salmon -bearing stream. The city must look at the big picture —the entire watershed and causes of flooding. Prevention is always the most effective treatment. For instance how could city policies on tree removal mitigate stormwater runoff damage? Preventive measures must be a major part of the stormwater code. We keep hearing that Edmonds doesn't have control of stormwater because Lynnwood stormwater is part of the problem. Negotiations with Lynnwood therefore need to be part of the plan. Not so visible as flooding is the content of stormwater that runs through our streams into Puget Sound. Lora Petso has pointed out violations of pollution control laws in the Stormwater proposal being Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 30 considered here. This is a is a major concern and must be addressed. Edmonds needs a clear plan to reduce the toxins and other chemicals in our stormwater. These are big issues and need to be part of our city stormwater plan. Edmonds citizens are counting on our city staff and government to improve our practices. I am planning to speak at the hearing as well as submitting this in writing, in hopes that my comments will be on the record and are heard by the public. So please pardon the repetition. Thanks for your work on this, Marjie Fields From: votepetso (null) Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:33 AM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Stormwater Public Hearing and SEPA Please include these, and my prior comments, in the record for the Stormwater public hearing, and in the SEPA record. These comments are submitted as an individual, not as a commissioner for Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The SEPA DNS is in error, as it indicates the proposal does not violate any laws. In fact, the proposal violates WAC 173-200, particularly the antidegradation policy in 173-200-030. The policy links to the Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) and the Water Resources Act (RCW 90.54). "WAC 173-200-030(2) The antidegradation policy is as follows: (a) Existing and future beneficial uses shall be maintained and protected and degradation of groundwater quality that would interfere with or become injurious to beneficial uses shall not be allowed.... (c) Whenever groundwaters are of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for said waters, the existing water quality shall be protected, and contaminants shall not be allowed to enter such waters . . Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 31 This provision requires knowing both the quality of the existing groundwater, and the State ground water standards, and assuring that stormwater discharged meets the standards. The proposed code doesn't even consider the standard, much less apply it. As we have some very high quality groundwater, even some used for drinking water with a formally designated Well -Head Protection Area, it is absurd for Edmonds to disregard this policy in the stormwater code. As most groundwater in the area eventually reaches a stream or the Sound, disregarding this policy is also detrimental to the streams and the Sound. Please improve this code and implement the antidegradation standard. Lora Petso From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 7:29 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the September 28, 2021 City Council Meeting A little over a year ago, I submitted Public Comments under the following Heading: Public Comments for September 1, 2020 City Council meeting -remember all persons attending the meeting must be able to hear each other at the same time Despite that, citizens of Edmonds were subjected to a Public Hearing on September 21, 2021, where much confusion was exhibited by City Councilmembers as to how many Public Comments had been received. Several citizen names were mentioned as having submitted Public Comments in writing. I submitted Public Comments in writing, but my name was not mentioned. None of the content of the written comments was disclosed. It is my understanding that when the decision has been made to allow public comment, such as when Public Notice has been provided for a Public Hearing, all persons attending the meeting must be provided the ability to hear each other at the same time. I believe remote members of the public must be able to contemporaneously hear all discussion, including public comments submitted by other citizens. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 32 The fact that the City Council has chosen to not provide your constituents the ability to contemporaneously hear all discussion, indicates City Council lacks the willpower to properly conduct Virtual City Council meetings. Please address your historical conduct at once. Please hold accountable those responsible for City Council's failure to provide your constituents the ability to contemporaneously hear all discussion. If you continue to conduct virtual meetings, please consider what the City of Sea Tac does: The City Council for the City of Sea Tac has provided the following Written Public Comment opportunities: Submit Written Public Comment on any topic or Public Hearing Comment as applicable: -Submit Email/Text comments by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to the following email: Public Comments on any topic: PublicComment@seatacwa.gov Public Hearing Comments, as applicable: PublicHearingComment@seatacawa.gov -Written comments on any topic will be provided to the City Council and mentioned by name and subject during the meeting. -Written Public Hearing Comments will be read into the record, up to 5 minutes in length. -Written comments will be placed on the City's website for viewing after the meeting. -Public comments submitted to an email address other than the ones provided above, or after the deadline, will not be included as part of the record. Why does Edmonds City Government fall so far short of what the City of Sea Tac has done as it relates to Written Public Comment? Especially when better treatment has been requested for months and months. Remember when I provided you another example - the City of Anacortes use of e-comments. As documented in my Public Comment for July 14, 2020 City Council Meeting: The Governor's proclamation states that meetings must provide the ability for all persons attending to hear each other at the sam e time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 33 Why hasn't Edmonds City Council made a greater effort to see that Written Public Comments are heard? Please also hold accountable the parties responsible for the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete City Council Agenda Packets. Thank you. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 20216:50 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the September 28, 2021 Public Hearing for Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update City of Edmonds government provided notice that, on September 21, 2021, City Council would hold a Public Hearing for the Stormwater Management code (ECDC 18.30) update. The Public Notice informed that Public Comments for the Public Hearing could be submitted in writing to a specific City of Edmonds email address. I did so, along with an unknown number of other citizens. Much confusion was exhibited during the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing as to how many Public Comments had been received. Several citizen names were mentioned as having submitted Public Comments in writing. I submitted Public Comments in writing, but my name was not mentioned. None of the content of the written comments was disclosed. How are citizens supposed to know what fellow citizens had to say about the matter? I also have no way of knowing how many Councilmembers were aware of the Public Comments submitted in writing for the Public Hearing. It is my understanding that when the decision has been made to allow public comment, such as when Public Notice has been provided for a Public Hearing, all persons attending the meeting must be provided the ability to hear each other at the same time. I believe remote members of the public must be able to contemporaneously hear all discussion, including public comments submitted by other citizens. Per MRSC: The essence of the legislative process is the give and take of different interests, and the search for a compromise that is acceptable to the majority. It is critical that the compromise is not based on the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information to City Council prior to its vote. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 34 The September 21, 2021 Public Hearing was continued to September 28, 2021. Incredibly, all public comments submitted for the September 21, 2021 public hearing were not included as an Attachment to the September 28, 2021 agenda item continuing the Public Hearing. I asked Council President Susan Paine to please make sure an Attachment including all Public Comments made for the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing is added to Council's Agenda Packet asap. Susan Paine has not responded to my email. All of this is true even though my September 21, 2021 Public Comments started off as follows: As a reminder, the City of Sea Tac reads Written Public Hearing Comments into the record, up to 5 minutes in length. Why doesn't the City of Edmonds do that? Please hold accountable the parties responsible for the confusion exhibited during the September 21, 2021 Public Hearing as to how many Public Comments had been received. Prior to updating the Stormwater Management code, please answer the following questions: 1. When the City claims it needs property for a public purpose such as stormwater overflow, why does it leave that property in private hands? Why did the City not buy or condemn the property that was later sold to Donna Breske? Had the City done so, the Breske family's horrible experience with the City of Edmonds would never have been possible. 2. How did City Water, sewer and storm utilities get located partially within a 60- ft planned right-of-way in the Seaview Woods area? Did the placement of City Water, sewer and storm utilities within the "planned right-of-way' open the right-of-way or is a right-of- way only opened when it is improved so that it can be used for ingress/egress? 3. When the City discovers a stormwater pipe has been installed without permit in an unopened right-of-way, can the City require the fee title owner to grant the party that installed the pipe an easement during a street vacation process? Why would the City do that instead of requiring the party to remove its pipe installed without permit? 4. Can the City divest ownership of publicly owned stormwater facilities to a private property owner such as was done as part of the Westgate Chapel street vacation? 5. If the City accepts a bond to finalize a plat, does the City have a duty to use the related bond to finish the required plat improvements so neighboring property owners will not be impacted by stormwater flowing onto their property? 6 Does the City's Stormwater System establish a connection to navigable waters of the USA allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a Nationwide Permit to fill a wetland located in Edmonds? Please know the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has claimed this in the past and issued a permit to fill a wetland located in Edmonds. Does Edmonds City Council need to adopt legislation making it more difficult for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do this again in the future? Thank you for answering all these questions prior to updating the Stormwater Management code. Ken Reidy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 35 From: votepetso (null) Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 7:59 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Monillas, Adrienne<Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Stormwater SEPA and public hearing comments Please include these, and my prior comments, in the record for the Stormwater public hearing, and in the SEPA record. These comments are submitted as an individual, not as a commissioner for Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Thanks for continuing the public hearing. Please vote to make changes to the proposal and then do another hearing once the changes are complete. Please also require another SEPA review, once changes are made. Right now the SEPA comment period is set to end October 6, but changes will not be complete at that time. An appeal, if any, must be filed by October 13, but changes will not be complete then either. This cart before the horse approach violates both GMA and SEPA processes! Thanks for the follow up on my earlier questions. It seems easiest to change ECDC 18.30.060D(6)d on packet page 245 to read "any pollution -generating surface, including but not limited to, pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS), pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS), and polution-generating pervious surface (PGPS)". Each of those terms is specifically defined in our code on pages 229-230, and this change would not interfere with whatever staff is up to with other uses of "hard surface". It would restore that section to its prior standard of protecting groundwater from any pollution -generating surfaces, including crumb rubber. Without this change our policy is backward and illegal, and, depending on details, would violate some or all of the following: RCW 90.48, WAC 173-200, WAC 173-218, and 40 CFR144.12. The SEPA is erroneous in stating the proposal does not violate any laws. A related fix is needed to the definition of "vehicular use", as that is relied on directly or indirectly by all three defined pollution -generating surfaces (PGHS), (PGIS), (PGPS). The exceptions should be modified so that there is no exception for "restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads". Such designations are too easy to abuse in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 36 practice, and thus violate the above cited laws. One such, which can be found at the new Madrona School, is over 1/10th of a mile in length, and is open weekdays, and used for parking, deliveries, garbage trucks, etc. I took this photo this morning, on my way to a meeting (no stake out, it is just a busy maintenance road and/or fire lane). Note the yellow delivery truck on the far left, and the two parked cars in the distance. Also, please tighten up the definition of PGIP to add regulation of any roof, or any roof over a specified size. It is now well recognized that any roof is a pollution generating surface, particularly after a wildfire event. Again, failure to do so is a violation of the above cited laws, and probably of additional laws specific to surface waters. Also, the State storm water manual allows consideration of cumulative impacts from future development. Do it, and protect those of us who already flood. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 37 If I get time to review this tomorrow I will send additional comments. The draft is dated July, 2021. Is there some notice I missed, that would have allowed me more time? Did this go through a Council Committee? If I have failed to send this to the correct e-mail addresses, please forward them for me as I wish to be a party of record for the SEPA and the public hearing. The SEPA notice mentions Mr. Lien, and I cannot find the public hearing notice on the City web page. Please assist if I have this wrong. Lora Petso From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, September 27, 20214:20 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: CityCouncil@LynnwoodWA.gov Subject: Public Hearing on Edmonds Stormwater Code and involvement of Lynnwood To: Edmonds City Council What the public (and Council) needs to know in order to comment on the sufficiency of the proposed changes to the stormwater code is: Will it actually change the continuing and increasing stormwater damage occurring in Edmonds? If so, by how much? If not, are there additional changes that could be made to the stormwater code to make it more effective in eliminating additional discharges into storm drains? What about changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the development code, and the tree removal ordinance? Further, what changes can be made to stormwater management and practices in Edmonds and Lynnwood to resolve (or at least minimize) the excess stormwater problems occurring from past development and roads? Is a Lynnwood diversion pipe needed? The stormwater flow from winter rainfall events in Edmonds and Lynnwood, which are predicted to be more frequently intense due to climate change, has destroyed Perrinville Creek and caused repeated flooding of Edmonds residences. Other creeks in Edmonds and the salmon in them also are being damaged by excess stormwater. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 38 When is Edmonds going to start addressing this REAL crisis? Are negotiations with Lynnwood underway? [the Perrinville Creek stormwater catastrophe was predicted over 20 years ago in a 1998 Report to the City which said "Urban development has resulted in higher flows in Perrinville Creek that have increased stream power .... The erosion by Perrinville Creek, if left unchecked, poses a threat to homes, to Talbot Road, and to the Burlington Northern Railroad." The public saw a glimmer of hope when Mayor Nelson committed to a Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan that would be presented to the Edmonds City Council for review and direction, WITH public input. BUT, over six months later, NOTHING has been presented to Council except a request for $3.5M for Perrinville Creek with no detail on what it would be used for. The City also had an opportunity to get an independent, EXPERT assessment of stormwater management in Edmonds so that the expert advice could be used in the Perrinville Restoration Plan, this stormwater code update, and overall City practices to resolve excess stormwater problems. BUT, almost a year has passed since a Scope -of -Work was prepared with the Salmon -Safe organization, and NO contract/agreement has yet been issued for this EXPERT stormwater advice. The Council needs to have the Mayor and City staff address all of the above BEFORE giving staff a green light to proceed with their proposed update to the stormwater code. Commitments from Lynnwood are essential to this process. Further, there were MANY written public comments for last week's public hearing that the Edmonds City Council needs to discuss BEFORE just "moving on" with the agenda item on stormwater code. And, why wasn't the SEPA document included in the agenda so the Council could obtain public comments on that too during the public hearing (and hopefully actually read and listen to constituent input AND actually discuss each comment as part of the public hearing)? From: Olson, Vivian Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 12:20 AM To: Passey, Scott <Scott.PasseyCDedmondswa.gov>; Ken Reidy Subject: All sent- include with documentation of the hearing? Hi- all that came to council addresses have now been forwarded. I did not send the ones (like Ken's) which included the public comments email address as the conversation at meeting indicated that those were captured. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 39 I hope it is possible to include with the online version so all citizens can see what all others have written prior to the continued hearing as it is my understanding that that is the requirement. Vivian From: James Ogonowski <lames.m.ogonowski(Thotmail.coin> Date: September 25, 2021 at 8:50:17 PM PDT To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Storm Water Management Dear City Council members, Thank you for taking up the discussion on the storm water situation in our city. Rather than making a public comment, I'd just like to share with you some first-hand observations and a suggestion or two. I live at the bottom of Perrinville Creek, directly across from the catch basin which connects the creek to Puget Sound. The catch basin used to be directly fed only by the creek. However, back in (approximately) 2012, the city made a change by adding a storm water pipe to the catch basin, redirecting storm water and thus increasing inflow at the catch basin significantly. Ever since that modification, the local storm water flooding situation has worsened. There are two restrictions to water flow along Perrinville Creek which contribute to the flooding. The culvert under Talbot Rd. and the culvert under the railroad tracks to the Sound. The significant rain event we had last December actually sent the creek over its banks and flooding across Talbot Rd., temporarily closing the road all because of the restricted water flow under the road by the size of the culvert. The flooding around the catch basin itself is due to the undersized culvert under the railroad tracks to the Sound. The amount of water flowing from the Perrinville basin in combination with the amount of flow added by the modification to the catch basin simply exceeds the capacity of the piping to the Sound. As simple as that. Sediment carried down the creek is a contributing factor, however not the root cause. Other preventative measures can be made along the creek itself to address the sediment issue. I seem to continually hear about Lynnwood's responsibilities here as well, and I agree. However, I have never seen them recognize or cooperate on this issue. A resolution asking them to do something is worthless and a waste of your time. What I haven't heard much about is how to work with BNSF to get a larger culvert under the tracks. NO amount of mitigation or changes at the catch basin will stop the flooding unless a larger pipe leads to the Sound. City Staff seems to think otherwise and is proposing a foolish approach as they did Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 40 when they directed more water to the catch basin in 2012. This will be money wastefully spent. Nothing in the proposed Storm Water Management Code update will alleviate the Perrinville Creek situation. "Enhanced protections" will do nothing for a problem which is here and now. As an engineer, this is a simple physics problem with a simple solution. Let's stop wasting our time and money on solutions which won't work. Jim Ogonowski Edmonds From: "votepetso (null)" <votepetso@aol.com> Date: September 21, 2021 at 6:38:48 PM PDT To: "Nelson, Michael" <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: "Monillas, Adrienne" <Adrienne. Mon illas@edmondswa.gov>, "Olson, Vivian" <Vivian.OIsor @edmondswa.gov>, "Buckshnis, Diane" <Diane.Buckshnis edmondswa. ov>, "Paine, Susan" <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>, "Distelhorst, Luke" <Luke.Distelhor_st@e_dmondswa.gov>, "Johnson, Laura" <Laura.Johnson @edmondswa. ov>, "Johnson, Kristiana" <kristiana.lohnson edmondswa. ov> Subject: Public hearing on stormwater Please accept these comments for the public hearing record, and for the SEPA record. Please continue the hearing so further comments may be made. Please prevent further water from reaching our neighborhood. Previously we had a couple of homes with flooding issues during winter rains, now we have more, including my property. Detain the water on site until the ground can accomodate the flow. Also, please ask about item d on packet page 384. It looks like the insertion of the word "hard" may change the treatment of crumb rubber playfields and other pollution generating pervious surfaces (defined on packet page 369). It used to say we can't discharge untreated stormwater from pollution generating surfaces to ground water. Now the protection is limited to "hard" surfaces. This seems likely to contaminate the ground water that reaches our streams (including those used to supply drinking water) and eventually discharge to puget sound. If you push staff to explain the rational and potential impact of this change, then continue the public hearing, interested citizens could provide comment at the second hearing with a better inderstanding of the effect of discharging untreated stormwater from pollution generating pervious surfaces to ground water. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 41 Why would you change the code to allow the discharge of polluted water to groundwater??? Around here, most groundwater hits the clay layer, then the streams, then the Sound. Lora From: John Lyons Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 20215:11 PM To: Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.g_ov>; English, Robert <Robert.English@edmondswa.gov>; Richardson, Zachary <Z.achary.Richardson @edmondswa.l;ov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Ca rolyn, LaFave @ ed m o n dswa -go > Subject: Stormwater Threat to 5th Avenue South To: Phil Williams, Public Works & Utilities Director Robert English, City Engineer Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Edmonds City Council Mayor Mike Nelson Subject: Stormwater Threat to Sth Avenue South Watching heavy storm events since moving into the Shellabarger Creek Condominium building (525 5th Avenue South / 504 Holly Drive) four years ago, I've grown increasingly alarmed by the erosion and flooding of Shellabarger Creek, which crosses the south side of our property. Storm events have been increasing in severity and frequency every year, and I fear the result will be a situation similar to the one seen with Perrinville Creek, this time occurring in a busy residential, business, and traffic area on 5th Avenue South in the Edmonds Bowl. Hopefully, we have time to take remedial action now, before there is serious damage to homes, multi -family buildings, businesses, or to 5th Avenue itself. Whenever there is heavy rainfall for any extended time, a torrent of muddy water loaded with debris of all kinds rushes downhill from far above us crossing many properties and gathering strength as it flows from above 7th Ave under Hemlock Way and Homeland Drive until it pours Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 42 into the meandering section of Shellabarger Creek beside our building. This causes two basic problems: 1. Erosion of the creek bed. Rapid flow of storm runoff down Shellabarger Creek east of 5th Avenue South is eroding the creek bed. In a single storm event in December, 2020, it carved away a six-foot section of the embankment near our parking lot. The stormwater carries a heavy load of silt and debris down the creek toward a large culvert under 5th Avenue South. Some of this massive amount of silt undoubtedly ends up in Edmonds Marsh impacting sensitive wildlife habitat. 2. Flooding. Debris carried by stormwater blocks the grate at the entry to the culvert under 5th Avenue South, which causes formation of a virtual lake on the east side of 5th Avenue that on multiple occasions has risen alarmingly close to the commercial properties on the ground floor of our building. The Edmonds Public Works team has been responsive and proactive in attempting to remove debris from the grate to relieve the water backup. However, on a number of occasions I and my neighbors have watched Public Works team members struggle, slip and fall into the roiling water at the culvert entry. This will become unworkable and clearly unsafe as storms become worse. In addition, the condition of the culvert and subsurface soil around the culvert where it passes beneath the Ace Hardware / Pancake Haus parking lot and businesses is a concern, with any subsurface erosion eventually leading to possible subsidence of pavement and building foundations as well as damage to utilities running below the street. Our association in the past brought in large rocks to try to prevent erosion of the creek bed on our property, but these rocks were quickly carried away by subsequent flooding. It is clearly beyond the capability of our small association to address this issue in any effective way. Property owners west of 5th Avenue are at risk, as is the City itself to the extent that 5th Avenue and utilities may be flooded or damaged by erosion and subsidence. I'm enclosing a few photos of the erosion and flooding that we've seen. We are asking the City of Edmonds to take responsibility for coordinating and addressing this issue as a matter of high priority. To a greater or lesser extent much of Edmonds may, most likely will, be impacted by flooding, and 5th Avenue South is particularly important as a major access route and business area. A possible approach might include steps such as these: 1. Geotechnical and hydrological assessments Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 43 a. There was a sinkhole in this area that was repaired in 2003-2004. This required repair of the culvert, repair of utilities underneath 5th Avenue South, repair of the street surface, repair of the Petosa's (now Ace's) parking lot, and a number of multi -day street closures. b. What is the current condition of the soil around the culvert entry on the east side of 5th Avenue South? Is it stable? Is it saturated? C. What is the condition of the culvert itself? It runs below the Ace parking lot and presumably some portion of the building that houses Ace and Pancake Haus. Can a remote camera inspection be done? Can test holes be dug to assess the soil around the culvert? d. What does the water flow down the long hill above the Edmonds Bowl look like? Could the flow be slowed or redirected before it reaches the Bowl? e. What does the water flow look like between 5th Avenue South and the Edmonds Marsh? Is silt carried by flood events likely to hamper recovery efforts for the marsh? 2. Scope assessment a. What are the impacts above (east) and below (west) of 5th Avenue? For example, units in the 3rd Avenue Condominiums next to City Park have experienced flooding from Shellabarger Creek in the past year. b. The culvert under 5th Avenue South may be most problematic, but there are other culverts both above and below 5th Avenue (e.g., running under Homeland Drive and Hemlock Place). What happens at those culverts during heavy storms? 3. Climate assessment a. Has the City of Edmonds maintained records of local flooding over past decades? What do those records indicate in terms of trends and the scope of the problems of flooding and erosion? b. What do climate models suggest about the frequency and severity of storms and atmospheric river events such as the Pineapple Express? C. What are other communities in the Pacific Northwest doing to prepare for future severe weather events and to mitigate future flooding, soil erosion, and mudslides? What plans does the City of Edmonds have? 4. Short-term remediation plan a. Can anything be done to reduce erosion and flooding in the short run that doesn't require long lead times or high costs? b. More proactive clearing at and around culverts? Large rocks to slow flow and reduce erosion and silting? Other ideas? 5. Long-term remediation plan a. Develop a longer -term remediation plan (including, for example, budgeting, financing, consulting, and updating City codes) working in conjunction with appropriate local, state & federal organizations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 44 b. This issue clearly goes beyond what the City of Edmonds can do on its own, but the City, rather than individual residents and businesses, should be responsible for engaging in a coordinated manner with other accountable authorities. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, John Lyons, President, Shellabarger Creek Condominium Owners' Association Aerial view of 525 5th Ave South. Shellabarger Creek is just above the building. The Ace Hardware & Pancake Haus parking lot is on the right. � A Erosion caused by a single storm in late December, 2020. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 45 SEPTEM�-LR 2038 City worker attempting to clear the culvert grate, which is far below where he's standing, as flooding water approaches our building foundation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 46 From: Marjorie Fields Date: September 21, 2021 at 3:43:03 PM PDT To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "Nelson, Michael" <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Stormwater hearing Stormwater seems to be a major problem for Edmonds, and I see that the city is trying to solve some of them. However, it would have been so much better if the update could be based on the expert review of city water quality by the Salmon Safe organization — a review that is in the city plan for this year but has not yet occurred. In your response to the proposed update, I ask that the Council specifically mandate that input Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 47 from the Salmon Safe review be incorporated into stormwater management practices as soon as that information is available. Thank you for all you do, Marjie Fields Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 28, 2021 Page 48