Loading...
Cmd62822 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 28, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager Michele Szafran Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge 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. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTION COMMENDING GREG URBAN Council President Olson read a resolution commending Greg Urban, Edmonds Chamber President and CEO since May 5, 2014, resolving that he has been a distinguished friend and contributor to Edmonds’ civic and business communities, and that his presence here will be greatly missed. Mr. Urban thanked the city council and the community, commenting it has been a pleasure and privilege to live and work in the community; it will be greatly missed but not forgotten. 2. ANNUAL TREE BOARD PRESENTATION Tree Board Chair Janelle Cass reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 2 • Tree Board’s Main Purpose o The City of Edmonds Tree Board actively encourages the planting, protecting and maintaining of trees for the long-term benefit to our community. • Tree Board 2021 Members o A Big Thank You for your devotion to the Tree Board and its mission, countless volunteer hours, and your expertise and enthusiasm guiding us over the past several years. o Frank Caruso o Barbara Chase o Doug Petersen o Suzanne Juergensen o Donna Murphy o Brian Doyle o Bill Phipps o Diane Buckshnis – Council Liaison • Year in Review 2021 o Contributed volunteer hours towards Tree City USA status for the 11th year o Provided input for tree code development with numerous draft code reviews and researching nearby community’s tree codes o Explored Forterra and other partnerships for tree banking, technical assistance and public outreach o Participated in Edmonds in Bloom Garden Tours o Covid negatively impacted volunteer events, but accomplished: ▪ Co-sponsored Earth Day activities at Yost Park (tree planting) and Edmonds Marsh ▪ Participated in Arbor Day planting event at Edmonds Marsh • Continued Maintenance – Edmonds Elementary Native Planting Project o Planting work done in 2020, but Barbara did maintenance work on her own in 2021. Keeping site clean and weeded • Photographs of volunteer events • Tree Board Members 2022 Member Council Sponsor Janelle Cass (Chair) CM Tibbott William Grant CM K. Johnson Andy Lyon CM Chen Wendy Kliment CP Olson Bill Phipps (Vice Chair) CM Buckshnis Crane Stavig CM L. Johnson Ross Dimmick (Alternate) CP Olson Vacant Position CM Paine Laura Johnson City Council Liaison • Tree Board Current Work o Advise on the Tree Code updates o Continue to help implement Urban Forest Management Plan o Continue to distribute “Before You Grab that Chainsaw...” and “Small Trees” brochures o Continue education and stewardship – Earth Day, Farmer’s Market, Arbor Day o Continue to partner with community organizations to plant and preserve trees Councilmember Paine asked about the tree board’s plans for the coming year. Chair Cass responded the board will presenting the council a proclamation for Arbor Day, an event that will be combined with tree seedling giveaways. Much of this year’s focus will be on code updates, listening to the community and working with the planning department to provide input to the city council. Councilmember Paine asked if the Arbor Day resolution would be presented in October, the traditional Washington State Arbor Day. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 3 Chair Cass answered yes. Councilmember Paine announced her appointment of Chris Eck to the tree board. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was excited for the tree board this year, recognizing there were a lot of new members. The tree board was one of most fun groups because they did a lot of outdoor activities related to trees. She recalled Tree Board Alternate Ross Dimmick was very helpful with the urban forest management plan. She anticipated the board would have a lot of fun this year. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for the volunteers’ expertise and hours of work. He recalled participating in the removal of invasive plants. As the tree board carries on their volunteer activities, he encouraged them to look at the only park in the east side of the City, Mathay Ballinger Park, where there is overgrown vegetation including ivy. Two months ago a church group on Highway 99 volunteered to do maintenance work at the park. He encouraged the tree board to give attention to that area. Council President Olson expressed her appreciation for all the board members and the volunteer hours they put in. She referred to a patch of land on Highway 99 where an off-ramp may have been intended but was never constructed. The land is owned by the Department of Transportation and she did not believe they have plans for it. It would be great if there could be a pocket forest there, possibly a special project for the tree board to try to mobilize. She offered to provide the tree board cross streets to identify its location. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she has had the pleasure of twice being the new liaison to the tree board. She expressed appreciation for the work the board has done and was excited to be part of the tree board again this year. She gave a special shout out and thank you to her first appointee, Donna Murphy, for all the work she did and was excited to be working with her new appointee, Crain Stavig. The tree board has had one meeting so far which was a good meeting. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADD A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF ABORTION RIGHTS AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, IN OPPOSITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MAJORITY DECISION TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE, URGING FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO CODIFY ABORTION RIGHTS AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, AND SUPPORTING WASHINGTON STATE’S COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. Councilmember L. Johnson began to speak to the motion, in January 2017 in response to a national threat to human rights, the Edmonds city council including four… Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, commenting it was not appropriate to have a discussion regarding the topic, comments should only be related to whether or not to have it on the agenda. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken but said he would allow the councilmember some latitude to explain what she wanted added to the agenda and suggested Councilmember L. Johnson be more concise. Councilmember L. Johnson commented Friday’s decision was shocking to many and councilmembers received calls from community members who were not just concerned but terrified. As a result, Councilmember Paine and she spent the weekend working on a resolution that they shared with the city Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 4 council and the community on Sunday evening. This is time sensitive, and although it is the council’s standard practice to have resolutions included on agendas as part of a 600-1000 page packet that is published Friday afternoon which councilmembers review prior to Tuesday’s meeting, exceptions are made when the nature of the issue demands it. She believed this two-page resolution on an issue which the council was well versed was such a time. The council owes it to those who are terrified about the loss of bodily autonomy and reproductive choice to know their concerns are important enough to the council to start today. Councilmember Paine urged the council to consider adding this to tonight’s agenda to at least to begin the conversation. The council understands the issue, it has been advertised and has been in the media nonstop since 7:10 a.m. Friday morning. She urged the council to support adding this to tonight’s agenda and continue the conversation next week if necessary. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was still trying to process this. She believed it was something that should be pragmatically addressed and placed on next week’s agenda so everyone was on the same page with the same resolution and the same agenda item so everyone could provide comment if they wished. At this time, she did not support adding it to tonight’s agenda. Councilmember K. Johnson commented she did not see any urgency for this. The process for the city council is to give agenda items to the council president by Wednesday and she can decide when to put it on the agenda. This blindsides the council and according to the code of conduct, there are not to be any surprises. This is a frequent tactic, give something to the press, make a big announcement and then bring it to the council. She objected to the timing and suggested if the councilmember wanted to have it on the agenda, it be presented to the council president so she can decide when to schedule it. Council President Olson said she had encouraged the authoring councilmembers to wait until the July 5th meeting so the resolution could be in the packet and councilmembers would have time to be thoughtful about the message they want to deliver on the subject on behalf of the community. That is what the council does when they pass something as a body, they speak for the entire community. Even though councilmember have given the topic plenty of thought individually, thinking about it from the perspective of the City is different and she was not ready to vote or discuss it further today. Councilmember L. Johnson commented there was no intended surprise; it was based on what happened at the national level. They worked diligently as quickly as they could and provided it to council and shared it with the public as quickly as they could. She has heard from so many people who are terrified about what this means. The council has an opportunity to use their voice to encourage federal and state elected leaders to codify this into the State and U.S. Constitution. There is precedence related to this in that the City has a safe city resolution and the council has already affirmed that it is the council’s utmost responsibility to uphold rights and freedoms of the families and individuals they represent. Council President Olson raised a point of order, requesting the councilmember speak to the motion related to whether to put the item on tonight’s agenda. Mayor Nelson responded councilmembers have opened the door, talking about code of conduct violations, etc. so he was fine with the councilmember continuing her comments. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, stating in 2017, this council, including four who are here today, unanimously passed a safe city resolution… COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 5 Council President Olson said she did not agree with the chair’s ruling. The council needs to stay focused on whether or not to put the resolution on tonight’s agenda. Councilmember Chen said the procedure was a little out of ordinary, but he saw the urgency of this resolution because now it is up to the state to make a decision about reproductive rights. Putting it on the agenda gives the council a chance to discuss it further. He expressed support for putting it on tonight’s agenda. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was speaking to why the resolution should be on tonight’s agenda and the precedent the council set by saying they will uphold human rights which is important to discuss tonight. The council has already declared they will uphold human rights and they owe it to the community to start that discussion tonight. Councilmember K. Johnson asked who decides on the appeal. Mayor Nelson said after discussion, the council will vote on the appeal. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. City Clerk Scott Passey announced as a result of the vote, the appeal is upheld and the mayor’s ruling is overturned. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated this was not done as a surprise, it was done in response to federal actions, the news, and calls from community. It was done as quickly and thoroughly as possible, it was shared with council and with the public. This is something that so many people are terrified of and they are looking for their leaders to respond and this is a response. She believed the council owed it to the community to show that it was important enough to start the discussion tonight, even if it was not finished tonight, so they can be reassured that people are fighting for this locally. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson announced agenda item 9.2, Approve Update to Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.36 to Include Impact Fee Waivers for Early Learning Facilities, was pulled from the agenda at staff’s request. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in-person audience comments. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to Greg Urban, recalling when she opened her real estate brokerage in 1980, the first thing she did was attend a Chamber meeting. At that time, the South County Chamber wanted Edmonds to join them but members of the Edmonds Chamber wanted to retain their special identity. The Chamber has been a very important part of the community and has coordinated Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 6 with the City and Snohomish County and a lot of people dedicated a lot of time. The Edmonds Chamber was run by volunteers; she was the third woman president, and operated out of the log cabin which the Hanleys donated to the City. She expressed her appreciation to past and present Chamber members and particularly to Mr. Urban who brought a lot of expertise as the CEO and President. She expressed her thanks to him and his daughter, anticipating she would be President of the United States one day. She expressed her thanks to the council for their involvement in the community, recognizing their jobs were tough. The issue was just brought up is very controversial. She also thanked past mayors whose job was also tough and the memorial cemetery board. Jenna Nand, Edmonds, spoke regarding the resolution in favor of abortion rights, commenting that while resolutions are very symbolic and necessary gestures to signal the values of the City, it could be backed up with concrete action that would communicate to women and people with uteruses within the City as well as terrified young people that they stand with them and have their backs. She suggested providing a list of abortion providers in the area; there are no abortion providers in the City of Edmonds, but an often picketed Planned Parenthood is located in Lynnwood. The City should provide clarification regarding the steps that someone who is being harassed when attempting to access abortion services can take to protect themselves such as whether they are able to call the police and request an escort or civilian volunteer escort. The City should also consider devoting a small portion of its budget to providing things like Plan B coupons, safe sex items in public areas and schools such as condoms, and assisting people without access to healthcare who need help getting birth control, STD testing, etc. These action would help people who are struggling and feeling attacked by the Supreme Court. Next, she recalled last year a group of activists and business members in the community got together to help the unhoused community during the brutal heat wave that killed hundreds in Washington State. She anticipated people were more prepared this year, but requested a statement on where the City stands on helping people who are under- housed or unhoused and without a safe place to go during the day. For example, she suggested police officers could carry ice water in their patrol cars for someone in distress. That would communicate to the community, especially the Highway 99 community where there is a sizeable street population, that the City has their back. Dan Murphy expressed strong support for the abortion rights resolution. He thanked Councilmembers L. Johnson and Paine for their leadership in drafting a thoughtful, comprehensive resolution that captures the urgency of the moment, a model for what local governments should be doing. Local government representatives are elected to perform basic functions to keep the city running smoothly. Elected officials spend much of their day combing through obscure zoning laws, environmental regulations and meeting with citizens and business owners to ensure the City is equitable and livable. They are also elected to be the collective voice of the community, to stand up for what’s right, to speak out even when it’s hard and especially when it’s hard. Some say abortion is a national issue and should be left to others to discuss and deal with. He disagreed; state and local leaders are the last firewall for abortion, LGBTQ, privacy and other rights that are constantly under assault by regressive politicians and judges. In Washington, abortion and privacy rights, medical freedom are not enshrined into the constitution; they are one election cycle away from being extinguished. This is not the time to be silent. As the father to sweet, strong willed twin daughters, he has an obligation to them, to his brilliant wife and to all human beings who value human rights to speak out even when it’s hard. As elected officials, the collective voices of this community, the council has the obligation to speak out on this issue. The parliamentary excuses for why the Council is not taking about this today are unacceptable. People are marching in the streets about last week’s decision. He asked the council to support the abortion rights resolution when it comes before the council. Lisa Utter thanked Councilmembers Paine and L. Johnson for bringing this resolution forward and encouraged the council to add it to next week’s agenda and to act on it. All elected officials swear to uphold the constitution and she hoped they were committed to expanding and protecting human rights which is what this is about. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 7 Tressa Kentner, Edmonds, a longtime, active member of the League of Women Voters, said there are over 150 members in Snohomish County, about 1/3 live in Edmonds. She read from the resolution recently passed by the League of Women Voters National Convention, “Be it resolved that the LWVUS supports the rights of women and those who can get pregnant to self-determination related to and including but not limited to bodily autonomy, privacy with reproductive health and style choice.” This issue does not stop at one legislative level. It has to be fought at all levels; it is about female and other people’s autonomy, it is about freedom. If freedom does not include the freedom to determine your own bodily choices, there is no freedom at all. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to packet page 669 which contains a reference to a 12.84% leasehold tax. He asked whether the mayor and his staff have collected all required lease excise tax and remitted it to the state. For example, did the mayor and his staff collect this tax for those who used portions of City streets for streateries? The leasehold excise tax is based on market value, not on a square foot fee as indicated on packet page 669. He asked how many times a citizen had to point this out before City officials acted to follow state law. He asked when the comprehensive emergency management plan would be updated and presented to city council for approval and when the new errors in chapter 6.60 of the City code will be fixed. Tonight’s packet page 600 displays a definition of right-of-way; this definition stands in contrast to the concept that an easement holder is only entitled to limited use and enjoyment of land possessed by another. Where did the idea come from that the City can issue a special event permit to use property subject to an easement that the City has never used? Mr. Reidy asked whether the City notified all property owners subject to unused City easements of what City staff is proposing. He urged the council to halt this process and make sure all impacted property owners are made aware of what is going on. For years, he has asked the council to correct the definition of easement in the City code. He has asked whether City employees are trained to understand a property owner’s right to use unopened rights-of-way, whether they are trained to know that property owners abutting an unopened public right-of-way, a right-of-way that has never been made into an actual street or alley, do not have any legal recognized right to access their property via that right-of-way. As this is true, he questioned why anyone would think the City can issue a special event permit to use a right-of-way the City has never made into an actual street or alley. He urged the council to halt this process and amend tonight’s agenda to remove item 9.4. If the council wants to review the special event permit program, he urged them to initiate a policy-making process and if they vote to do so, he recommended tasking the planning board with it as a first step. Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, thanked Janelle Cass for the tree board report and the volunteers who work with her. To the mayor, councilmember and citizens, she said enjoy the privilege of living in homes without paying twice for the trees cut for their homes, or the privilege of having no trees or cutting trees without paying for the right to do so just as everyone in the United States has the right to do, unless they own vacant land in Edmonds. The privileged elite running the City have made it clear that only the rich are allowed to build homes in Edmonds, discouraging affordable housing efforts in a high density city, contributing to urban sprawl, denying permits to those needing homes until the City is compensated for the lack of tree canopy caused by 100 years of development, damage that existing homes caused. Only owners of vacant land are required to compensate for the lack of citywide canopy. Edmonds tree ordinance prohibits building in single family zones until it is paid off, taking property rights to every tree on vacant land under protest. Permits are denied for homes and divisions until rights to all trees are relinquished as protected. Owners must record a notice against their property title with the Snohomish County Auditor’s Office that every tree is permanently protected. Property rights taken and property Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 8 devalued by Edmonds City government, not an incentive program, but a pay-to-play scheme taking and then charging for the rights and value of trees before permitting its zoned use. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the City has permanently seized rights to all trees on every vacant property and then charges thousands for owners to remove trees and build homes. The cap of $2/square feet of property is arbitrary. The 30% retention code increased tree canopy by 5%. She questioned why they, while retaining over the 30% required, 71 trees on 3 lots, lose all rights to them and pay $107,000 in tree fees just to get their permit. Their neighbor has to pay $64,000 to remove 16 trees to build one home while he is retaining 100 trees. She questioned how many trees councilmembers had on their property and whether they were paying for them. Times are hard, material costs have doubled; what should owners do without so they can pay for the lack of tree canopy that other people’s homes caused? Many can no longer afford to build. When land is divided and owners pay to build homes, the City receives 10-20 times in property taxes and tens of thousands in sales tax; it is enough. It is the council’s duty to ensure equity for all citizens. Should lawsuits be necessary to force the council to protect property rights and comply with the constitution? Edmonds’ tree ordinance is an act of regulatory and monetary taking of private property for public benefit. [no name given] said she just became aware of a resolution Councilmembers L. Johnson and Paine proposed to the council. Several community members who were angered over an article that was posted notified her of the resolution regarding maintaining reproductive rights and abortion rights. The State of Washington has no intent to change women’s access to choose, therefore there is no need for the resolution. The alarm bells set off by Councilmembers Paine and L. Johnson are nothing more than, and to quote Carolyn Strong at a previous council meeting, they are “shenanigans.” She has been told there is more in the resolution that has nothing to do with reproductive and abortion rights. It is not okay for councilmembers to publish an article that other councilmember are unaware of. It is not up to Councilmember L. Johnson to codify anything that the Edmonds community members have not thoroughly vetted. She reiterated Washington, Oregon and California have agreed to maintain women’s rights to choose, regardless of whether others agree. She urged the council not to use this issue to incite their base. To Dan Murphy’s comment, she said the only regressive politicians she was aware of were the ones who have overturned laws for criminals to commit crimes that plague the community and continue to reoffend and cost the taxpayers money when they are caught and released. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, read comments previously provided to the council regarding the most recent versions of the PROS Plan. She requested the council remove the PROS Plan from the consent agenda to make the changes she submitted to council. She strongly opposed the process council used to draft and insert chapter 9 action plan. The executive summary page 8 states the PROS Plan maintains support for the expansion of the marsh. The expansion of the marsh was not identified in 2016; therefore, it is inaccurate to identify that support for acquisition of the Unocal property is maintained so that sentence should be revised. Page 2, the planning process identifies that “community members expressed their interest through surveys, public meetings, stakeholder discussions, online outreach, tabling and direct outreach at planning board meetings.” This is an incomplete list of how the public influenced the process and she requested the sentence be revised to include the council process which significantly impacted the plan outcomes. Page 2, the planning process identifies that the actions are based on community input, inventory of assets and service levels. This is inaccurate because there are significant legacy projects in the CFP and CIP that are not the result of the 2022 PROS planning process. It should be revised to include an additional bullet that identifies legacy projects that were not removed based on the 2022 planning process. Ms. Seitz continued, page 3, the department’s mission should be revised to inclusive of all those who reside within Edmonds. The full rights of federal citizenship are not convened until age 35 and the local rights of citizenship are not fully conveyed until 21. Using the term citizen disenfranchises younger Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 9 residents as well as immigrants and groups who have been citizens for significant periods of time, but who have had their rights of citizenship repeatedly denied. The mission should be revised to provide Edmonds residents with a balanced system of open space, parks, recreation and cultural arts to ensure a healthy and active quality of life. Page 4, the topic sentence under equity, inclusivity and accessibility should be revised. The City is responsible to provide services to all its residents; the City’s responsibility should be identified with definitive rather than aspirational statements, therefore maintaining and enhancing social equity across recreational opportunity and facilities is, not should be, a core function of municipal park and recreation systems. Page 15, community engagement identifies that outreach is provided through the Edmonds City website with plan information and feedback opportunities. However, the City’s plan website was not utilized for the most recent council changes to solicit feedback from residents. She requested immediate action be taken to have a process consistent with what is identified in the plan or identify the council process as contributing to the community engagement. Page 15, community engagement, significant changes as identified in the June 7th meeting packet have occurred due to council input identified as based on feedback from members of the public. This feedback and engagement process is not identified in the community engagement section. The section should be revised to include mention of the council process and make that feedback part of the public record. Her comments next week will pick up on page 17. Dee [no last name given] said the topic of abortion should not be on a city council agenda. It is big government business, not something the Edmonds city council should spend time on. Washington state laws are pretty firm and abortion is pretty well entwined in the state’s laws and it would be pretty hard to undo with one swoop. There is no cause for concern in Washington. This is Councilmember Paine’s response to prayer; the Supreme Court rules in favor of former Bremerton High School Joe Kennedy in praying case; perhaps that should be on an agenda, God is legal in 2022. As Councilmember Paine said, these are the facts of an adult and leadership with a student means the power and balance is in full force. Dee found this ironic with what is going on in government schools and the new curriculum. With regard to housing, she quoted Councilmember Paine, a reminder about inclusionary zoning and the rhetoric used to uphold it. When citizens speak, it is just rhetoric to Councilmember Paine; when citizens do not want something, their voices don’t count to Councilmember Paine, it is just rhetoric. Zoning is a choice as are the reasons for choosing it. Ignorance is also a choice, apparently Councilmember Paine thinks residents are stupid. She questioned Councilmember Paine’s comment about people being terrified about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, pointing out people aren’t terrified, it will continue to be legal in Washington State. She relayed in a pregnant woman, the baby’s cells migrate into the mother’s bloodstream, fetal maternal microchimerism, a permanent imprint o the mother’s tissue, bones, brain and skin even if the pregnancy doesn’t go full term. Even if a woman has an abortion, the baby is still with them. The baby’s cells will run to the woman’s heart if there is a problem or other illness to try to save the mother. Shouldn’t the babies be saved to? Ignorance is having sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, people know how to use protection and should check it twice. If someone makes a mistake, they can obtain the next day pill. She summarized this does not belong on the council’s agenda; it belongs to a vote of the people. Celina Baliton, Edmonds, thanked the parks department, planning board and city council for an improved PROS Plan which is being considered for approval tonight. She particularly recognized Council President Olson for providing a summary of public feedback that informed chapter 9, capital planning and implementation, which is very helpful to the plan. While there are many recommendations to commend, she was particularly grateful to see capital planning and implementation recommendation 2, item 3, related to exploring the feasibility and potential cost of acquiring Southwest County Park from Snohomish County and looked forward to seeing a timeline and plan for this consideration. She also applauded recommendation 1, acquisitions to fill park system gaps, like supporting creation of neighborhood parks in underserved areas as well as expanding partnerships and agreements with nearby Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 10 jurisdictions to improve public access and opportunity for non-city owned assets. She thanked the council for a concerted effort and the work of all the parties that created the revised PROS Plan. 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested item 7.4, 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (Pros) Plan Approval, be removed from the consent agenda so she can vote no. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 5. APPROVAL OF LOCAL AGENCY CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH TRANSPO FOR THE SR-104 ADAPTIVE SYSTEM FROM 236TH ST SW TO 226TH ST SW 6. RESOLUTION COMMENDING GREG URBAN 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 1.05.010 REGARDING REMOTE PARTICIPATION BY BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 4. 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN APPROVAL Councilmember Buckshnis commented there was a lot of controversy with the process The revisions resulted in a much improved plan and she complimented the administration and consultant for their efforts. She believed the survey did not address environmental issues such as salmon recovery, watersheds, etc. so she will vote no on approval of the plan. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WUHIB ABEBE 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT DONATION - ESTATE OF JOHN GOFFETTE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 11 Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser commented it was her great pleasure and privilege to share with the council and the Edmonds community a most generous donation from the estate of Jack and Pat Goffette for the amount of $2,884,615.38. Jack and Pat, married for 48 years, started NW Homes, building speculative and then custom homes in the Edmonds area. Their company then became Northwood Contractors Corporation which eventually began building and developing commercial building and properties in the area. She read a statement from the estate attorney, “Jack Goffette and Pat Goffette both loved Edmonds. They built many homes in the Emerald Hills area in the 1970s and because of their success with Northwood Homes, they considered Edmonds the place where their business began and therefore wanted to give back to the City.” When Pat Goffette passed away in early 2019, her obituary stated in lieu of flowers to make a donation in her name to the City of Edmonds’ flower program. Ms. Feser noted the Goffette’s donation is conditioned that the money is to be used for hanging baskets, street corner flower planting and maintenance. By accepting this donation, the City will, to the extent reasonably feasible, use the donation in a manner consistent with the donors’ expressed preference. The City has also been informed of future additional donations as estate assets are sold. Although the estate attorneys are unable to provide an exact amount, it has been communicated the remaining amount is considerable. Tonight, staff is asking to wait until the 2023 budget process later this year to provide a strategic proposal to best utilize the total donation once the final amount is known. Staff recommends council approve the corresponding resolution to accept the donation as stated in ECC 3.45.030. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A DONATION FROM THE ESTATE OF JOHN A. GOFFETTE FOR THE AMOUNT OF $2,884,615.38 AND THEREBY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION. Council President Olson commented the community has been overdue for some good news; this is incredibly sweet and will provide value to the entire community. She was hopeful the flower program could be expanded to other areas of town, maybe not directly with this donation if that is not compliant with the donors’ wishes, but possibly using some of the existing funding in other locations. She expressed her appreciation to the friends and family of John and Pat Goffette. Councilmember Paine commented this was a beautify bequest, coming out of the clear blue sky although it was her understanding the discussion has been occurring for nearly a year. Recognizing that there were generous people in Edmonds, she thanked the family for the donation which will boost the beautification program in lasting ways and will reflect the beauty of Edmonds. She thanked everyone who have been working on this large gift to Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was phenomenon news. She asked how staff will ensure this is administered correctly and how it will be determined whether expanding the flower baskets and corner beds in other areas of City would be allowed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it is the City’s intent to spend the money in a manner consistent with the bequest. To the extent the council wanted a periodic report regarding how that was being done, that could be done. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a policy needed to be developed. She questioned whether the donation could fund flower baskets and flower beds on Highway 99, the poles, etc. as the bequest is pretty vague. She recalled the adopt a flower basket/corner garden program was an initiative by Jack Bevan and Natalie Shippen. Mr. Taraday answered other than it had to be used in Edmonds, the bequest was not geographically limited to a particular neighborhood within the City. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council will wait for budget process, recalling a cemetery bequeath changed after a number of years so she wanted to be consistent with what the will states. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 12 Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is an incredibly generous donation and it was a delightful surprise to have this in the council packet. This was set up in way that will be meaningful and honor the passions of Goffette’s. She expressed her gratitude for their generosity. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her gratitude for the generosity of this donation which can be used to beautify Edmonds. The Goffettes recognized Edmonds’ beauty and wanted to contribute to that in the future. She recalled talking with a constituent who bemoaned the fact that the flower baskets at Five Corners were removed when the roundabout was constructed and suggested consideration be given to placing flower baskets in the Five Corners area. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for this incredibly generous donation from the Goffette family. He asked if consideration had been given to an appropriate way to honor the donor. Ms. Feser answered a way to honor the family and their generous contribution will be part of the proposal during the budget process. She agreed it would be important to recognize the Goffettes for their generosity for the beautification of Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott echoed council’s gratitude and what the donation will mean for the City for many generations. He was very thankful for the gift. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVE UPDATE TO EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 3.36 TO INCLUDE IMPACT FEE WAIVERS FOR EARLY LEARNING FACILITIES This item was removed from the agenda. 3. PLN2022-0009 REZONE 9516 & 9530 EDMONDS WAY Acting Planning Manager Kernen Lien introduced Associate Planner Michele Szafran. He explained a site specific is a quasi-judicial council decision and is subject to the Appearance of Fairness Act. The mayor has a script he will follow during the close record review. Mayor Nelson announced the closed-record hearing on the Planning Board’s recommendation to approve a rezone for two parcels from RM-1.5 to RM-EW at 9516 and 9530 Edmonds Way (File Number: PLN2022-0009) is now open. The closed-record hearing will proceed in an orderly fashion and he asked for the council’s cooperation in following the procedure he was about to describe: a. An open-record public hearing has already been held before the Planning Board. This hearing is a closed-record hearing, which means we will be limiting our consideration to review of the record created before the Planning Board. Only those who participated in the Planning Board hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard during this evening’s closed-record hearing. b. If you participated in the open-record hearing and would like to speak again this evening, you may not introduce new facts that were not presented to the planning board. c. When you address the Council, begin by stating your name and address. lease speak slowly, clearly, and into the microphone so that we have a clear record of the hearing. Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time. The city council will be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity on this agenda item. In other words, for this particular item, the councilmembers will be acting like judges, not like legislators. Because councilmembers will be acting like judges, this hearing must be fair in form and substance as well as appearance. In order to ensure that the hearing both is fair and appears to be fair, Mayor Nelson asked all members of the city council to make certain disclosures, if applicable, in response to a series of questions: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 13 1. Do any of the councilmembers have an interest in this property or issue? All councilmembers responded no. 2. Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? All councilmembers responded no. 3. Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? All councilmembers responded yes. 4. Has any member of the council engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? All councilmembers responded no. 5. Will any councilmember be recusing themselves from participating on this issue for any reason. If so, the recusing councilmember should state his/her reasons for recusal. All councilmember responded no. Mayor Nelson asked ask if anyone in the audience objected to his participation as chair of this meeting or to any other councilmember's participation in these proceedings. There where no objections voiced. Ms. Szafran presented the staff report: • Vicinity Map • Site Context o The request applies to two parcels which both front on Edmonds Way o In 2007 Ordinance 3627 established the Edmonds Way designation. o Site has remained undeveloped • Rezone Review Criteria ECDC 20.40.010 o The Planning Board review considered the following factors in reviewing the proposed rezone: ▪ Comprehensive Plan - Comprehensive Plan Designation  Edmonds Way Corridor - Compatible Zoning  RM-EW is a compatible zoning designation - Not more intensive, no change to:  Density  Allowed Uses  Setbacks  Lot Coverage - A rezone from RM-EW would be consistent with the Comp Plan. ▪ Zoning Ordinance - Two zoning purposes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 14  “to assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the comprehensive plan.” (ECDC 16.00.010.A)  “To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment.” (ECDC 16.30.000.A) - Property is in the Edmonds Way Corridor - A rezone to RM-EW does not change the densities but would allow for an increased height from 30 to 35 feet for buildings fronting Edmonds Way with at least 2 of the following being incorporated into the building and/or site design;  LEED or Green certification  Low impact development  Inclusion of affordable housing (must be at least 15% of the gross number of units proposed - The rezone appears to be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and would be consistent with the comp plan while helping to achieve a variety of housing types ▪ Surrounding Area - West of site is developed with a PUD substation. - Properties east developed with mix of MF & SF, could develop to MF with current RM zone. - Residential south (approx. 26’change in elevation) ▪ Changes - Westgate Mixed Use zone established in 2015 - North side of Edmonds Way rezoned to BC-EW - A rezone from RM-1.5 to RM- EW would require at least 2 conditions built into the design  LEED or Green certification  Low impact development  Inclusion of affordable housing - Consistent with the City’s policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor. ▪ Suitability - Given the proximity to Edmonds Way and the elevation change of the RS zoned properties from Edmonds Way, the requested rezone to RM-EW appears to be a suitable zone for the subject property. - No change to density, lot coverage, setbacks or allowed uses - RM-EW would allow for the developer to opt for an increased building height for any building fronting on Edmonds Way with at least 2 of the following:  LEED or Green certification  Low Impact Development Techniques  Inclusion of Affordable Housing ▪ Value - It is not likely that the rezone will decrease value to property owners - The rezone would allow the developer to opt for a height increase from 30 feet to 35 feet at the expense of the optional requirements. - The public gains in sustainability and/or affordable housing should the developer opt for the height increase. - Public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely impacted by rezoning the property to RM-EW.  Building setbacks are intended to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 15  Development regulations also help protect the public health, safety, and welfare. • Conclusions and Recommendation o Rezone is consistent with ECDC 20.40.010 o The rezone would allow the option for a height increase from 30 to 35 feet for any building fronting on Edmonds Way provided that sustainability, low impact development and/or inclusion of affordable housing are provided. o Design standards and development regulations will ensure that public health, safety, and welfare are protected. o The planning board forwarded a recommendation to city council to approve the rezone from RM 1.5 to RM-EW Mayor Nelson advised the applicant would now have an opportunity to address the council. Applicant Matt Driscoll, Seattle, architect, said Ms. Szafran reviewed all the items for consideration. He reiterated the rezone would not change any of zoning constraints other than allow a greater height with a sustainable development, low impact development or affordable housing which will be beneficial to the City. Mayor Nelson opened the floor for comments from anyone else who participated in the open-record hearing. Each person will be given an opportunity to address the council for an initial period not to exceed five minutes. He requested councilmembers hold their questions of the public until everyone is done. Parties of Record Shaun Leiser, Shoreline, said he grew up in Edmonds so it is an important part of his community. He and Jake Lyon are co-applicants in this rezone. He pointed out items that were already discussed by Mr. Driscoll and Ms. Szafran as well as in the planning board hearing. This rezone is allowed by code. There is no change to the density and it was unanimously approved by the planning board. It fills a much needed void in multifamily housing close to the downtown core as SR-104 leads to downtown. The property is situated in an area with good walkability which encourages more density. The property has a large grade difference between neighboring properties in adjacent zones which buffers the zoning difference. He was happy to have this heard by the council tonight and looked forward to positive comments and to developing something that will be good for the Edmonds community. Jake Lyon, co-applicant, said he has lived in Edmonds or Woodway all his life and loves the City and its beauty; their offices are currently located in Edmonds. He reiterated the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is important to provide a variety of housing options in Edmonds to be inclusive of all residents or potential residents. There will be no change to the density, allowed uses, setbacks or lot coverage. Other nearby properties in different zones are at a higher elevation and will not be adversely impacted. They will be granted the additional height if they incorporate either built sustainable, low impact development, or affordable housing options. He appreciated the council for taking the time to consider the rezone and asked for a favorable decision. Mayor Nelson advised councilmembers may ask clarifying questions of the parties of record, but may not ask for information outside of the record. Councilmember Paine commented this is the first closed-record hearing she has participated in so she hoped her questions were not out of line. She asked if RM-EW was similar or how was it dissimilar to the Westgate mixed use (WMU) zoning. Mr. Lien answered the RM zones subject to the rezone are multifamily zones. The WMU zone is mixed use which allows commercial developments and residential only. Apart from a conditional use permit, commercial development is not allowed in the RM zones. The WMU zone is somewhat of a form based code which is not applied to the RM zones. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 16 Councilmember Paine observed additional height could be added if two of the three consideration were included. She asked if that was above and beyond 35 feet or up to 35 feet. Ms. Szafran answered the maximum height would be 35 feet if at least 2 of the 3 conditions were included. Mayor Nelson clarified this was an opportunity for questions of the parties of record and the applicant. There will be an opportunity to ask staff questions after the hearing is closed. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the materials contain conflicting information. The cover sheets says the height is going from 30 to 35 feet, but the packet contains multiple references regarding increasing from 25 to 35 feet. She asked for clarification regarding the starting point. Mr. Driscoll answered the basic height is 25 and development is allowed go to 30 feet with a pitched roof and then from 30 to 35 if 2 of the 3 conditions are met. Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about the surrounding zoning. Mr. Driscoll answered the zoning to the east and west is RM 1.5, to the south is single family residential. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the zoning along SR-104. Mr. Driscoll answered it is RM 1.5; 2 parcels along SR-104 have been rezoned from BC-EW to RM-EW; the majority of the property is still zoned RM 1.5. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the proposal is to change the zoning of 2 parcels in a contiguous RM 1.5 zone. Mr. Driscoll answered yes. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to statements that the rezone would not change the density. She envisioned the density would change if the building was changed from two stories to three. Mr. Driscoll responded the base density is 1 unit per 1500 square feet of land area regardless of the number of stories. Buildings could be 2 stories or 3 stories within the base 25 feet but with 3 stories, part of the lower level would be buried. It does not change the residential density. Councilmember K. Johnson anticipated three stories would result in more units. Mr. Driscoll answered the same number of units are allowed under RM 1.5 and RM-EW, 1 unit per 1500 square feet of land area regardless of the number of stories. Councilmember K. Johnson found that very interesting, stating she did not know that. She asked the value to the developer of an additional story. Mr. Lyon answered there would not be any additional housing units, but it would allow the plate between the floors to be increased so instead of making the floor to ceiling height less or burying part of the building, they can construct a more comfortable, more desirable living area with higher floor to ceiling heights. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how they would achieve affordable housing, whether it would be via the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) or other mechanism. Mr. Lyon answered he was not familiar enough with the three conditions to make a decision which options they will use and he was unsure how the affordable housing option was calculated. Councilmember Buckshnis observed they did not know yet whether they would use MFTE. Mr. Lyon answered that had not been decided. Councilmember Buckshnis observed another of the options is low impact development techniques which are related to stormwater. She asked if they had decided if they would utilize low impact development techniques such as rain gardens, permeable pavement, roof downspouts, etc. Mr. Lyon answered they have not determined which 2 of the 3 options they would select for this project. Councilmember Chen said he gets excited when he hears about affordable housing. He asked their definition of affordable housing, what the monthly rent for a one bedroom apartment would be. Mr. Lyon said that may be a better question for staff, but he believed if that option was selected, how the rates are calculated is fairly prescribed. Councilmember Chen said he was not asking about the market value, but Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 17 the rent for an affordable housing unit. Mr. Lyon recalled that was prescribed in the code. Mr. Driscoll said he had not looked at Snohomish County, but in King County it is based on a percentage of the median income. Councilmember Chen said he was aware of the definition of affordable housing, but was curious whether in reality it would be affordable or not. Mr. Leiser answered this process is to determine the zoning and then after zoning is determined, it will be up to them as developers working with City staff, to determine which two of the three options they will select for developing the project. Tonight’s discussion is related to zoning of the property, not which options they will choose. Mayor Nelson provided an opportunity to object to new evidence. Mr. Taraday clarified this was an opportunity for any party of record to make an objection if they felt something was asked about during the Q&A or if a statement was offered that was not part of the open-record portion of hearing. Mayor Nelson asked if there were any objections from the parties of record. No objections were voiced. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing portion and advised the council may ask questions of staff, deliberate, and take action. Councilmember L. Johnson observed this question was asked on page 595 but she was still confused about the difference between 25 feet and 30 feet or roof pitch and how this would allow 35 feet. She found it confusing that staff referred to an increase from 25 to 35 feet when it seems the agenda memo states it is really from 30 to 35 feet. Mr. Lien displayed section 16.30.030 site development standards where the maximum height for both the RM 1.5 and RM-EW have footnotes. RM 1.5 is Footnote 1 which allows up to 30 feet with a 4:12 roof pitch. RM-EW can go up to 35 feet if 2 of the 3 criteria are met, LEED gold, affordable housing or low impact development. The real difference is 30 to 35 feet. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it was written that way in the staff report; the difference between 25 and 35 feet meant a certain pitch was required and that is considered the starting point for the report, but the ask is a 5 foot increase. Ms. Szafran answered that was correct. Council President Olson said she had the same question about units and density. It is now clear there is no change in density; the same number of units could be constructed based on the footprint. It was unclear in the presentation due to the perception that there would be an additional floor. Ms. Szafran referred to 16.30.030 site development standards and the minimum lot area per dwelling units which is the same for RM 1.5 and RM-EW, both are 1 dwelling unit per 1500 square feet of lot area. Council President Olson summarized even if a floor was added, there would not be additional units. Council President Olson said for the sake of confirming she got it right and also so the public knows, in reading all of this, it took time to understand the rezone was for all the Edmonds Way, but it has to be requested parcel by parcel the way these applicants have done to get it changed. Mr. Lien answered this is a site specific rezone just for these two parcels. If other properties along Edmonds Way want this zoning, they would need to apply for a site specific rezone or alternatively, the City could do an area-wide rezone to apply the RM-EW to all the multifamily properties along Edmonds Way. Council President Olson relayed it sounded like it applied to all of Edmonds Way but apparently that is not the case; there still needed to be a parcel by parcel application process. Mr. Lien explained the RM- EW is identified as a compatible zone for the Edmonds Way Corridor comprehensive plan designation. In the comprehensive plan, there is a table that lists compatible zones; the RM-EW zone is a compatible zone for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 18 Council President Olson observed the elevation of the nearby properties was a factor for her in making it feel like it fit as was the vegetation buffer which they have an incentive based on the tree code to keep. She noted the packet was very complete. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the setbacks to the south, observing it was 15 feet on the chart. He asked the total setback in relation to the bank between this property and the properties at the top of the hill in the residential area. Ms. Szafran answered 15 feet is the standard minimum rear setback for RM 1.5 and RM-EW. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that took into account the slope to the south. Ms. Szafran answered if they build within 50 feet of the slope, a geotech report would be required to address building within proximity to a steep slope. They would still need to maintain the zoning setback. Councilmember Tibbott observed the top of the slope to the south is 25 feet and the height of the proposed building is 35 feet. Ms. Szafran displayed the site plan, pointing out the 2-foot contours which show how steep the property is on the south. In the rear, there is about a 26 foot change in elevation where the residential area is located. Councilmember Tibbott concluded the top of the building at 35 feet would be approximately 10 feet above the top of the slope. Ms. Szafran answered that would probably be an accurate assessment. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying to visualize this as it was 25+5 feet in the RM 1.5 zone and now was going up to 35 feet. She referred to the Compass project that included two apartment buildings next to each other, one that was a block building and other had a modulated roof. She asked if the project that allowed the block building was a spot rezone. Mr. Lien was unclear what project she was referring to. Councilmember Buckshnis explained it was two buildings on Edmonds Way where one is a gray block building and the other building next to it is a different design. Mr. Lien answered that development was located in two different zones, BC-EW and RM-EW. The EW zones were changed slightly after that development was permitted, setbacks and the criteria for extra height were changed. The design standards that would apply to this site are just the general design standards in 20.11 Councilmember Buckshnis observed the gray cement building on Edmonds Way would be similar to what could be constructed on this site, a flat roof and 35 feet tall. Mr. Lien reiterated changes were made to the RM-EW zone after that was constructed. There were no changes to the design standards; the general design standards applied to that building and would apply to this building. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the setbacks changed. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember K. Johnson clarified under RM 1.5, the height is 25 feet plus 5 feet for roof modulation. Mr. Lien answered the additional 5 feet is allowed for a 4:12 roof pitch. Councilmember K. Johnson observed under the proposed rezone, the building would be 35 feet with no roof modulation, essentially a flat roof. Mr. Lien answered it could end up with flat roof but to achieve 35 feet, 2 of 3 conditions would need to be included, LEED Gold certification, inclusion of affordable housing of at least 15% of the gross proposed units, or employ low impact development techniques on the site. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many units of affordable housing this development would create at 15%. Mr. Lien answered he had not done the calculation on the property related to the number of units. Councilmember K. Johnson observed 15% would not be a large number. Mr. Lien answered 15% is calculated on the gross units in the development; depending on the number units, 15% would have to be low income if they chose that option to achieve the bonus height. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if he could estimate the number of units. Mr. Lien estimated 47,463 square feet of lot area for the two parcels, maximum density that could be achieve would be 30 units between the 2 parcels, and 15% would be 4.5 – 5 units. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 19 Councilmember K. Johnson said in her experience with the first MFTE Westgate project near Bartell, the below market rate units were smaller, studio apartments versus 1-2 bedroom. Mr. Lien answered there was a mix of apartments, they were not all studios. He clarify the MFTE would not apply to this property; it only applies to WMU or CG zones. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the affordability of these units. If the density is the same regardless of whether the zoning is RM 1.5 or RM-EW, there would be more smaller units at RM 1.5 which would result in more affordable apartments in her opinion. If the council approves a rezone to RM- EW, the apartments will be larger and less affordable. Mr. Lien said there is no development to review, this is only the rezone so he was unable to comment on the size of units that may or not be built; that was not part of review. Councilmember K. Johnson said conceptually the rezone would result in the same density so she would imagine the results of the new zoning. Ms. Szafran advised the developer only has to select two of the three conditions. It seems premature to get into the actual proposal because what options they will select is unknown. Affordable housing is one option; other options are LEED certification and low impact development. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a minimum of 20 units is required to qualify for MFTE. She asked how 15% was selected versus 20% or 25%. Ms. Szafran answered that is a footnote in the code and was mentioned in the report. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE REZONE AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a traffic study would be done as part of this development. Ms. Szafran answered that will be part of the review process. Councilmember K. Johnson commented Edmonds has a tradition of low development. Throughout the City, a single family home must be within a certain elevation. There was discussion for many years about the zoning impacts in downtown Edmonds and the council decided on 25+5 for a 30 foot height so there would be modulation and a variety of heights. She did not support the rezone for the following reasons, 1) the surrounding area is zoned RM 1.5. Rezoning the entire area may make sense but she did not support rezoning these two sites, 2) it will not be as attractive as the underling zoning, and 3) it will not create more units. She did not see any reason to support a change in the zoning at this time. Councilmember Paine said the site specific zoning change is ideal for this neighborhood. The neighborhood has two grocery stores and two drug stores within walking distance, it is on a major bus route, it is the sort of development that one would expect to see with transit oriented development, and it is not incompatible with the other nearby multifamily housing. She hoped with additional development, the City could request WSDOT reduce the speed limit and hoped the transportation study would also look at that due to the need for pedestrian safety in that area. Other parts of the WMU are on the verge of development and this is the right project in the right area with transit, pedestrian accessibility, restaurants, grocery stores and other amenities. She expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the proposal. According to Mr. Lien’s calculation, 15% would result in 4.5 units of affordable housing. If it was still workable and profitable for the developer he wondered if the affordable housing percentage could be increased to 20%. He wanted to ensure a win-win situation for the developer as well as the City and would leave the decision about increasing the percentage to 20% up to the developer. Ms. Szafran reminded affordable housing is not a required option; there are three options: LEED certification, low impact development and affordable housing. The developer is required to pick two of the three to achieve the additional height bonus; at this point there is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 20 no proposal so which options they will choose is unknown. The code limits affordable housing to 15% of the gross units. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed support for the motion. As stated earlier, this will help fill the void in multifamily housing. It is on a transit route and is a good, walkable location to many of life’s conveniences and necessities. For those reasons, this seems like a development proposal that will benefit Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not support the zoning change, but that did not mean there would not be multifamily. The existing zoning provides access to SR-104, to transit, to the grocery store and to the pharmacy. There is no guarantee that the development would provide affordable housing as that is a choice the developer makes. Looking at how it fits into the corridor, most of the corridor has modulated roofs and most of the buildings are not 35 feet. For those reasons she did not support the rezone coupled with the fact that Edmonds Way to the south was zoned RM 1.5 and this would rezone a segment in the middle which she did not feel was appropriate planning. Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the design standards would result in something better than the gray Compass building that the council got so much grief about from citizens when it was built. The design standards and setbacks have changed since then. She anticipated it would be very visible site due to the height and she was hopeful the developers would be thoughtful with their design. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a five minute recess. 4. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES City Clerk Scott Passey commented this has been brought to the council a few times. The reason staff is proposing a special events permit code is primarily to clarify the special events permit process and what it entails so there is a clear, predictable and consistent process. The ordinance in the packet largely mirrors the current permit protocols and serves to memorialize them in the City Code. The ordinance is also updated to remove outdated information and codes that no longer apply in the 21st century. The ordinance was a major effort, touched by virtually all departments that have a role in the permitting including emergency services. They all agreed it was comprehensive in scope and covered all the bases. Mr. Passey also recommended adding a permit fee to the City fee schedule to be consistent with the policy of covering costs associated with reviewing and issuing City permits. The proposed fee is $50 for small events (less than 100 people) and $125 for major events (more than 100 people). If the council is interested in waiving any permit fees, perhaps for specific groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, he has draft language that could accomplish that. There is a section that allows waiving of permit fees, but it does not specify particular groups. If the council chooses not to pass the ordinance, staff will continue to process special event permits as they are received according to the current administration process, but will be unable to recoup any permit processing fees. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for their patience. She observed block parties were exempt, noting block parties are held in the street which may create a problem for emergency vehicles. She asked why block parties were exempted, commenting a long block could have up to 100 people including kids and pets. Mr. Passey answered there have been a lot of inquiries about block parties in the past; someone will call to apply for an event and when they describe the scope of event, based on their answers the departments involved determine if a special event permit is needed. It seems nine times out of ten Fire Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 21 says they have no problem with the event as long as the road is kept open for emergency vehicles so they either they do not need a permit or their permit is conditioned on keeping the road open. Councilmember Paine observed the road has to stay open for public safety. Mr. Passey assumed if there was a neighborhood block party that exceeded the typical scope, it would either be denied or heavily conditioned. Councilmember Paine commented neighborhoods that are likely to hold a block party have safety in mind. She was glad to get this codified and to have it added to the fee permit schedule. She summarized this was an abundance of work that made the code better. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adding a waiver for service groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary or Lions who often have activities that include the streets but it would be to their benefit not to pay the fee. Mr. Passey said most of the Chamber events are not processed through the special event permit, but come to council via a contract. The Chamber does have a handful of events like the Halloween trick or treat, the trolley, etc. that would utilize the special event permit process. Staff anticipated those could either be handled via a contract or they could be exempt from the permit fee. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled the Rotary sponsored Oktoberfest and she applied for special event permit to roll the balls down the hill as a charity event. It would be great if the fee could be waived. Mr. Passey advised that would be a council discussion and decision; he was open to ideas. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was language in the ordinance so a waiver was a possibility. Mr. Passey referred to ECC 4.100.090 that states permit fees may be waived in part or in full by the City. It was only anticipated that it would apply to the Chamber because they sponsor many of the events. Language could be added to say permit fees are hereby waived for all special events in which the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce is the applicant/sponsor. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adding other service organizations so it is not just the Chamber. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ADD LANGUAGE TO WAIVE FEES FOR SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. Council President Olson raised a point of order, stating there needed to be a main motion before an amendment was made. Mr. Passey advised typically there was a motion to pass the ordinance and then amendments were made. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO PASS THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET RELATED TO THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT CODE UPDATE. Council President Olson said she has been involved with the lengthy review. She was happy with the ordinance but planned to make several amendments. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ADD LANGUAGE TO WAIVE FEES FOR SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR EVENTS. Mr. Passey asked who would qualify as a service organization. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there were quite a few active ones in the City, they could be named in the ordinance if that was helpful. Mr. Passey said administrative services serves as a clearing house for special event permits but several departments touch the permits. He did not have subject matter expertise on every nuance of the permitting process and would defer to other departments regarding who is a service organization. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 22 Councilmember Paine said although she liked the idea of a waiver, it may be more effective to allow anyone access to a low cost permit. The review still needs to happen if an event will occupy the right-of- way and the City still incurs costs. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO AMEND TO ESTABLISH A REDUCED PERMIT FEE FOR NONPROFITS. As Councilmember Paine began making the above motion, Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, asking whether it was acceptable to amend an amendment. Mr. Taraday said an amendment to an amendment was appropriate as long as it was generally in the spirit of the first amendment. Amendment 1A COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO HAVE A REDUCED PRICE PERMIT FEE FOR EDMONDS-BASED NONPROFITS. Councilmember Paine commented it was important for the City to recognize the value of time; a reduced price would be helpful for nonprofits and recognize the work being done by the City. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the amendment as it adds language regarding what qualifies as a service organization. He supported having nonprofits apply for the waiver. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Paine. She fills out the application for the Halloween Howl which is sponsored by a nonprofit so she knew it required a lot of paperwork and review including parks, police and the clerk. A reduced fee would be great for nonprofits and suggested the organization specify they are a nonprofit and not a service organization as some service organization do not qualify as a nonprofit 501(c)(3). She will support the amendment to the amendment. Council President Olson commented the Chamber is not a 501(c)(3). She asked if she could make an unrelated motion about a contract for the Halloween event and the holiday tree lighting. Mr. Taraday advised such a motion would be out of order at this time. Council President Olson reiterated the Chamber would not qualify for a reduced fee waiver. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the amount of a low cost waiver. Councilmember Paine suggested 50%. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested including that in the motion. Mr. Passey said it did not sound like the council would get to a final ordinance approval tonight and suggested passing it on the consent agenda to ensure the wording met with council’s approval Council President Olson began to make an amendment to add that the reduction was 50% for nonprofits. Mr. Taraday said the council will need to at least vote on the amendment to the amendment first as there cannot be a tertiary amendment. Action on Amendment 1A AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO HAVE THE REDUCTION BE 50% FOR NONPROFITS. Action on Amendment 2 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday stated the pending amendment is to amend the code to include a 50% reduction for Edmonds-based nonprofits. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 23 Action on Amendment 1 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, IN 4.100.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL SPECIAL EVENTS, CHANGE E TO F AND ADD A NEW E THAT READS “COUNCIL APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ALL SPECIAL EVENTS THAT INVOLVE RIGHT-OF-WAY CLOSURES WHEN THEY ARE RECURRING OR EXCEED 5 DAYS IN LENGTH.” Council President Olson commented it is in the public’s interest for the council to weigh in on decisions that affect transportation access in the City on a regular basis or for a long period of time. Councilmember Paine asked how five days would be calculated, whether it was five consecutive days, or five days in a month. Council President Olson responded the motion states recurring or exceeded five days in length so either five days at a time or one day at a time if it happens repeatedly. Action on Amendment 3 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Amendment 4 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO ADD “AND” AFTER THE LAST DRAFTED WHEREAS CLAUSE AND ADD, “WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT ADDING COUNCIL APPROVAL TO EXTENDED OR REPEATING CLOSURES OF PUBLIC RIGHTS- OF-WAY IS IN THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST.” Action on Amendment 4 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson referred to 4.90.020 Activities requiring license, and questioned whether the section is more restrictive than the council wants it to be. The council and community members were pleased with the Uptown Market, but it would not meet the requirements of this section as it was held on a Wednesday and in the right-of-way. She asked staff to consider that issue. Mr. Passey said he would need to follow up with staff. As the Uptown Market was organized by former Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty, he was unsure how much information was available. Council President Olson pointed out it was a City sponsored event and would be covered by 4.90.020. According to this section, it would not be permissible, so the section may be more restrictive than the council wants it to be. Mr. Passey offered to research.. Council President Olson referred to 4.52.060 License required which contains a lot about adult entertainment, but no Edmonds prohibitions like proximity to residents, schools, parks or churches. She asked staff to consider that. She recalled the pot shop ordinance had similar restrictions so possibly that language could be included. Mr. Passey recalled Council President Olson asking him about adult entertainment and he forwarded Mr. Lien’s response to Council President Olson. Mr. Taraday explained adult entertainment businesses are entitled to significantly greater first amendment protection than pot shops so it may not work to use the same regulation for adult entertainment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 24 businesses. It is not that the City cannot regulate adult entertainment businesses, but it requires careful study to understand the nature of the problem to be addressed and to employ a reasonable time, place and manner restriction to regulate them so the City is not violating the First Amendment. It may not be possible to accomplish that by next week. If the council wants to take that one on, staff could do it although he was unsure where the starting point would be absent a list of things to be addressed in that regard. Mr. Passey read from Mr. Lien’s response, sexually oriented businesses are only allowed in the CG zone which is Highway 99. Location and separation requirements are provided in the development code. MR. Lien also provided a map illustrating where sexually oriented business can be located; there are only certain areas in the City where they can exist. Council President Olson said that satisfied that issue. Amendment 5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND 4.12.055 STREET VENDOR REQUIREMENTS, TO ADD A NEW C THAT READS, “STREET VENDORS ARE SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS LAWS THAT APPLY TO THE BRICK AND MORTAR RESTAURANTS SUCH AS COMPOSABLE PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS AND PLASTIC STRAW AND UTENSIL BANS” AND RE-LETTER ALL THE ITEMS AFTER C. Council President Olson explained she did not want street vendors to have an advantage over the brick and mortar restaurants they compete with. She felt it would be fair to level the playing field and make all the limitations adopted for environmental reasons apply to street vendors as well. Councilmember Paine argued against the proposed amendment, finding the language vague. A brick and mortar restaurant will have many more restrictions compared to street vendors. She suggested street vendors comply with the compostable materials requirement, but having them comply with all rules is unreasonable. Council President Olson said she would accept that as a friendly amendment. Councilmember L. Johnson shared Councilmember Paine’s concerns. The vagueness sets it up for unintended consequences. Action on Amendment 5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment 6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO SAY STREET VENDORS ARE SUBJECT TO THE COMPOSTABLE AND BAG REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS THAT ARE IN EFFECT. Councilmember Paine commented some of the compostable and bag requirements are state rather than City requirements. Council President Olson welcomed an amendment. Amendment 6 Restated COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND, THE COMPOSABLE AND BAG LAWS AS THEY APPLY TO RESTAURANTS. Action on Amendment 6 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson referred to 4.100.020.A Definitions of City sponsored event, pointing out it is the only definition that does not include an example. She thought of Walkable Main Street and was unsure Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 25 what else would fit into that category. She suggested adding at least one example to be on par with the other definitions. Amendment 7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD WALKABLE MAIN STREET AS AN EXAMPLE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Olson asked if the main motion included putting it on the consent agenda. Mr. Passey said it did not, but it will need to be on the consent agenda following staff’s review. Amendment 8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO PUT APPROVAL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Action on Amendment 8 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Passey pointed out there is an accompanying resolution. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Main Motion MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT-RELATED FEES AND CHARGES TO ADD FEES RELATED TO THE CITY’S SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND PLACE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for her attempt to introduce a resolution to the city council in support of abortion rights and other reproduction rights and in opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. There was a missed opportunity tonight, when electeds have been hearing from residents who are in shock, dismayed and outraged, to voice their concerns and support for them. Tonight some councilmembers said things need to be practically addressed, don’t see a sense of urgency, need to be thoughtful, or wait for July. He did not know what was more urgent than abolishing a constitutional right for every woman. He expressed support for reproductive freedom and reproductive rights for women and looked forward to doing whatever he can and standing with others who wish to restore those rights. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mayor Nelson for his comments. She said many in the community are terrified about the removal of the fundamental right to reproductive privacy and choice and the threat to bodily autonomy for those persons who may become pregnant. Comments that we are safe because we live in Washington State are not accurate. According to an Everett Herald editorial today, Washington State voters approved access to abortion three years before Roe’s federal guarantee and offers no assurances that the right will not be threatened in the future depending on both chambers’ political makeup. What happens if an Edmonds resident travels out of state and has a medical emergency? Because of this concern and lack of codified guarantee coupled with the council’s commitment to speak out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 26 against discrimination against any residents, she believed the council owed it to the residents to use their collective voice through a resolution. She read the first part of the resolution: A RESOLUTION of the Edmonds City Council in support of abortion rights and other reproductive rights, in opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court majority decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, urging federal and state elected officials to codify abortion rights and other reproductive rights, and supporting Washington State’s commitment to protecting reproductive freedom. WHEREAS, from June 24-26th, 2022, millions gathered in cities across the United States, including in Snohomish County, to protest the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that has protected the freedom to seek an abortion since 1973; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade by a 7-2 vote in 1973 in recognition of the necessity of constitutionally guaranteed, national right to access abortion services through the education and pressure from the women’s liberation movement; and WHEREAS, reproductive freedom – including the right to make one of life’s most important decisions – whether or when to have children – is foundational to a person’s autonomy, dignity, and ability to participate fully in economic, social, and civic life; and WHEREAS, throughout history, laws banning abortion do not stop them from happening, but instead made them unsafe, leading to pain, suffering, loss of fertility, and even death; WHEREAS, according to reports published by the Guttmacher Institute, before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions were estimated to range from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year and constituted at least 17 percent of all maternal deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth in 1965 alone; WHEREAS, with the legalization of abortion services in the United States, these procedures have led to safer practices and drastically reduced the incidences of maternal deaths and hospitalizations related to abortion services; and WHEREAS, the American Psychological Association states that there is a preponderance of scientific data supporting the conclusion that freedom of choice and a woman’s control over her critical life decisions promotes psychological health; and WHEREAS, laws restricting access to abortion disproportionately impact poor, rural, working-class and persons of color who may not have the resources to cover the doctor fees, travel costs, childcare costs, and lost wages when seeking quality reproductive healthcare, because those who are wealthy have resources to obtain needed abortion care services; and WHEREAS, the overturning of a long-standing privacy precedent may also be applied to other U.S. Supreme Court settled cases, such as those protecting the right to birth control, which could strip people of the medical means necessary to determine when and whether to have children; Councilmember Paine said she was sorry the council was unable to hear this tonight. Some of the earlier comments were regarding whether this will impact Washington State. She assured it would impact Washington; Planned Parenthood estimates there will be 700% increase in requests for abortions in Washington, another source estimated a 450% increase. Washington does not have that level of service available. It will result in rationing healthcare, necessary abortion care services for women across the country. They will come to Washington, Oregon, and northeastern states; 26 states have trigger laws with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 27 the demise of Roe v. Wade. It is absolutely critical to have good abortion care services and recognize that this is a fundamental human right. Councilmember Paine continued, we fought for human rights for gay couples who wanted to get married and have children without having the state involved. We have come so far and this has taken us so far back. Washington has had over 50 years of solid abortion care access; the entire country needs that same access. Being able to choose when and whether to become a parent improves the entire community’s wellbeing and fosters economic security, and provides better access to healthcare and workplace protection for pregnant works. This court decision has hurt everyone and will do the most harm to low income people, people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, people who already face substantial barriers accessing reproductive services and healthcare. She read the remainder of the proposed resolution: WHEREAS, overturning Roe v. Wade disregards the human right to bodily autonomy, which could also set a legal precedent used to overturn healthcare and other legal rights for LGBTQ people, while transgender care is already under assault; and WHEREAS, the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a majority in the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency have the power to codify access to safe and abundantly available abortion care services and access to reproductive care and services for all people; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON THAT: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council is entirely opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in overturning Roe v. Wade, and the removal of federal protection for accessing reproductive care and services for all people. Section 2. The Edmonds City Council urges federal elected officials to pass legislation codifying the full right to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. The Edmonds City Council urges elected officials in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate to use their full power, not only to vote for such legislation but also to fight to end the filibuster and use their resources to restore the Roe V. Wade through federal legislation. Section 3. The Edmonds City Council directs copies of this Resolution shall be sent to Governor Inslee and our State representatives as a means of showing our City’s support for: A. The passage of a Washington State Constitutional amendment guaranteeing full access to abortion care services, and B. Increasing oversight over hospital mergers that have often interfered with the provision of reproductive health services for all people. C. Washington State’s recent letter of Commitment to Reproductive Freedom. Section 4. The Edmonds City Council directs that it is hereby the policy of the City of Edmonds, with the passage of this Resolution that the Edmonds Police Department will not commit any of their police services in the pursuit of any investigations related to those people who are seeking, or providing abortion care or reproductive health care services, as it is not a current public safety priority for our Edmonds community. Section 5. The Edmonds City Council strongly supports the grassroots organizing and movement building required to put social pressure on elected officials and the judiciary to defend against this historic attack on the rights of women, pregnant people, and the LGBTQ community, and encourages Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 28 Edmonds residents to continue to support efforts to protect reproductive freedom, through education and advocacy. Councilmember Paine requested the resolution be on the July 5 agenda. It is and issue happening now and she was worried if a statement was not made now, more time would be lost. Council President Olson commented there was a lot in the PROS Plan to be proud of as well as opportunities for improvement. She identified two improvements that she wanted to be sure were incorporated when the plan is updated in six years. First, to post flyers advertising input opportunities at parks and open spaces where the users are. Second, she hoped there would be a good, science based process for identifying, evaluating and prioritizing the open space choices in the next PROS Plan. That is not something that can be crowd sourced; location and access are very important and the potential for the most environment impact is also an important choice and there needs to be a system for doing that well. With regard to the other subject that has been brought up tonight, Council President Olson said as soon as she read the email, she offered the July 5th agenda so she did not need to be encouraged and asked for that tonight. She was personally shocked, dismayed and outraged over the decision; it was her personal choice to say that and to be on whatever journey she wants to be on personally to deal with what she thinks might need to be done which frankly is a constitutional amendment which people say will never happen. They are wrong, in her opinion that is the way this should be handled and it can be done. However, on the subject of a resolution and what the council says on behalf of the city, she is choosing to be thoughtful, something that she is not apologetic about. It is her duty and responsibility when speaking on behalf of the entire community to ensure what is said is appropriate for the vast majority of the community. She will be thoughtful about representing the community when she votes next week. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:25. MOTION CARRIED (5-2). Councilmember Buckshnis said she was old enough to remember rallying and doing sit-ins in high school regarding the Roe v Wade issue. She appreciated everyone’s anger and trying to push things through and to make it sound like we are in a panic mode. The most important thing people can do is contact the council to provide their opinion. Everyone has an opinion. What happened is catastrophically shocking. She will write her federal legislators asking them to expand the Supreme Court. What happened, stepping back 50 years, is totally irresponsible from a judicial standpoint. Expanding the Supreme Court is the only option because she did not see things changing. She trusted Council President Olson that the resolution will be on next week’s agenda. She planned to be thoughtful and pragmatic and urged people to continue contacting her. She acknowledged the good news that the City received $2.8 million for flower baskets and beautification. Councilmember Chen referred to the Supreme Court’s decision, commenting the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade is an affront to women rights and frankly to human rights. Personally, he has a responsibility to protect his mother, his wife and daughters because women’s health is at stake. Many community members know he is a peacemaker and seeks the middle ground on issues, but for this issue, there is no middle ground. Personally, he stands with women’s rights and human rights and he hoped the community would stand up with him. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the best thing to come out of tonight’s council meeting was the acceptance of over $1 million for the flower basket and beautification program. It will help make Edmonds even more beautiful than it already is and she look forward to expanding flower baskets at Five Corners and a few other areas of the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28, 2022 Page 29 Councilmember Tibbott thanked the council for allowing him to participate remotely. He is currently in Mexico surrounded by 500 year old buildings and cobblestone streets. The resolution caught him by surprise and he was thankful the council did not consider it this evening as it will give everyone a chance to more aware of the issues. From his perspective, the resolution was lacking in a number of areas; he would like to have a Whereas clause added that states the unborn also have rights. It is important to recognize that the number of aborted fetuses over the last 50 years would be in the hundreds of millions. It is also valuable to recognize that many people, include pro-abortion advocates, appreciate the recognition that unborn life matters. He was uncertain if the council would be able to discuss that as part of the meeting. He will be in transit on July 5th and unlikely to participate in the council meeting. Councilmember Tibbott continued, his family is in Mexico visiting his wife’s family and taking care of elderly people. He is prolife which includes from womb to tomb. He and his family members are providing care to those who are vulnerable and need protection at the end of their lives, including both parents who are still alive. He stood for all those who value life and would like to see that amplified in the resolution. He also appreciated that the resolution amplifies what the council previously passed with regard to fairness and Edmonds being a safe place for people to live, work and visit. Councilmember Tibbott echoed the gratitude for the gift to the City. He anticipated the beautification program could be extended as a result and that many areas of the City would benefit from this very generous donation to the City. Council President Olson requested the record reflect that Councilmember L. Johnson left during Councilmember Tibbott’s comments. He listened with respect to all the other councilmember’s comments. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.