Loading...
Cmd021621EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES February 16, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTION CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH Council President Paine read a resolution of the City Council celebrating Black History Month, proclaiming the month of February 2021 as Black History Month and recognizing diversity as an abiding strength to the Edmonds community. 2. RESOLUTION HONORING THE LIFE OF DICK VAN HOLLEHEKE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 1 Council President Paine recognized numerous people in the virtual audience to honor the life of Dick Van Hollebeke. She recognized some his achievements: former City Councilmember, a proud member of the community who will be missed always, served two terms as a trustee for Edmonds Community College (he thought they should have kept "community" in their name) and ten years on the ECC Foundation, creating the Center for Families which included a preschool, fundraising for the new library and Lynnwood Hall, a show called "Triton Talks" where he interviewed and reported on national and local people and events, created the first role for a student representative on the trustee board, and never missed any student events at the college. He was also a member of the P6tanque Club and while there, the membership grew from 5 to 95 and tournament play raised funds for the Edmonds Food Bank. Dick served as a board member for the Edmonds Food Bank as well as an active member of the Chamber of Commerce focusing on economic development. He was a member of the Holy Rosary Church where he coordinated hundreds of volunteers for landscaping and served on the parish council. Dick had an artistic side and sang for the Choir of the Sound, the Sno-King Chorale and once sang for the Civic Light Opera. He swam daily at either Yost or the Lynnwood Pool and he loved serving on the Edmond City Council. Council President Paine read a resolution honoring the life of Dick Van Hollebeke and describing his service to the public and his community for decades and recognizing him as a distinguished Edmonds citizen whose contributions will be missed. Mark Van Hollebeke, one of Dick's six children, expressed his gratitude to the Council President, Mayor and Councilmembers for this recognition and for the resolution. It means a tremendous amount to their family and would have meant a great deal to his dad who loved Edmonds with his whole heart and treated the community as his family. They miss him but know he had a life well lived. They are extremely proud of him and are grateful for this resolution and the recognition. Monda Van Hollebeke, on behalf of her family, thanked Susan Paine, all the members of the City Council and Mayor Nelson for honoring her husband, Dick, with this resolution. He loved the Edmonds community. She learned from the hundreds of phone calls, letters, cards and emails since his January 2 death that she had been married all this time to a secret celebrity, a man admired and loved by many people in Edmonds. Edmonds was their home for 44 years and they both felt so lucky to have landed in this beautiful city, to have resided and worked in Edmonds for most of their married life. Dick's efforts to contribute grew out of gratitude and a sense of duty to give back, to do his share and to set an example for his children. She relayed a comment she received in a letter that summed up Dick's philosophy, the call to be involved is really the backbone of how we get along and learn to understand one another. Many recognized that in him, the basic civic impulse that causes us all to try. She was deeply honored on his behalf to accept this resolution from the Edmonds City Council. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Items 7.5, Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report, and Item 7.8, Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Repealing Resolution 1306, be removed from the Consent Agenda and postponed to a future date. She explained the Preliminary December 2020 Quarterly Financial Report was presented to the Finance Committee and the committee unanimously recommended a presentation to Council on February 25. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO PLACE THE PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 2020 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT ON THE FEBRUARY 25 AGENDA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 2 Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the recommendation for a presentation to Council was unanimously approved by the Finance Committee, however, Council President Paine decided not to follow that recommendation. Council President Paine raised a point of order, Councilmembers are to speak to the motion and not to the person. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis commented for some reason the item is not on the agenda for a presentation to the Council and public which she felt marginalized the committee and the public who believe in transparency. She requested a 15 minute presentation on February 25 as was agreed to at the Finance Committee. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out February 25"' is a Thursday. Councilmember Buckshnis amended her request, to have the presentation made at the February 23rd meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Quarterly Financial Report is in the minutes under Council Committee reports. Council President Paine agreed it was. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the rationale for scheduling it on the Consent Agenda was because it was already published in last week's agenda. Council President Paine agreed the report was already published and adequately discussed at the Finance Committee. Councilmember K. Johnson said what is at stake is the role of the committees. It is the role of the committee to decide where an item should be on the Council agenda, whether it is on the Consent Agenda, a presentation or discussion and the committee's decision should be honored. She recommended either following that practice or leave it up to the helter-skelter way of the previous administration. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who makes the final decision regarding what is on City Council meeting agendas. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referenced Chapter 1.04 regarding committee functions, advising that that section of the code does not contemplate this exact scenario; it contemplates a scenario where committee members forward items onto the Consent Agenda and which requires unanimous consent of the committee members. The chapter is silent with respect to any other unanimous recommendation of the committee and does not address this exact scenario. For example, it does not address whether committees have the power to set an agenda item for a specific Council meeting. The Council President's has the authority to set the agenda for every meetings in the absence of City Council direction to the contrary. That agenda is only preliminary because once the Council meeting starts, the Council can amend the agenda which is what Councilmember Buckshnis' motion relates to. He summarized fundamentally the code is silent regarding whether committees have the power to set items for a particular date. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Council President Paine's decision was appropriate within her authority. Mr. Taraday agreed it was within her authority. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it takes four votes to put it on another agenda in February or to leave it on Consent. Mr. Taraday said it only takes one vote to remove an item from Consent. The Council President placed this on Consent; any one Councilmember can take it off of Consent. Taking an item off Consent and moving it to another meeting would require four votes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed it could be moved onto tonight's agenda for discussion. Mr. Taraday said any time a matter is pulled from the Consent Agenda, the default is it becomes a regular agenda item for that same meeting if the Council does not take other action. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding that the minutes of the Finance Committee are in the agenda packet and there is a taped recording of the meeting. City Clerk Scott Passey said all committee meetings videos are posted to the website. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 3 public could go to the City's website and watch the committee video. Mr. Passey agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was comfortable with putting this item on tonight's agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, the committee recommended a different date because the Administration was not ready to do a presentation tonight. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Buckshnis asked to have it pulled off the Consent Agenda and if there was no other action, it would be placed on tonight's agenda whether staff was present to address it or not. Mr. Taraday agreed, when an item is pulled from the Consent Agenda, it is placed on the regular agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was comfortable with Council President Paine's decision to place the report on the Consent Agenda. The public can watch the meeting and/or read the minutes. She did not support having every committee meeting items discussed as agenda items because that just clogs up the agendas as occurred last year. Councilmember Olson offered two points, one about precedent and asked what has typically been done with the reports provided to the Finance Committee. In addition to precedent, she asked what kind of importance something is given on the regular agenda. She did not expect the average citizen to watch regular Council meetings let alone watch committee meetings. Reviewing the financials on a quarterly basis and prioritizing that during a meeting seem appropriate to her. Council President Paine relayed her understanding that this was not a debatable item and required simply an up or down vote. Mr. Taraday explained pulling an item from the Consent Agenda requires no vote, but a motion was made to move this item to another Council meeting which does requires a vote and is debatable. Councilmember Buckshnis said the reason the quarterly report was not placed on tonight's agenda was because the Council President indicated tonight's agenda was too full and she did not want to have the presentation on a night with a full agenda. A presentation of the financials is much different than vetting the financials. There have been presentations on the quarterly financials by the Administration during the pandemic except maybe during the time when financials were not essential business. She cited the importance of quarterly yearend financials, especially during a pandemic, and said there should be a presentation which the Finance Committee and the Finance Director agreed was appropriate. There is plenty of time on the February 23rd agenda for a 15 minute presentation and it is important for citizens interested in the financials to have a presentation. A presentation will illustrate that the Mayor and Administration did a great job last year managing the City's finances. She did not understand why a 15 minute presentation was not allowed on a future agenda when that had been done as long as she had been on Council. She summarized she was interested in transparency, expressing concern that this was being discussed when it should simply be done quarterly. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the motion for two reasons, first it is a good idea for the full Council to receive summaries of this nature. The Council is planning to have a retreat to discuss financials which indicates how important the budget and finances are. Second, in all her years on committees, the Council President has honored the committee's recommendations and that tradition should prevail. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed in the past quarterly reports have been presented to Council, but that was before everything was taped. When the public can view the tapes, it makes no difference whether it is done live on television versus watching the tape and minutes of the committee meeting are included in tonight's packet. She agreed with Council President Paine's decision, finding it make more sense to place the reports on Consent and allow people to look at the tapes if they are interested. In the past, committee meetings were not taped as they are now which is a good way for citizens to see Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 4 Councilmembers at work in committees. In addition, there are summary minutes of the committee meetings. She noted one Councilmember attends every committee meeting. She did not support the motion as she agreed with Council President Paine's decision to put the reports on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis said the packet does not contain the notes of the Finance Committee or any of the committees. She pointed out a PowerPoint presentation by staff that includes graphs and numbers is far different than members asking questions and discussing the report during the committee meeting. That was important and putting the reports on the Consent Agenda was a lack of transparency and she hoped the Council would support her motion. Councilmember Distelhorst said he did not see Finance Director Turley in tonight's meeting and it would be nice not to call him in. As this item has been removed from the Consent Agenda, it would require action tonight to move it to next week. He reviewed the quarterly report, which is very strong financially, and he had no problem with it being on Consent because he was able to review it and citizens were able to watch the committee meeting. This item has now been removed from the Consent Agenda and he suggested moving the meeting along due to the lengthy meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the committee minutes are in tonight's packet. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: TO MOVE ITEM 7.5, THE PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 2020 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, TO THE FEBRUARY 23RD MEETING FOR PRESENTATION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE ITEM 7.8, RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION 1306, TO MARCH 2Nn Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to postpone this item to March 2" d for 15 minutes on the advice of the Council President because that seemed to be the best time for it and it was not time sensitive. This resolution is the code of conduct and the City Council did not provide direction to rescind the resolution. Councilmember Distelhorst said this described in the subcommittee's January 12"' presentation, the third bullet point on the first slide, remove City Councilmembers from Resolution 1306, which is all this action does. It rescinds the resolution and readopts it without those works. Although he was also initially confused, it simply deletes "City Councilmembers" so there are not two separate codes of conduct that apply to the City Council. Passage of this resolution rescinds Resolution 1306 and adopts another resolution with the edit deleting "City Councilmembers." There are no other changes proposed to Resolution 1306. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not recall that being in the first slides and did not recall the Council discussing it. The committee may have reached that conclusion in their meeting but that was not her understanding. This is a big enough change that it needs to be considered. When she discussed this previously with Mr. Taraday, he indicated the new code of conduct or ethics would supplement what was already in place. It was her understanding there would be no changes to Resolution 1306. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Council President Paine's opinion, recalling a Councilmember said Council President Paine supported moving this to another date. She requested Mayor Nelson call on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 5 Council President Paine next for her opinion. Mayor Nelson advised he would proceed in the order Council members had requested to speak; Council President Paine would follow Councilmember Distelhorst. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the third bullet in the subcommittee's presentation that states, "draft code of conduct would only replace Resolution No. 1306 for Councilmembers. Resolution 1306 would still apply to other parties" which is what the proposed resolution does. He checked and found that was properly recorded in the January 19"' minutes. Council President Paine relayed her preference to act on this tonight as there is no need to do anything further; she would have preferred it remain on the Consent Agenda because it is very perfunctory and does not need to be discussed outside the Consent Agenda. She preferred to address it at the end of tonight's agenda in New Business. Councilmember Buckshnis amended the motion to indicate Item 7.8 will be added to the agenda at the end of the meeting under New Business. Mr. Taraday clarified that is what happens automatically when a Councilmember pulls something from the Consent Agenda so at this point it is no longer a motion. Mayor Nelson advised 7.8, Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Repealing Resolution 1306, will be placed on the agenda as Item 9.2. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. There were no audience comments. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 7.5 AND 7.8. Councilmember Distelhorst requested Item 7.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda as he will be abstaining from the vote on that item. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 3. YOUTH COMMISSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 6. ILA WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR THE 76TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT 7. AUTHORIZATION OF A PEDESTRIAN/UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG 80TH AVE W ADJACENT TO 18227 80TH AVE W Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 6 ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 4. PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 GRANT ILA -LEAP COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 GRANT ILA FOR LEAP. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1, COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST ABSTAINING. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: + Tree Regulations Update Goals o Improve tree retention with new development on private property o Implement low impact development principles o Establish a Tree Fund o Other updates * Definitions • Existing permitting process * Penalties Related UFMP Goals o Goal 1 —Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not meet the no net loss policy. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds Draft Tree Regulations o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC ■ Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, violations o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund Additional Tree Topic Timeline Tree Retention on all properties Begin Q1/Q2 2021 Complete Q4 2021 — Q 12022 Street Tree Plan and Inventory Began Q1 2021 Inventory complete Q2 2021 Street Tree Plan Complete Q4 2021 CanopX Coverage Analysis With funding could begin Q2 Non -regulatory Incentives Tree Voucher Q3 or Q4 Financial Incentives 1 year to develop Education Ongoing Recognition Pro rams Heritage Tree — Begin Q2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 7 Certificate ro i-aims — 1 year to develop Watershed and Stormwater Planning New Municipal Stormwater Permit — 2022 Watershed Inventory — 2022 Stormwater Management Action Plan — 2023 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan 2022 Stream and Wildlife Corridors Critical Area Code On oin education efforts Mr. Lien explained one of the primary concerns expressed by the City Council and the Planning Board was expanding the scope of the tree regulations related to retention on all properties including developed single family properties. Work on those regulations could begin this quarter or the beginning of next quarter. Regulations typically take about six months to work their way through the process. There are examples available that can be considered; however, a new code requires review by the Planning Board and the City Council, a process that takes a minimum of six months. He anticipated regulations related to trees on all property would draw more attention and the public engagement may need to be more robust which is the reason the above schedule indicates completion in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022. With regard to the Street Tree Plan and Street Tree Inventory, Mr. Lien said the tree inventory is scheduled to be completed spring/summer 2021 following leaf out. The Street Tree Plan process is underway and likely will be completed by the end of 2021. With regard to a canopy coverage analysis, Mr. Lien explained a canopy coverage analysis was done in the UFMP based on a 2015 aerial photo. A goal of the UFMP was to report on canopy coverage at least every ten years, so in 2025. Another canopy coverage analysis could begin in Q2 with funding. Whether it could be completed in 2021 would depend on when a flight could be done; lidar is a more accurate way to do a canopy coverage analysis or the analysis could be done based on a new aerial photo. A 2020 aerial photos will be available soon. The cost of a lidar analysis ranges from $18,000 to $25,000 depending on the amount of detail. With regard to non -regulatory incentives in the code, Mr. Lien did not anticipate the City would achieve no net loss of canopy coverage through regulations alone and there need to be incentives to maintain trees. One of the incentives mentioned in the UFMP is tree vouchers to plant trees. If the draft regulations are passed, staff could potentially have the tree voucher program up and running by Q3 or Q4 2021 depending on funding. Financial incentives mentioned in the UFMP include a property tax rebate for the applicable portion of the City's property taxes, storinwater utility fee reduction, or other similar financial incentives. Further research of financial incentives and what impact that could potentially have on the City's budget will be required. With regard to education, Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 4 that references the education work being done by the Tree Board such as posting signs, tree plantings, brochures, etc. The new tree code will also require educating developers and property owners on the approach of the new code such as instead of clear -cutting sites, doing preapplication meetings and thinking about tree retention early in the development process. With regard to recognition programs, the UFMP mentions a Heritage Tree Program as well as certificate programs. The Heritage Tree Program requires a code update which could begin this year and will take about six months to complete. A Heritage Tree Program would recognize special trees in the City and the property owners who care for them. He envisioned it to be something like the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He envisioned a certificate program would be similar to the Backyard Wildlife programs that recognize how people care for their property. It may be appropriate to combine certificate programs Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 8 with financial programs; for example, someone who has their property certified for X percent canopy coverage with native species, etc. would quality for a financial incentive. With regard to watershed and stormwater planning, Mr. Lien said watershed planning is part of Public Works' Stormwater division. The City is required to obtain a new Municipal Stormwater Permit by 2022 which has certain associated requirements. The new requirements include a Watershed Inventory in 2022 and a Stormwater Management Action Plan which is required by 2023. The City is also beginning a Stormwater Comprehensive Plan this year which should be completed by yearend. In conferring with Zach Richardson, the City's Stormwater Engineer, there is planning underway, particularly with the Perrinville Watershed, for more detailed studies. With regard to stream and wildlife corridors, Mr. Lien advised the Critical Area Code regulates activity within a stream corridor as well as regulations related to wildlife corridors, primarily tied to 30% native vegetation requires in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones. There are also ongoing education efforts. One of the primary points of contact of streamside property owners with the City is stormwater crews who frequently walk the stream corridors and interface with property owners by providing information regarding best management practices for activities along streambeds. There is also a website on the stormwater management page with information for streamside owners. He suggested partnering with organizations like Stream Keepers; the City has also been funding Students Saving Salmon who have done a lot of work on stream corridors and outreach to property owners. The City may also want to designate a portion of the tree vouchers for plantings within the stream corridors. Mr. Lien invited Council to identify additional tree topics. Councilmember Olson said she was surprised to see this was the complete list of additional tree topics. She recalled the Planning Board recommended looking at intent and purpose regarding viewsheds and possible hedge issues related to views, finding a balance and understanding that trees have impacts on views. She asked why that topic was not on the list in spite of the unanimous Planning Board vote and the fact that it has been asked for during Council meetings. Development Services Director Shane Hope said it was absolutely assumed that would be part of the discussion on the tree code amendment affecting all properties; issues that have been raised such as views, types of trees, other plantings, etc. related to regulations on private property would be included in the topic, "Tree Retention on All Properties." Councilmember Olson said she would like to see that included in writing, recognizing it would be captured in the minutes. She said trees and views have been an expressed interest and a concern expressed by citizens. Ms. Hope said that can be noted in the table. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the table above (and contained on packet page 422). With regard to Councilmember Olson's comment, districting or views versus non -views was a consistent theme raised during the UFMP. She recognized many people get upset about tree regulations on private property. She recalled in a previous version, the Davies Group's proposal illustrate a number of trees in the bowl area, an illustration that was removed as that was not the intent. She agreed with Councilmember Olson about the need to differentiate so people understand that there are a lot of viewsheds in different areas throughout the City. People are concerned about impacts to their private property and not having their view impacted. She recommended including districting and/or view versus non -view to address people's fears. Councilmember Buckshnis said the intent is a comprehensive tree code for the watersheds, but it appears from the presentation that the comprehensive tree code will not be complete this year as some tasks extend into 2022. Mr. Lien said staff s hope was that the tree regulations that are before Council are a first step and that portion can be moved forward to adoption. The next step would be to consider tree retention on all properties. There are examples of tree codes in other cities that can be considered but that code will Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 9 need to be developed and taken through the process. At a bare minimum, it generally takes six months to run code through the Planning Board and back through City Council. When the discussion turns to trees on all developed property which will include views, it will draw a lot more attention and require much more public engagement which is the reason the timeline extends into possibly 2022. Ms. Hope clarified it was not that staff wanted it to take that amount of time; the intent was to start it in Q2, but recognizing it is important to a lot of people, it could require more public process. There are several meetings at the Planning Board and whenever anything of significance comes to the City Council, it will take several more City Council meetings. That is why the longest scenario extends through the end of 2021 or possibly into early 2022 if there is a lot of public concern. From a technical perspective, options for a code can be drafted within a much shorter time. Councilmember Buckshnis said based on past experience, she expects a huge amount of input regarding private property. Many other cities have tree codes. She recalled a tree code was reviewed by the Planning Board in the past and many sections of it could be included in this current code. She expressed concern with the number of loopholes in the proposed code and preferred developing a better, more comprehensive tree code. She recalled the budget included a senior planner and asked if that person will be working on the tree code. Ms. Hope answered yes. Council President Paine said her biggest concern was there are no metrics to measure anything by and there is no solid data. The UFMP used an aerial photograph that does not show the depth of the canopy so it is impossible to see low environmentally effective trees are for the commmunity. Climate change is happening, there was half again more rain in January; large trees help soak up the extra water. She expressed support for a lidar canopy analysis and if necessary finding ways to improve and build on the tree canopy based on the data collect from the lidar. This is a good first step, but she worried about trees on single family parcels and the need for metrics to measure against and incentives. This still looks like a tree code trying to shape up the development code, but there needs to be intentionality in the first section related to why the City is doing this and how to reach a codified tree code. She was interested in having metrics in the code and attending documents to describe the annual goal. She was also interested in incentives via a thorough canopy study and targets to shoot for. Councilmember K. Johnson said one of her concerns is the type of trees that are planted. Last week Mr. Lien said it was up to the homeowner whether they planted an apple tree or other species. In her opinion if a tree such as a 5 0- 100 year old Douglas fir is removed, as a disincentive the developer should be asked to plant three Douglas firs for every one removed. She recalled three houses that were developed in her neighborhood on a property that included 20 fruit trees, 8-12 major native species, and another 20 trees that were used as hedgerows. The developer told her when they are selling houses, people prefer to have a clean landscape so they cut down/bulldoze every living blade of grass and pushed the development as close to the row of native trees as possible. That was not necessary as they were within the 5-foot setback but they wanted to increase the lawn on the other side of the house where there was solar access. She understood it was a balancing act, but unless the code specifies the retention of natives, they will be cut down without regard and without replacement. For example, if a bigleaf maple is cut down, three bigleaf maples or at least one should be replaced. She did not see anything in the code about protecting native species, noting Goal 5 relates to maintaining native species. Councilmember K. Johnson said her other concern is people have written and testified to the Council elevating many issues, but she did not see any attention given to those. She requested all the letters and testimony be included in a future Council packet and a general response to the major ideas and concerns. There are many people in community more educated than Council on this topic and she wanted to take advantage of their expertise. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 10 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled hearing comments about trees blocking views and asked for a list of cities in Washington and particularly the Puget Sound area that protect views over the environment. The only place she was aware of that protected views was Ennis Arden. Ms. Hope said there were not many cities with tree codes that address trees not blocking views. Councilmember L. Johnson said starting with the assumption that all agreed trees were essential, critical for human health, planet health and basically survival, there are already defined protected critical area. Her home is in such an area which means there are restrictions or the government telling her what she can/cannot do with her property. That is done in the interest of community and environmental protection, health and the enjoyment of the community. If everyone agrees trees are essential as stated in the Intent and Purposes section, "To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds" isn't that saying that trees are critical? And if they are critical, shouldn't they be protected as such even if that means regulations to facilitate canopy coverage and coverage that is adequate to protect said critical needs? Councilmember L. Johnson said this code has been in the works for nearly 10 years and has included thousands of volunteer and staff hours. The Council allocated $25,000 toward a study and then a decision was made to wait for the UFMP. The UFMP came out almost two years ago. This is a first step but there is still a need for a comprehensive code. She asked what needed to be done to ensure that code was developed sooner rather than later, recalling a number of Councilmembers campaigned on environmental platforms. Looking at the history and reading minutes of past meetings indicate this is a good start but some things need to be done first. At one time there was discussion about maintaining the current canopy with no net loss. However, the canopy continues to decrease which begs the question of where that benchmark is now. She was frustrated with researching this and trying determine what will make a strong code. She questioned whether the Council accepts this as step 1 which she is prepared to do with some improvements, but wanted assurance the remainder would come to Council within six months to show it is a Council priority. Council President Paine agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson, the Council has talked about this a lot and consideration needs to be given to how to treat all parcels equitably. She understood the incremental approach, and asked if it would be possible to include the single family parcels now and return with adjustments later. Ms. Hope answered that would need to go back to the Planning Board as it was a different level of protection. Staff is committed to working on that issue and bringing it back as efficiently and quickly as possible while providing opportunity for public input. She believed it could be back to Council within six months, perhaps less, but what happens after that was up to the Council. Council President Paine asked if could be an interim tree code and include single family parcels. Ms. Hope answered that would be a huge shift; it could be done as an interim ordinance, but realistically there is not enough staff to handle it. It would take several more staff to manage that process and implementation would require more resources, otherwise it is just empty words. She assumed the Council's intent was to have staff to explain the regulations and tree options, to develop a process for denying permits unless the intent was to automatically issue permits, to develop criteria for granting/denying permits, as well as for enforcement. If the tree code is important and critical and the intent is to have it followed, enforcement will be a necessary component. Council President Paine suggested adding develop an urban forestry section to the list of tree topics so there are resources for staff with technical expertise, code enforcement, etc. Councilmember Olson expressed support at this point for the Council staying on task with the narrower focus of the current code as proposed by the Administration. The Council was expecting a comprehensive tree code and were surprised by this, but she could see the value of handling the other aspects separately. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 11 The Council can delve into this tonight and get something done on the part that is related to the moratorium. It is not super responsible of the Council to leave the moratorium in place without doing what they can to lift the moratorium. Her comfort for proceeding with this part was the matrix provided by the Administration shows staff s commitment to the other topics and to a timeline. Councilmember Olson expressed support for prioritizing stormwater issues related to trees. That is an excellent priority for the City and something that has been on her radar. She supported the idea of tying the stormwater abatement fee to what is being doing on a property if that directly affects the stormwater. She did not see as much of a connection between the property tax. She pushed back on the Heritage Tree Program, commenting the UFMP does not directly call out a Heritage Tree Program, only a recognition program. She encouraged the Administration, Council, Tree Board and others to focus on the true outcomes and things that support those outcomes and not spend time, money and resources on things that do not directly tie from one thing to the other. Councilmember Olson commented the topic of stream and wildlife corridors was recently added to the matrix; an outcome that is critical to the environment, wildlife, etc. For example, the trees on a property that a bald eagle relies on for a perch and a nest, outreach to that property owner and possibly resources via the arborist regarding how to be a good steward to that tree on their property and making them aware of the role that tree plays supports the end goal. The extra feel good programs that take money to implement and support are less worthy. She encouraged staff to evaluate those and not do them by rote and without thought regarding whether they best support the desired outcomes. Mr. Lien referred to Goal LD in the UFMP, Develop a Heritage Tree Program. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for Councilmembers' comments about how critical this is and ensuring at some point all properties, undeveloped or developed, are included in the tree code. He appreciated that staff was at capacity and he did not want to pass a code that was unenforceable. The draft code includes a definition of specimen trees; he asked whether narrowing the focus on already developed properties to specimen trees would be more enforceable within current resource levels. Mr. Lien answered staffing will be an issue related to reviewing tree removal on all single family properties even just specimen trees. The first step with specimen trees will be education, reaching out to all property owners to inform them they may no longer be exempt and may need a permit. informing property owners is important; otherwise there will be a large enforcement issue. Mr. Lien explained a lot of jurisdictions regulate tree removal on all properties and it is done in a lot of different ways. Some allow two trees to be removed in a certain time period as long as there are no critical areas, but the property owner has to apply. In those cities, if a property owners wants to cut more than two tree, a permit is required. The City will need to develop criteria for removing more than the minimum. It will take time to review and track applications even requests to remove two trees/year. He summarized it will take a lot more time to review tree removal on all properties and time equals staff. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember L. Johnson's comments. Council has been on the path related to trees for a long time. She was disheartened that the Administration chose to do this narrow focus and didn't talk to Council about it last year. She preferred to extend the moratorium for two months and send this back to the Administration and possibly include two Councilmember to work on specifics that need to be included in the draft code which could be interim if necessary. She recognized there were view areas and avoiding trees impacting views. She recognized that staffing was tight, and offered her and the Tree Board's assistance. She preferred to take the time and develop something as comprehensive as possible, to step back and get more done. Mr. Lien advised before staff began developing the tree code update, staff presented the topics that the tree code update would focus on to Council last August. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis recalled that was also presented to the Tree Board. She recalled when the Planning Board asked questions that were outside the matrix, staff pulled them back to the matrix. She agreed the matrix was presented and Council was made aware of it, but she did not recall the Council discussing it or why the Planning Board's recommendations were not reviewed or discussed. Some Planning Board members had issues with the proposed code and wanted to address views versus no views. She agreed staff had presented the matrix of topics that would be addressed; however, based on all the years the tree code has been discussed, the proposed code should be tweaked to get something done in the next two months. Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated that this work requires a significant amount of staff time and this work has been done along with the extra things staff is being asked to do during the pandemic. She also appreciated the comment regarding the need for the code to be enforceable. She asked what could be done to move forward with a comprehensive tree code. She asked whether the tree fund could be used to fund an urban forest manager position, what other funding was necessary to move this forward, and what did Council need to do to show that this is a priority. Ms. Hope answered one of the important things that would be needed was a budget amendment to hire additional staff. Several additional staff would be required to accomplish what the Council has mentioned and that staff would need to be in place prior to implementation. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if those staff would be needed in the future when tree regulations were adopted for all properties by late 2021 or early 2022. Ms. Hope agreed they would and referenced the larger matrix in the packet that states additional staff would be necessary to implement tree retention on all properties. Council President Paine requested a definition for canopy and for tree, noting the current code does not have a definition of tree. A definition of canopy would help people understand what the City is trying to conserve. Mr. Lien answered there is a definition of tree in 23.10.020.P, a tree means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or in certain species multiple trunks that is recognized as a tree by the nursery or arboriculture industries. There is also a definition for significant tree, specimen tree and heritage tree. Council President Paine asked if there was a definition for canopy. Mr. Lien answered definitions usually pertain to something in code that is being regulated and there are no specific canopy regulations in this code. Council President Paine suggested developing canopy goals via the lidar analysis. Ms. Hope said the lidar analysis can be done this summer. Moving forward with issues related to the moratorium now to protect trees during development and prevent tree clearing would give time for the tree canopy assessment as work continues on the regulations, incentives, funding and staffing. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to page 30 of the UFMP that states existing canopy covers 30.3% of the City and decision -makers can set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. The UFMP also states in 2010 the City was closer to a 32% canopy cover. A good starting point would be to establish that goal. She asked what the Council was being asked for tonight, whether it was amendments to what has been proposed or should Councilmembers send staff their recommended changes. Ms. Hope said staff wanted to know, 1) whether Council agreed with the additional topics and the timeframe for addressing those, and 2) whether there were additional amendments before part 1 of the code moves forward. The draft code will still be brought back to Council in the form of an ordinance at a future meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if Councilmembers should suggest amendments tonight or send them to staff. Ms. Hope answered either way was acceptable. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 13 Councilmember K. Johnson explained when she built a new home on a 1/5"' acre lot, she was able to retain five mature Douglas firs and pine trees. It wasn't that hard, but it was her intention. She also had several other native trees. She suggested starting with the intent, whether it was to allow developers to do what they want or try and retain the mature, nature species. The proposed code leaves too much up to the developer to decide and does not make enough distinction between the hype of tree the City is trying to retain. She suggested taking a closer look at that and developing better language. If this is a first step, it is not much better than allowing developers to bulldoze whatever they want and plant three trees of whatever species they want. A street tree or an apple tree does not provide the same habitat or coverage as a native tree. Councilmember Olson asked whether the Council would at least be doing head nods to provide guidance to staff regarding how a majority of the Council feels before they act on Council input. Ms. Hope agreed that would be helpful. She commented there was nothing in the code regarding a lot that was clear-cut and contained no trees, having trees on it after it was developed. She would like to have that addressed and was aware that Councilmember L. Johnson was also interested in that. She suggested the landscape plan require at least two trees per lot in that circumstance and recalled Councilmember L. Johnson had proposed three trees per lot. Several Councilmembers expressed interest in having that added. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there would be a budget amendment on next week's agenda and asked if Ms. Hope knew how much money she would need. She suggested focusing on big trees, canopy, incentives and retention in addition to the private property issue. She suggested the Finance Committee could meet to review a budget amendment or it could be on the Council agenda. She recalled the canopy study was estimated at $18,000 - $25,000, noting she would gladly vote to fund a new canopy cover analysis. She asked how much would be needed to develop a more comprehensive tree code. Ms. Hope requested time to consider that and said including $25,000 in the budget for a canopy assessment would be adequate and she could develop an estimate for staffing. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is a good start but aspects related to tree canopy, big trees, and a no -charge permitting process to track big trees needed to be added. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in head nods and preferred if Council wished to make changes tonight, motions be made. She wanted more time to think about the draft tree code and to understand the concerns and what is fair for everybody. Tonight's discussion has been such a hodgepodge of stuff, that she did not have a good feel of what was appropriate for Edmonds. Council President Paine echoed the comments by Councilmembers L. Johnson, K. Johnson and Buckshnis about what the focus needs to be. She is a fan of low and no cost permits and agrees with requiring replacement with equivalent trees and to ensure the code is enforceable. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to comment on legal protection of views, relaying her understanding there was case law on that topic. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he has not done any recent research; a lot of the case law is in the context of private view easement. A lot of people own view easements that prevent their neighbors from growing trees above a certain height. In the regulatory context, the Shoreline Management Act prevents building from interfering with views of the shoreline in some circumstances but he did not think there was anything in the SMA that prevented trees from blocking marine views. In the absence of a view easement or state law like the SMA, the general rule is no one has a right to a view. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Lien, Ms. Hope and the Council for the discussion which Ile found very useful. He asked if the plan was to bring the proposed tree code back to Council in 1-2 weeks so that Councilmembers has time to submit comments, ideas and potential amendments to staff so they could be considered comprehensively before taking action. That would also give Ms. Hope time to put Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 14 together a budget amount. Mr. Lien answered it would take at a couple weeks as he is preparing another topic for Thursday and the Climate Action Plan open house is on Thursday. He suggested Councilmembers email their suggestions/amendments and he will package them for the Council packet in a manner that includes the amendment and the Councilmember who submitted it. Councilmember Olson said it was her expectation and understanding that if the Council stayed with the focus of this code, amendments could be made and the code approved within the next 1-2 weeks. She asked whether that was still the plan - specific targeted amendments on the scope that has been provided. Ms. Hope said that was the original intent; she looked to the Council for clarification whether some amendments would come back in two weeks based on tonight's conversation and a more detailed timeline and budget amounts for implementation. Councilmember Olson anticipated the Council would go further faster by taking the tree code in chunks and are close to approving what is proposed if the Council remains within that scope. She suggested continuing the conversation tonight within that scope and discuss what items Council would like to have brought back. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SCOPE TONIGHT AND CONTINUE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE PROPOSED. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion, commenting on the need to determine if additional staff could be provided. She preferred to deal with issues in the exemptions because they allow too much freedom. There are a couple more months before the moratorium expires to discuss more comprehensive issues such as trees on private property, big trees, etc. She did not support moving forward with this narrowly focused tree code as there was time to get more comprehensive information, data, and code writing as well as the ability to make further amendments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion as it sounded willy-nilly and just moving something forward to move it forward. She needed more information before arbitrarily approving it. Council President Paine did not support the motion as more information needed to be provided to make it a better draft ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified her intent was to move forward the draft tree code with whatever amendments the Council proposed. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was not ready to move forward. She had expected a more comprehensive tree code with more protections. She wanted an opportunity to look through the code more carefully and if the Council agreed on this narrow scope, how to enhance it to protect trees. She reiterated her request for staff to provide a summary of citizen comments in the Council packet with a response to the major ideas. She noted many of the emails were sent to Council so Ms. Judge could forward those to staff. Mayor Nelson requested comments pertain to the motion. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was supportive of a broader scope. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Olson raised another topic for the Council to think about, recalling it came up before but she never got a feel of where Councilmembers stood. The amount of the fine associated with removed trees is a separate topic and is in addition to a replacement ratio. To use the example Councilmember K. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 15 Johnson cited, it was her intention save trees and on her parcel she was able save five, but many trees were removed to construct the house. Almost by definition the discussion is about loss of trees on a previously vacant lot. With a retention rates of 25-30% on multi -family or single family, the trees taken down need to be replaced above and beyond the 30%. That makes sense because retaining 30% would still allow a building to be constructed. However, as proposed, the developer would be charged for all the trees that were removed as well as replacement trees. Assigning such a high fee of $1,000 for those trees ends up being punitive and does not support preserving the canopy and ends up being a high cost to the contractor. The result will be the only contractors who can afford to do business in Edmonds are the very large contractors with deep enough pockets to front those fees before they are passed on to the new homeowner and reflected in home prices. She proposed charging the actual cost of those trees, $350 as provided by the Parks Department instead of $ l 000. Mayor Nelson advised this will come back to Council in a couple weeks. He declared a brief recess. 2. WWTP STAFFING CHANCE - WWTP SUPERVISOR Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there is a lot to this topic and details are provided in the agenda packet. He described the difficulty for many years finding qualified staff to fill vacancies at the WWTP. The plant supervisor position has remained empty since the plant supervisor retired in 2016 and he has unsuccessful in finding a candidate that meets the City's needs. In 2016 and 2017, the maintenance lead and the operation lead positions were vacated and neither position was filled. As he was unable to hire a plant supervisor, he requested Council consider a WWTP reorganization and the Council approved a job description and budget for a chief operator. That position was open for 6-7 weeks and although there was some interest before the full job description and salary range was posted, there were no applicants. Mr. Williams advised the WWTP has also had difficulty retaining group 3 operators. The City has not hired one on the open market in the 10'/2 years he has been with the City. This is not just an issue for Edmonds, but an industry -wide issue, finding people with the experience and willingness to relocate. The City has periodically hired operators in training (OIT), some with no experience, some with very little experience and some with a little experience but not enough to become a group 1 operator. They are educated and trained and then take a test to be promoted to a group 1, 2 and 3 operator, a process that takes 3-4 years. In 2020, the WWTP had three group 3 vacancies. In a group 4 plant like Edmonds, each shift has to have at least one group 3 operator. The WWTP operates on average 18 hours day, which may change with the addition of the carbon recovery project, the nitrogen removal project and others. Some of the systems are much more stable when they operate 24 hours/day. Mr. Williams explained the request tonight is to fill the plant supervisor position. There is a candidate that he and Pamela Randolph are excited about with whom he has been discussing two WWTP positions. He would like to hire him, but the only option is the plant supervisor position. The individual would be a transfer from within the generalized Puget Sound area and would be a good choice for Edmonds. Rather than hire a chief operator, he requested Council approve filling the plant supervisor, a management position. The Council previously approved the job description and there are funds in the 2021 budget due to salary savings. Mr. Williams explained lie also recommended HR do a targeted salary review for the wastewater positions. In such a competitive environment, the City needs to be competitive salary -wise to attract quality applicants. He will return at a future committee meeting with a negotiated scope of work and a price for that review. The WWTP is also still seeking an instrument technician. An OIT who took the test last week but did not pass plans to take the test again and when he gets his group 1 certification, will be promoted to a vacant operator position. He will continue in the training and mentoring program to reach the group 2 and 3 level. That will leave a vacant OIT positions that will be filled. In addition two Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 16 operators are retiring this year and he would like to form two temporary OIT positions to get them started on a career in wastewater before those two retirements occur. Councilmember Distelhorst commented this was on the Parks & Public Works Committee agenda last week and considered by Councilmember L. Johnson and him. Given there was a singular ask as well as a possible cascade of other issues coming to Council in the future, they felt it was appropriate for a presentation to full Council. He expressed support for the request. Council President Paine asked how long a salary study would take. Mr. Williams estimated a targeted study on the positions in the WWTP would take a couple months and maybe a little longer for a final report with a recommendation. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the recommendation was that the plant supervisor be hired at the top step of the salary range, N13. It was her understanding the City's policy was to hire at the mid step; however, the request was to circumvent that policy and hire at the top step. Mr. Williams answered he typically can hire up to step 3, step 4 requires the Mayor's approval and anything above requires Council approval which is why it is included in the packet. He recognized that was unusual but he knew what this person was earning at their current position and it was a great deal more than the top step of the plant supervisor position. That underscores his comments about competitiveness; the candidate is coming from a much smaller city, with a much smaller and less sophisticated plant. That amount will be what it will take to hire this applicant. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if he had already interviewed for the position. Mr. Williams answered several people have interviewed the candidate; the reference check has not been completed because he was seeking approval from Council for this request. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the committee recommended hiring at the top step. Committee members Councilmembers Distelhorst and L. Johnson indicated they did. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO HIRE A WWTP SUPERVISOR AND ALLOW THE NEGOTIATIONS TO LOOK AT THE FULL RANGE. Council President Paine asked if the motion included the targeted salary survey. Mr. Williams said that will be presented at the next PPW Committee meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. UPDATE ON THE HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION & GATEWAY PROJECT STAGE 2) Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is an update on the first physical Highway 99 revitalization project, primarily landscaped center medians. This will made tremendous safety improvements on the corridor as well as improve the aesthetic environment and make a statement that revitalization is moving forward. This is project is fully funded, will be designed this year and go out to bid early spring 2022. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed: ■ Introduction to Stage 2 Project o Highway 99: Corridor with serious safety concerns ■ High collision rate (=> one of the highest statewide for similar State Routes) ■ Serious -injury collisions o Goals Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 17 w Reduce vehicular crashes in Reduce active transportation crashes o Consistent with Hwy 99 Subarea Plan completed in 2017 o Continuation of Stage 1 of Highway 99 Gateway & Revitalization project (secured funding through Connecting Washington funds) Project Limits 0 244th St SW to 210th St SW o City Limits ■ Edmonds • Esperance / Snohomish County — 232nd to 228th / west side of street ■ Mountlake Terrace — 220th to 217th / east side of street ■ Lynnwood — 217th to 210th / east side of street o SR-104 Interchange on south end o Interurban Trail (parallel / less'/2 mile to cast) o Future Light Rail / MLT Transit Station (236th St. SW and I-5) Crash diagrams 0 224"' to 220"' (segments 4 & 5) 0 2201" to 218"' (segments 5 & 6) Crash History o 7.52 crashes per million miles traveled Table 1. Crash Severity Level (2017.2019) I]esrrlptiott 2017 2018 2019 Total Fatal 0 1 1 Z Serious Injury 5 9 3 17 Evident Injury 22 8 11 41 Possible Injury 70 66 47 183 Proper y.Damage-Only 153 133 I10 416 Unknown 0 1 1 2 Total 250 218 193 661 Table 2. Type of Crash (2017-2019) Fatal/All Fatal/Serious Injury Total Description (crashes) (crashes) (crashes) Rear End 2 86 230 Sideswipe 0 10 75 Enter at Angle 3 34 109 From Opposite Direction (One lent turn -One straight) 3 78 173 Invohring Pedestrian/Bicyclist a 22 22 Other 3 13 52 Total J& 248 661 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 18 Table 3. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crash Severity Level (2017-2019) Description Pedestrian Bicyclist Total Fatal 2 0 2 Serious Injury 5 1 6 Evident Injury 4 1 5 Possible Injury 6 3 9 Property -Damage -Only 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 Total 17 5 22 ■ Crossing three lanes of traffic from 2-way left -turn lane 0 15 conflict points before access management 0 8 conflict points after access management Lisa Reid, Project Manager, SCJ Alliance, reviewed: • Proposed Improvements o Raised Landscaped Median along entire corridor with mid -block left turn pockets o High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Signal o (2) Gateway signs on each end of project limits • Diagram of Access Controlled Median to be landscaped and hardscaped ■ Diagram of existing cross sections • Diagram of cross sections proposed at raised median • Diagram of cross sections proposed at low median • Diagram of proposed cross sections at left turn pockets • Rendering of before and after at Doug's Lynnwood Mazda looking south • Location of mid -block left turn pockets 0 22Oth St SW to 216th St SW ■ SB and NB: No midblock turns are feasible in this section because they would conflict with the SB left -turn lane at 220th. 0 216th St SW to 212th St SW • SB: A midblock left -turn and U-turn was added. ■ NB: No midblock turns is feasible because it would conflict with the SB through queue at 216"' and because of the high crash volumes. • Diagram of proposed improvements/channelization in each segment of the corridor • Proposed HAWK Signal (-600' north of 234t" St SW) o HAWK Signal ■ Active Transportation Crossing (cyclist / pedestrians) ■ Pedestrian/Cyclist Actuated Signal ■ Mid -block crossings at HAWK signal ■ '/2 f mile from existing signalized intersections (238t" St. SW and 228th St. SW) ■ Between relocated transit stops • Gateway Signs o Approximate location • North side => approximate location — 212th St. S • South side => approximate location — 244th St. SW o Not designed at this time (showing examples of types here) o Will be coordinated with public task force ■ Summary of Left- and U-Turn Locations (by type) o Allowed at all Signalized Intersections ■ 244th, 238th, 228th, 224th, 220th, 216th & 212th Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 19 o Allowed at Most Non -Signalized Intersections ■ 240th, 236th, 234th & 230th ■ Prohibited at 76th Ave W (already restricted by existing raised median) o Midblock Where Meets the 600' Spacing, Avoids SR 99 Thru and Left Queues, and Avoids High Crash Locations ■ Between 234th and 230th - SB into Pacific Place Apartments - NB into Community Health Center (no U-turns) + Between 224th and 220th - NB into Doug's Lynnwood Mazda + Between 216th and 212th - SB into CarMAX + Access Control Benefits o Reduces the vehicle crash rate about 37% and the injury rate about 48% compared to a two- way left -turn lane (TWLTL) o Reduces pedestrian -related crashes by 45% and pedestrian fatalities by 78% o Improves flow of traffic o Redevelopment tends to increase property values o No impact on the demand for goods and services o A majority of drivers have no problem making U-turns to get to businesses on the opposite side of the road Similar Access Controlled State Routes o Shoreline (SR 99, SR 522) o Lynnwood (SR 99, SR 524) o Mukilteo (SR 526) o Kenmore, Bothell (SR 522) o SeaTac, Des Moines, Kent & Federal Way (SR 99) Property Owner Impacts o Minor Right -of -Way Takes ■ HAWK signal @ 234th St. SW (both sides of street for signal pole installations) ■ Gateway signs on both end of project limits o Driveway Access Impacts ■ Safer access to / from driveways will be provided ■ Left -turn access will be provided at signalized and unsignalized intersections and mid - block openings + U-Turns will be allowed at all intersections and all but one mid -block opening (U-Turn restricted NB at mid -block north of 234th) Mr. Hauss commented as Highway 99 is a state route, state approval is required to reduce the speed limit. The state would be very unlikely to approve a reduction in the speed limit with the current condition because vehicles travel approximately 50 mph. The raised median will help reduce speeds; once the project is completed, staff will apply for a 5-10 reduction in the speed limit which would also improve safety. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hauss reviewed: + Project Schedule o Surveying and Base mapping - Sept -Oct 2020 o Preliminary engineering - August 2020 - Jan 2021 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 20 o Environmental Documentation — Sept 2020 — March 2021 o ROW Acquisition — Dec 2020 — Sept 2021 o Permitting — Apr -June 2021 o Final Engineering & Plan Preparation — Feb — Sept 2021 o Property Owner Meetings — Dec 2020 & Jan 2021 o Taskforce Meeting — Sept 2020 and Jan 2021 o Agency Stakeholder Meeting — Jan & Apr 2021 o PPW Committee Meeting — Feb, Sept & Nov 2021 o City Council — Feb, Sept & Nov 2021 o Open House — Feb 25, 2021 o Advertise & Award — Oct -Dec 2021 o Construction — Jan -Sept 2021 Project website: edmondscorridor99.org Mr. Williams commented everything is a balance in a project like this; there is a finite amount of right-of- way. There is no intent to do anything beyond the curb so there is 84 feet to work with and landscaped medians will be constructed where they fit. Approximately 40,000 vehicles/day travel north and south on the corridor and left turn pockets are modeled based on traffic flows. For example, the plan is for a 700- foot left turn pocket at 200"' which may not as much as the model suggests will be needed in the future. The left turn pockets, whether at an intersection or mid -block, take up space could be a landscape median. The intent is a balance between maintaining as much business access as possible while beautify the corridor. This is the first project on a project list that will take 10-15 years and cost $184 million. Mr. Williams explained staff is working with the legislature on the second project and sent packets today for the senate and house transportation budget consideration with a request to move $6.5M that is still in the State's Connecting Washington for the waterfront connector to the second Highway 99 project. The project that Mr. Hauss reviewed is funded. The next project would begin at 244"' to 238"' to coincide with the Developing Community Renewal for Highway 99. If approved, that funding would be in the 2021-23 biennium. Council President Paine asked about the main cause of accidents, whether it was speed, poor design or bad drivers. Mr. Williams answered all of those reasons. Some accident reports opine regarding the specificity, some do not. The cause of accidents include nighttime, weather conditions, speed, loss of attention, etc. He referred to the high angle crashes in the BAT lanes where drivers stop to let a vehicle turn left and the left turner does not see the vehicle approaching in the BAT lane. Council President Paine commented traveling northbound from the county line, it looks like one is entering 1950; the proposed design is much more modern looking. Mr. Williams said the focus of this project is the center median which will make a statement throughout the corridor that more is coming. He hoped building enthusiasm for redevelopment would provide funding for the frontage improvements. Council President Paine asked if that would include utility undergrounding. Mr. Williams answered that is very expensive and high voltage wires will not be undergrounded although those were not the worst visually, distribution wires and communication spaces typically look the worst. It is possible over time as frontage improvements occur the projects could be sponsored with joint utility trenches to get some of the wires ungrounded. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked staff for answering his emailed questions and questions at the committee meeting. He reiterated his request for equitable public participation opportunities for stakeholders and business owners along the corridor and in the neighborhood. He relayed concerns with the HAWK signal not being a full signal like the two mid -block crossings in Shoreline, especially given the potential for cars to go through the HAWK crosswalk when lights are flashing. He was concerned Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 21 with pedestrians and the length of the six lane crossing, especially at the current 45 mph speed limit. The two other locations in the City with HAWK signals, SR-104 (existing) and 84"' & 196"' (planned), are shorter crossings and slower speed limits. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the 238"' and 224" left turn signals, commenting although they are technically within the curb and are outside the scope of this project, 7 of the 22 pedestrian strikes have occumcd at those crosswalks with 6 of 22 pedestrian strikes at one crosswalk. He appreciated the crossing delay that has been implemented to give pedestrian a head -start as well as the yield sign but felt they were not consistent with all the other crosswalks on the corridor. If the intent is major safety improvements for vehicles, safety improvements for pedestrians and other crosswalk users should also be included. Mr. Williams relayed that staffs professional judgment was a dedicated phase for pedestrians would create additional delay to the 40,000 vehicles/day on the corridor and the existing pedestrian volumes do not seem to suggest that is needed yet. He explained in 2019 a leading pedestrian interval was added which provides three seconds for the pedestrian to enter the crossing and be more visible before turning traffic gets a green light. The leading pedestrian internal has proven effective in improving safety although he acknowledged it is not as effective as a dedicated phase. Councilmember Distelhorst commented REET revenue was 20% higher than budgeted in 2020; he would love to prioritize people who do not have two tons of metal around them to protect them and said that delay would be warranted to protect pedestrians and bicycles over vehicles. Councilmember K. Johnson commented she has been very interested in this corridor a long time. She started on the transportation commission in 2007 and the first emphasis of the transportation study done then was intersection improvements. The City has done a good job focusing resources on intersection improvements on the corridor and now is a wonderful time for access management. She thanked Mr. Hauss and Ms. Reid for this effort, finding it excellent work and much needed. She pointed out two minor areas of concern; it is not clear in the data where all the pedestrian/bicycle accidents occur because they are comingled with auto accidents and there is no symbol for pedestrians. She suggested highlighting where pedestrian and bicycle accidents occur to show where the problems are that the City is trying to solve. For example, is the HAWK located in an appropriate place to solve the problem or does the walk time for a pedestrian need to be increased. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the width of the right-of-way. Mr. Hauss answered 100 feet. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested taking a closer look at how bicycle safety could be incorporated in the corridor. Bicycle lanes are allowed, but she questioned whether it could be done safety and implemented in a way that respects it as major transportation component. She recognized there are adjacent streets and the interurban corridor, but development has also been encouraged to provide bicycle storage and buses have bike racks. She was interested in how bicycle access could be improved in the 100 foot cross section. She acknowledged that may occur in the future with sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her full support for the medians and asked whether there was a plan for watering the trees in the medians in the first few years. With regard to bicycles, Mr. Williams agreed with providing opportunities for bicycles as well as pedestrians to cross Highway 99 safely. The land use plan for Highway 99 emphasizes working with businesses and property owners to provide public spaces that would have bicycle racks. The only way bicycle lanes would make sense on Highway 99 would be if they were completely protected lanes and he did not think there was room for that and still provide adequate sidewalks and frontage improvements. Without a jersey barrier, he did not think Highway 99 would be a comfortable place to ride a bicycle. That was the same conclusion on SR 104 where there is less traffic. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 22 Mr. Hauss advised one of the improvements at 212"' in addition to capacity improvements is to add a bike lane to connect to the interurban trail. The 228t" project included a bike lane that connects to the interurban trail. Consideration will be given to east -west connections such as at 224"'. He said riding a bicycle with vehicles going 45+ mph and numerous driveways is not safe. The median will help, but there would still be a lot of conflicts with bike lanes. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was concerned with conflicts and driveways but that discussion was worth the effort and suggested the PPW committee have a separate discussion/meeting regarding this project as she has a lot of concerns and questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not aware of any Highway 99 project that includes bike lanes due to the speed of traffic and the number of vehicles.. She has ridden the interurban trail that goes along Highway 99 to Everett and it is safe way to get from Shoreline to Everett. She has lived near Highway 99 for 35 years; between 238" and 224" is where the majority of pedestrian accidents occur as a result of people running across from the apartments or condominiums. It appears the proposal takes into consideration where accidents and fatalities have occurred due to people running across the 7 lanes of Hwy 99. She anticipated this project would resolve a lot of issues that arise from people crossing Highway 99. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas appreciated staff listening to the neighborhoods, the citizens who understand the need to cross Highway 99 and access on Highway 99. She has met with several neighborhood organizations to discuss the corridor. She was happy with the proposed project and was interested in funding for future phases, anticipating it will be difficult to obtain funding from the legislature. She expressed appreciation for everything staff has done in a year to develop this project and to obtain funding from the legislature. She invited staff to inform the Council and residents if they can assist in speaking with the legislature to provide funding for safe access on Highway 99. Councilmember Olson reminded of the effectiveness of flyers in getting stakeholder and business owners involved and offered to assist with distribution. She asked if there was an opportunity for water collection under the raised medians to provide water for the trees. Mr. Williams answered that is really expensive; it has been done in the past such as at Five Corners where there a huge vault was installed that helps protect Shell Creek. The answer on Highway 99 is the infiltration project planned at Mathay Ballinger Park. That is a much less expensive way to reduce the instantaneous high flows into Lake Ballinger and improve the water quality in Lake Ballinger rather than installing concrete vaults in Highway 99. Mr. Williams explained the issue is not just runoff from the road, but also from parking lots and rooftops of development on Hwy 99. As the area redevelops, developments must comply with the new stormwater regulations. Those are the best options to improve the stormwater performance along Highway 99. Councilmember Olson suggested if a way was identified that was not a completely outrageous expense, staff ask the Council and not just assume it was too expensive. She anticipated there could more water collection than was planned at Mathay Ballinger Park. Mr. Williams said two stormwater vaults were installed in the right-of-way with the 228"' project. The Mathay Ballinger Park infiltration project has a lot of promise. Councilmember Olson found the angled crosswalk design super cool. She likes the higher speed limit on Highway 99 so once the design is done, she preferred to sit with it to see whether the speed limit needed to be reduced to solve a problem. If it is not needed, she assumed everyone would rather drive more quickly there. Mr. Williams said once the improvements are built, consideration can be given to applying for a lower speed limit. He agreed the 90 turn in the HAWK signal was great for bicycles because they almost have to dismount to snake the turn. 2. RESOLUTION OF TH1; EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL REPEALING RESOLUTION 1306 Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COU NCI L CO M M ITTEE MINUTES 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked the Public Works crew for doing an awesome job keeping the streets clear of snow and keep the roadways safe. Mayor Nelson reported the case count in Snohomish County is down to 144 per 100,000. The CDC recommends wearing double masks, a disposable mask with a cloth mask over it with a snug fit. He urged everyone to be safe. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOH.NSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. 10. COUNCIL COMMI"I riz'P. itl it of rs 1. COUNCILCOMMITTFF MINUTES 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked the Public Works crew for doing an awesome job keeping the streets clear of snow and keep the roadways safe. Mayor Nelson reported the case count in Snohomish County is down to 144 per 100,000. The CDC recommends wearing double masks, a disposable mask with a cloth mask over it with a snug fit, He urged everyone to be safe. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m alWiL NELSON, MAYOR PASS EY, CITY 4�2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment for 2/16/21 Council Meeting: From: cdfarmen@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 3:59 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree code Dear Council Members, After following your diligent effort to update the tree code, it is clear to me that it will take a herculean effort to come up with an ideal tree code that not only results in a no -net -ecological loss but an ecological gain before the moratorium expires. My suggestion at this point is to focus on the aspects that relate specifically to subdivisions and leave the other changes for a later date. I think trying to update the entire code within a limited time period, would prove to result in a long drawn out effort and a less than effective tree code. Why get caught up in discussing things like developed properties, heritage trees, use of tree funds, size of replacement trees, incentives for established homeowners to retain trees, civil penalties on non subdivision properties, views, when there is a 14 unit wooded subdivision, a "here and now"development that begs you full attentiveness. Another reason to focus specifically on subdivisions has to do with the patience of the developer. How long can you delay the proposed project here in the Seaview area? If you extend the moratorium even for two more months, the city could be inviting legal problems. Doesn't the city have an obligation to act in good faith with respect to allowing the landowner to develop his property? Even though I have always wanted the woods preserved in some fashion, I know the best alternative at this point is to have a solid tree code that will retain and protect as many of the mature Douglas fir trees that stand tall on the property and preserve as much of the Perrinville Creek watershed as possible. Please do your very best to accomplish that goal. Respectfully submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview resident Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 25 From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:02 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: tree code Greetings City Council and Mayor Nelson; The proposed tree code is a good start. But it needs attention to where most of the trees are... which is the already developed residential lots. I would encourage you to ask The Development Department to finish their work. Or hire it out to a consulting group that knows how to write tree code; such as Forterra. If you or the planning Department are unable to finish the tree code now, then I would set a firm timeline and deadline for getting the necessary work done. One thing we need now is a new snapshot of where we are. A new aerial image and forest canopy analysis needs to be done now. The last one we have is from 2015. We have lost a lot of large conifers since then. In order to move forward, we need current up to date data. Hopefully, the facts of decreasing forest canopy will propel you to move forward on solving this problem now, rather than later. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Bill Phipps Edmonds resident From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 1:02 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for the February 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 26 I am providing another example of how City Council has acted based in whole or in_part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete Information_ provided to Council in the open. This example is found right in the May 10, 2016 Council Agenda Packet under: Discussion of Whether to Continue City's Practice of Taking Notes in Executive Session (20 min.) The Narrative provides the following false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information to City Council: So, councilmembers who are engaged appropriately in an executive session discussion that does involve the attorney -client privilege might have a false expectation that the notes would not be contemporaneously releasable. These councilmembers might be surprised when those notes are later released under the public records act. This is simply not true as there is no basis for a "false expectation" or later surprise. City of Edmonds Resolution 1150 makes it very clear that: 1.2 Executive Sessions: Prior to adjournment of an executive session, the Council shall, by consensus, determine what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session. A discussion to release information shall be confirmed by voice motion in open session. The City Council can take action only in open session at a public meeting. In the absence of a motion and vote, no confidential information shall be released. In the event that, at a later date, the Mayor, Council President or a Council Member wishes to refer to or place information relating to executive session in the public record, the Mayor, on behalf of the Mayor or the staff or a Council Member, shall ask the Council President to place an item on an agenda for such a motion and vote. The Council Agenda item shall notify Council Members of the procedural issue to be discussed, but shall not itself release confidential information relating to the executive session. This exact thing took place during the October 25, 2011 City Council meeting, as follows: 4. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO RELEASE PAGE 2 OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION NOTES FROM OCTOBER 18, 2005. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Clearly, under Resolution 1150 there can be no "false expectation" or later surprise. The July 17, 2007 City Council meeting minutes also support this. Those minutes include the following: The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 27 The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. Furthermore, the following is from Chris Hutchings, Montesano City Council: "In October, 2011, 1 sent an inquiry into Tim Ford, the Open Government Ombudsman, as our City Attorney had similar advice regarding RCW 42.23.070 (4), which I disagreed with. Tim Ford responded with the following: "RCW 42.23.070(4) does not apply to all matters discussed in executive session. Only that information made confidential by law. The executive session provisions do not create any express confidentiality for public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. ACLU v. City of Seattle, 121 Wn. App. 544, 555 (2004). Nor do the executive session provisions create any confidentiality for discussions. You are still doing the public's business, even in an executive session." We should always remember the legislative declaration of the OPMA: "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." Have you asked our City Attorney if all understand that RCW 42.23.070(4) does not apply to all matters discussed in executive session? In conclusion, nobody can have false expectations that Executive Session information is not contemporaneously releasable. Especially in Edmonds where all know that the City Council passed Resolution 1150 in 2007 to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. Incredibly, Resolution 1150 was not included in the City Council Agenda Packet when Council discussed Resolution 853 on May 10, 2016. The May 10, 2016 Council packet was very incomplete. Council decided to vote anyway and passed new Resolution 1360. Is it a surprise that we have such great problems with our City government? Please repeal Resolution 1360 at once. The adoption of Resolution 1360 was a very poor legislative process, contrary to the public interest. The ridiculous way it was passed, leaving out many public discussions that started back in 2011, promotes distrust in City of Edmonds government. I know of no citizens other than Scott Passey who wanted this done. Unlike other citizens, Scott Passey apparently has the ability to get what he wants on the agenda. I was very involved in the related process for many years and I requested improvements to Resolution 853. Instead, the Council decided to take action contrary to the public interest. In doing so, Council kept the mystery of the October 2, 2012 Council Vote unanswered - it was left out of the Agenda packets and never discussed by Council. Council also failed to address Resolution 1150 despite my efforts to get this in front of the Council and in the related Agenda packets. Again - a very poor legislative process - the type of Council conduct that fuels distrust in Edmonds City government. Resolution 1360 represents Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 28 legislative action taken under a very incomplete Agenda packet while a member of the public repeatedly tried to tell the City Council that the agenda packet was incomplete before Council's vote. From: cdfarmen Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree code update Dear City Council Members In order to have an effective overall tree code, special emphasis needs to be placed on sites that are unique in topography, have steep slopes, deep ravines, wetlands, and more importantly are the headwaters and drainage system of a local stream. With that in mind, my focus was to review the proposed code in that context. The following is a summary of conclusions with respect to the proposed Tree code update. 1. The "Conservation Subdivision Design" regulation on page 13, references 20.075, the ECDC chapter on Subdivisions. As currently written, there are no provisions indicating that the 30% tree retention limit and all other tree -related regulations in the proposed tree code are applicable to this section. The Conservation Subdivision should be included with other subdivisions on page 7 where retention requirements are listed. 2. The tree code also needs to incorporate a process to determine what subdivision plan is most appropriate on any given development site. It is important to identify areas of any development property for conservation purposes. To do that there needs to be a complete environmental inventory to identify areas that may be ecologically important. At the pre -application meeting, the applicant needs to provide a preliminary development plan, a tree inventory, a contour map, and a written statement describing the property in detail. Any unbuildable areas should also be noted. If the proposed development has any one of the following areas, an onsite inspection needs to be conducted by the city planner, a stormwater engineer, and an arborist. Wooded areas Areas of unique natural features. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 29 Steep slopes (15% or greater) Wetland Watershed/drainage basin Upon completion of the onsite inspection, a determination shall be made by the site assessment team on whether one of the conservation subdivision plans is the best alternative to a traditional subdivision plan. If a CSP is the most appropriate plan to employ, a joint meeting with the developer and assessment team should be held to explain the city's recommendation and potential incentives that would be beneficial to the developer in adopting such a plan. Part of the discussion could also include a discussion about areas that might be considered for an ecological/conservation easement. The team approach is important to determine the best development plan, especially on larger development sites that are of ecological importance. The principle of no -net ecological loss should not be left up to the discretion of any one individual. 3. There are no provisions for any of the following monitoring plans that are necessary to verify compliance with the tree -related regulations. a. Construction phase monitoring to assure all tree retention and protection plans are being followed. b. Tree replacement monitoring plan to assure compliance with the tree replacement plan. c. Post -development inspection plan to assure the replants are being properly maintained by the applicant and to check for trees that have not survived and need replacement. Semiannual monitoring should be conducted for at least the first two years after planting occurs. 4. The monitoring of the construction site, pre -development, during development, and post - development need to be done by a qualified professional. 5. Monitoring by a licensed arborist is warranted for any development requiring a tree plan. An arborist should be on -site during construction to make certain all the tree -related regulations are being followed. 6. Any Tree Replacement Plan needs to include the number of replacement trees, size, and species being planted, and a " tree spacing" requirement to avoid overplanting. If the replant site is overplanted the survival rate will be adversely affected. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 30 The size of the replacement tree at maturity is an important spacing factor. Tree replacements should be of the same species removed. 7. Item 4 "Property lines" of the Tree Protection Measures should include the statement that the applicant shall be required to install a fence barrier along the adjoining property line to cordon off and protect those trees on the adjoining property. Verification of this protective measure needs to be included in the pre -construction site meeting. Respectively submitted, Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Janet Henry Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 11:03 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; ACE President <aceedmondspr@gmail.com>; ken Reidy Subject: CONCERNS REGARDING CHC & MY CITY I am dismayed that too many of you seem to have forgotten, overlooked, or simply don't care about the wishes of the citizens of Edmonds. You know those folks . . . they're the ones who pay your salaries. I believe that most residents never wanted to live in the city you are now planning for us. No. We want single family homes with yards and parks and trees and wildlife and, and, and. We want all those things we bought into when we chose Edmonds as our home. Instead, you are catering to the developers who are getting wealthy while negatively changing our neighborhoods. I would like to know why you have failed to prioritize "We The People" above the developers? Why are we not being brought into the conversation in a timely manner to make our voices heard on what we want? Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against wealthy people or big houses. I do have animus toward those developers who propose that every single tree in their planned development be demolished. And, you are guilty of allowing it. One of the developments I reference above is little more than 60 feet from my home in the 900 block of Cedar Street. The development is named Walnut Street 4-lot Short Plat PLN 2020-03 and owned by Select Homes' Randy Clark. I spoke to Mr. Clark who was proud of the 20 developments he was building in Edmonds, and planned to eliminate our dead-end. He proposed to demolish all the large conifers growing in the middle of Cedar Street and allow traffic off of 9th Ave. to access his development. In addition, one of the trees planned for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 31 demolition in his project is a magnificent 70 ft. tall Oak Tree (read that again - - 70 ft tall). It is not native to this area and likely planted when the existing house was built over 100 years ago. I have personally observed Bald Eagles landing there, along with many of our more common creatures. It has a huge canopy with several nests. The plans show this tree will be replaced by a large two-story house on a postage stamp lot. Kernen Lien is the liaison between Select Homes and the City of Edmonds. His title is, "Environmental Programs Manager "and he apparently agreed to this very special tree being chopped down. As a matter of fact, branches and trees have already been removed from this plat. All in the midst of a so-called moratorium on tree removal. Mr. Lien, are you OK with this? Please, Please, Please . . . ALL of you stop this madness before it is too late! Not just at the end of my street but all developments taking place in our city by all developers. I am grateful to Ken Reidy (a private citizen) whose personal knowledge of the City's laws and codes was able to ensure that Cedar Street remain a dead-end. I am however, equally disturbed to realize those who are paid to know do not. Yet these same people continue to make decisions that often have harmful results for many. I trust that some of you will answer my questions and concerns and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Janet Henry From: samm.jaenicke@gmail.com <samm.jaenicke@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 8:31 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Recommendations Dear Edmonds City Council Members: As the time approaches for your consideration of the recommendations of the Housing Commission, I hope you will take into account the paucity of citizen input that has been incorporated into those recommendations. Of course, Covid has limited the possibility of citizen involvement, but even considering that impediment, there has been very little responsiveness to the input that your constituency has provided. During the January 7, 2021 Policy Proposals Webinar, I specifically asked what citizen concerns had been reflected in the recommendations. The response was a listing of the opportunities for citizen involvement. I asked again, specifying that I was not asking about the opportunities for providing feedback, but specifically asking what citizen input was included in the recommendations. The only response was that citizen input had been included. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 32 So during your deliberations and discussions about the recommendations of the Housing Commission, I would ask that you insist on knowing exactly what citizen concerns have been integrated into the recommendations. I ask this with a bow to the hard work that the Commission has done ... if only it had been citizen led instead of City Director led. In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that decisions on the Housing Commission recommendations be postponed until there is a genuine opportunity for the populace to be well heard. Thank you for the hard work that you do on behalf of Edmonds. Regards, Samm Jaenicke From: joe scordino Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 7:32 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Draft Tree Code is ineffective Mayor Nelson - Please do not waste valuable City Council time trying to fix an ineffective tree code developed by your staff. Please request/require City staff (that work for you) to rewrite the draft to: 1. simplify it, 2. focus it on `actually' protecting large trees, tree canopy and wildlife corridors, 3. eliminate exceptions & loopholes, 4. And THEN, present it to City Council for approval The re -write should be based on the UFMP objectives with the following guidance: 1) Requiring a permit to cut down any significant tree in Edmonds. 2) Differential application fees with no fee for permits to remove a hazard tree. 3) Requiring replacement of every significant tree removed for whatever purpose. 4) Require replacement trees to be an "ecologically equivalent" number of same or similar species of trees that will fully replicate the environmental services provided by the removed trees in the watershed of removal taking into account predicted survival of replacement trees Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 33 to same age/size of the removed tree. 5) In setting tree retention limits for development, take into account the location of the parcel with parcels in the Perrinville, Northstream, Shell and Willow Creek Watersheds requiring upwards of 50-70% significant tree retention while parcels in the Edmonds Bowl (Shellabarger Watershed) having less tree retention requirements. 6) Assess a $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 fee for every significant tree removed under a development permit with fees going into a tree fund. [no fee for hazard trees] 7) A monitoring requirement with annual reporting by City staff to Council and public on condition of Edmonds Tree Canopy. Lastly, City staff should be required to consult with the Edmonds Tree Board on the revised draft tree code before it is presented to the City Council for approval (and further amendments as the Council may determine). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 16, 2021 Page 34