Loading...
Cmd032321EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 23, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshms, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember CALL TO ORDERIFLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. 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 Olson 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. 4. PRESENTATION 1. INTELLECTUAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming the month of March as Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, Washington, and asking its residents to recognize and include in all activities our community members with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I Chris Brandt, AtWork!, thanked the City for recognizing that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have much to contribute to Edmonds by proclaiming March Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month. AtWork! has supported over 300 people in getting good jobs that matched Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 1 their strengths and abilities. In the last couple of years, AtWork! has expanded to provide services in Snohomish County and are working hard to support people with disabilities who live here to be fully included as equal citizens and are looking forward to doing more work in Edmonds. They get people jobs and support them to utilize their talents to be top notch employees and help businesses get their essential work done. Ms. Brandt explained during the pandemic, job coaches supported people with disabilities, many of whom are essential workers in grocery stores, restaurants and other small businesses, to keep their jobs, to learn how to use PPE and to learn new techniques for pandemic safety and protocols. Now that the state is phase 3, AtWork! is supporting more people returning to work every day and working with local businesses to identify their needs and match them with the interests, strengths and dreams of persons with disabilities who really want to work hard to make a difference in addition to helping communities build inclusive workforces. As Edmonds proclaims, being included, making a contribution, and having a full and meaningful life are important to everyone. AtWork! supports people with disabilities to find their place within the community where they can be part of things, a club, a senior center, a volunteer group, an employer, a business, and they are excited to continue to find those places in Edmonds and to bring the robust richness of opportunity, relationships, inspiration and hope that true inclusivity promises. Shayne Nagel, Director, ARC Snohomish County, was honored and thankful for this opportunity by Mayor Nelson and Edmonds City Council. ARC is the resource of first choice for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families regardless of their disability and at all stages of life. There are 10 ARCS in Washington State and 650 around the country. In Washington State, ARCs fiscal investment ranks 4 1 " in the country, so the support that individuals receive is not great. Many people do receive support, but there are also 1200 people waiting for help. The proclamation is a great step towards Edmonds looking at the importance of people with developmental disabilities and providing support to them. ARC provides many resources and support to families desperate to receive support services. The support ARC provides is important for every member of the family including siblings, morn, dad, etc. which is why the proclamation is so important. She raised her daughter who has severe autism in Edmonds and while it felt there would never be a chance for her to be independent, they finally got there and she is doing well. Her daughter was why she got involved with ARC and to ensure in Edmonds and across the county and country that opportunities are being provided to the most vulnerable. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her son Dominic, now 29 years old, continues to lives at home because placement is currently not an option because there is there isn't a placement option for someone with his skills. She appreciated the City recognizing Intellectual Disabilities Month, and that the City plans to look for opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to work for the City. Her son is currently cleaning COVID; he is good at it and it works well for him. She appreciated the City and the community looking at creating more jobs for people with intellectual disabilities. She noted the Cheesemonger was always good at hiring people with intellectual disabilities, but the owners, Maria Montalvo and Strom Peterson, are closing their shop. She had high hopes that other businesses in Edmonds would be interested in having people with intellectual disabilities work for them. She thanked Mayor Nelson for the proclamation, commenting it shines a light on the people with disabilities in the City. She commented her son pays attention to the issues and votes. Ms. Nagel commented independence is important but it is also important to feel included in your community. She suggested when you see a family or a parent, ask if they need a hand. Ms. Brandt suggested saying hi, how are you doing today? 5. JOINT MEETING ANNUAL JOINT MEETING SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 2 Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, said he appreciated the Council having the proclamation on the agenda, recognizing this important issue affects many in the local communities; he and two other chiefs have children with lifelong developmental disabilities. He introduced Assistant Chiefs Jason Isotalo and Mike Fitzgerald; Deputy Chiefs John Chalfant, Bob Eastman, and David Wells; IT Manager Mike Vermeulen; HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck; and South County Fire Board of Commissioners Greg Urban (Chair), Chris Teofilak (Vice Chair), Drew Burnett, David Chan, Jim Kenny and Bob Meador. (Commissioner Mark Laurance was not present.). Chief Hovis explained tonight's presentation will provide answers the Council asked during the presentation of the 2020 annual report and the 2020 City of Edmonds annual compliance report last month as well as a brief update on COVID-19 vaccination efforts in Edmonds. He reviewed: • Vaccination Update o Adult family homes: All 23 adult family homes that SCF was assigned in Edmonds are fully vaccinated with first and second doses. o Homebound individuals: South County Fire, in partnership with the City of Edmonds Human Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services divisions identified homebound individuals. More than 30 homebound residents have been vaccinated and more to follow in the coming weeks. o Today we assisted the National Guard to vaccinate more than 60 residents at Ballinger Court senior living. o Up next: We will conduct pop-up clinics, in partnership with Homage, at Plaza 44 and other older adult communities in the City of Edmonds. SCF staff responded to questions asked at the February 23, 2021 presentation: How many female firefighters are employed by South County Fire? How does that compare with the national average? SCF HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck reviewed: Diversity Overview o Progress since the formation of the RFA. ■ Increase in female firefighters ■ Increase in firefighters of color ■ Increase in overall diversity: sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disabilities, etc. o Low turnover rates among uniformed staff* ■ 92% of departures have been for retirement or medical ■ 1 female and no non -white employees have departed for reasons other than medical. o Firefighters Hires FD1: 2014-2017 South County Fire (prior to formation of RFA since formation of SCF ^-5% female -12% female -10% non -white -21 % non -white ■ FD 1 - 2014-2017 - White, male - 95% - Non -white, female - 5% ■ SCF - Since 2017 - White, male - 70% - Non -white, female - 30% o South County Fire vs. National Average SCF Firefighters National Avg Career Firefighters Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 3 7% female 4% female 10% non -white 1 18% non -white o Captains/MSOs • Female compared to non -white — 2017 1.5% female 0% non -white — 2021 6% female 4.5% non -white o Continuous Efforts ■ Continue analysis ■ Source b Candidate Pool *Interviews *Hired ■ Track new hire level of success ■ Analyze, modify, test again o Leadership and promotions Chief Hovis recognized the elected Board of Commissioners for their support of the diversity initiative and the work done by Ms. Hollenbeck and her team. When does Edmonds assist with res onse to help other stations outside the ci ? Please show the number of exchan es of services between cities. ► Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor UUF 2018 12019 2020 Mountlake Terrace 133% 130% 157% Lynnwood 202% 210% 252% RFA 148% 162% 197% o Neighboring fire units respond into Edmonds more than Edmonds units respond into neighboring jurisdictions • Mountlake Terrace units: 57% more into Edmonds Lynnwood units: 152% more into Edmonds ■ RFA units: 97% more into Edmonds Deputy Chief Bob Eastman explained in the updated agreement signed in 2017, a matrix was added that calculates the total time in seconds that a unit is on responses within the City of Edmonds and takes the units within the City, Stations 16, 17 and 20, and calculates the total time those units were on task within, for example, the geopolitical boundaries of Mountlake Terrace to develop a ratio. The same is done for Lynnwood and since the RFA was added, the difference between the City of Edmonds units coming into the RFA and the RFA units going into the City of Edmonds. Part of the renegotiated contract with Edmonds was a reduction of two responders on duty and a dedicated medic unit. His understanding, although he was not part of the negotiations, was Lynnwood was an independent fire department at the time, and there was an effort made to ensure decisions made did not negatively impact the City of Lynnwood and there needed to be a way to measure that. It is not at the incident level, but the time units spend on task. The RFA units were added because one station can predominately be a unit that comes in to support an Edmonds station just due to proximity. Dispatch sends the closest appropriate unit based on GPS and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) regardless of jurisdiction or station service area to best serve citizens. Deputy Chief Eastman acknowledged the Lynnwood number in the above comparison is very high but in SCF's opinion, that does not tell the whole story which is why the RFA number was added. When looking at the number of units Edmonds has and the number of units the RFA has, some of that is to be expected when there is an incident that requires a lot of equipment. Edmonds has three units and three staffed stations; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 4 commercial structure fires, residential fires, rescues, and the most critical ALS patients are staff intensive. Commercial and residential fires require 15 and 18 people on scene and the most critical ALS patients need 11 people on scene. He summarized NUUF can be confusing, other things have to be considered in conjunction with it as it is just one piece of a bigger puzzle. How does Edmonds compare to other cities and RFA stations on response times? Deputy Chief Eastman reviewed: • Station Response Times o Percentage of all calls within 8 minutes or less 2018, 2019, 2020 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2018 69.13 78.14 71.15 73.84 83.45 82.44 78.31 82.08 69.68 68.26 70.64 76.17 71.53 69.69 2019 69.23 77.29 67.48 74.13 80.73 82.71 72 79.73 72.58 66.80 69.5 71.5 72.3 6598 2020 56.42 66.19 54.37 62.18 68.1 75.13 56.4 63.32 58.56 54.41 52.17 59.19 60.37 57.4 o Response time percentages dipped in 2020 due to change in dispatch criteria. SCF has returned to the rapid method of dispatch. o Numbers are expected to return to 2018 and 2019 levels in 2021. ■ Response time on 90percent of calls in this catepory 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2018 9:55 9:15 9:45 9:35 8:39 8:55 9:10 8:53 9:54 10:09 9:56 9:29 9:47 10:05 2019 9:59 1 9:25 9:49 9:13 8:58 9:02 9:36 9:16 9:47 10:22 9:51 9:45 10:03 10:49 2020 10:37 1 10:907 10:39 10:20 9:55 9:24 10:33 10:17 10:31 10:54 11:02 10:38 10:31 11:16 o Response times are somewhat related to where stations are located o Some stations have better response time ■ For example Lynnwood Station 15 is in the center of Lynwood in a high density area and a lot of calls are within close proximity to the station o Some stations have slightly longer response times ■ For example Station 23 has slightly longer response times because it is located in a more residential area. • Response times o Percental"e of calls within 8 minutes or less in 2020 Brier I Edmonds Lynn I MLT Coun 51.97% 156.19% 73.05% 1 55.67% 1 60.31% ■ Numbers in 2020 are approximately 10-15% lower due to COVID A • Anticipate higher percentage within 8 minutes in 2021 Res onse times on 90 ercent of calls in this category in 2020 Brier Edmonds Lynn MLT County 11:02 10:40 9:40 10:43 10:32 ■ Numbers in 2020 are 30-60 seconds longer due to COVID ■ Anticipate reduction in times in 2021 Standards in the contract are not being met. Is there a plan to address this? Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in Edmonds with staffing prior to January 2017: daily station staffing of 11 • 3 fire stations within Edmonds o Station 16 (196"') ■ Houses an engine, battalion chief and aid unit ■ 4 personnel on duty including 3 firefighter jump crew/cross staffed o Station 20 (Esperance) ■ Houses ladder truck cross -staffed with aid unit ■ Backup engine o Station 17 (downtown) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 5 ■ 5 personnel on duty — 2 person dedicated medic unit — 3 person jump/cross staffed crew that staffed engine or aid car depending on which was dispatched o Marine Unit at Port • Daily staffing in Edmonds decreased under the current contract, dropping from 11 to 9 o With change in contract in 2017, paramedics in paramedic unit redeployed to all three fire stations, 16, 17 and 20 Under the current ILA and the contract revised in 2017, the initial term between Edmonds and SCF is 20 years so the contract extends to 2030. To change it would require conferring to address those issues. Fire station locations cannot be moved; personnel could be added to stations. Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in the RFA, explaining a lot of changes have been made within the RFA in areas that are not under contract. FD1 used Citygate and Associates in the past to do a staffing analysis. Since the formation of RFA, staffing has been raised in Lynnwood and unincorporated areas. He identified "big houses" in the RFA, stations that house a lot of firefighters. Some stations have 5, 6, 7 or 8 personnel but those are not in Edmonds. When units are dispatched via the countywide dispatch agency, they are dispatched based on AVL which sends the closest unit to the emergency, they generally come from the bigger stations. Two more personnel have been added at Station 14, 10 and 11 so the daytime staffing is 62 and nighttime is 56. As someone who grew up in 20700 block of 86"' Place West, Chief Hovis pointed out there is no Woodway fire department, they contract with Shoreline and there is no fire station in Woodway and there is no fire service coming from the west. To address staffing issues, have more personnel available when calls come in, and decrease overall response times equates to personnel, availability and apparatus. With the Sound Transit Link extension and development occurring in Mountlake Terrace, and Station 19 getting very busy, Mountlake Terrace has had some initial conversations with SCF about what increased staffing would look like in Mountlake Terrace. Chief Hovis explained SCF has formed an Intergovernmental Committee composed of SCF staff, three fire commissioners and the local union president. The committee was formed due to the RFA's interest in the contract cities, Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, formally joining the RFA just as the City of Lynnwood did in 2017 when the RFA was formed. He and one commissioner from the intergovernmental committee have had an initial meeting with the executive of each contract city to relay the RFA's great interest in the city joining the RFA. That meeting was to get a better understanding of each city's current or future interest in joining the RFA rather than contracting for service like Brier and Mountlake Terrace have done since 2005 and like Edmonds has done since 2010. The RFA will be having discussions later in 2021 and in 2022 with the cities of Brier and Mountlake Terrace because their initial 20-year contracts end in 2024. The RFA's desire is for both cities to formally join the RFA by 2024 or earlier. Although the City of Edmonds' initial 20-year contract term ends in 2030, the RFA looks forward to having these same discussions with the City of Edmonds well before 2030 if the City is interested in doing so. Chief Hovis recognized the valued partnership between the two organizations for the past 11 years. He thanked Edmonds for virtually hosting SCF tonight. As someone who has spent the majority of his life in Edmonds and grew up here, he appreciates the leadership at the Council and Mayor levels and what they are to the City. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for all SCF was doing with regard to vaccinations in the City and all the other programs as well as for their thorough and comprehensive presentations. He thanked Ms. Hollenbeck for her presentation and the data based on questions asked at SCF's previous presentation. He asked if the percentages were based on the 283 uniformed firefighters. Ms. Hollenbeck Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 6 said overall hiring is based on the candidate pool and the MSO/captains is the percentage of captains and MSOs but overall it is based on the 283 firefighters. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commissioners for attending and Chief Hovis for the presentation. She referred Chief Hovis' response to her email and her discussions with him and City Attorney Jeff Taraday today. She recalled in 2009, before she was on the Council, standards for the contract were developed by former Fire Chief Tomberg, former Councilmember Plunkett and others. She recalled when personnel was changed based the 2017 Fitch report, the intent was to reanalyze the standards in a year or so based on new data and the new contract but that was not done. It may be advantageous to develop a committee to look at the standards to determine if they are still relevant or need to be changed. She asked Chief Hovis his thoughts on that. Chief Hovis agreed continuously analyzing the needs of the community, especially 11 years after the initial agreement, there was no better time than the present. He will leave what that looks like to the Council and Mayor and it could be discussed internally with SCF and commissioners. Councilmember Olson thanked SCF for their presentation and for answering questions in advance. With regard to the cost reduction of 9.13% for the Town of Woodway, she said it made sense that there was an offset and Woodway was paying that at one time, but now that Woodway is not being serviced by SCF, why should Edmonds absorb the price Woodway used to pay when there is no service provided to Woodway. Deputy Chief Eastman reiterated he was not part of the negotiations when the agreement was renegotiated in 2017, but his understanding was that in those conversations, the 9.13% was attributed to Woodway during the initial agreement, the reduction in the three station cost went away and the only reduction now in the contract is Esperance, the unincorporated area protected by Station 20 and the 9.13% is no longer a reduction in the three station cost. The flip side was the City of Edmonds wanted the ability to subcontract to the Town of Woodway in the future and if that was successful, there would be an exchange of dollars. The City would collect those funds, not the RFA (or FD1 at the time) and it would not be considered a change in service delivery responsibility, SCF would automatically do it as part of the agreement. He was unaware of the conversations that drove that. Chief Hovis said Mr. Taraday was part of those negotiations and could be a resource for the Council. Councilmember Olson summarized even if it hadn't been a good deal, the deal was already negotiated and therefore a moot point. Chief Hovis agreed since the Town of Woodway has elected to get their fire service from King County Fire District 4, known as Shoreline Fire Department. Council President Paine thanked SCF for the level of detail in their presentation. She observed the labor contract was resolved at the end of last year and asked when the next labor agreement was coming up and how would that impact the contract. Chief Hovis advised the impacts once those contracts are negotiated are listed in the current ILA. Negotiations will begin with IFF Local 1828 later this month and into April for a successor agreement. The prior agreement was through December 31, 2020. Council President Paine asked him to keep the City posted. Chief Hovis assured he would. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked all the fire commissioners and fire staff who took the time to attend the virtual meeting, noting she appreciated the cooperation between the agencies. Chief Hovis commented he and Commissioner Chan enjoy serving with Councilmember K. Johnson on the Sno911 Board. Chief Hovis introduced Karl Fitterer, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Melissa Blankenship, Executive Assistant to the Board of Commissioners, and thanked them for their efforts. Commissioner Chan commented the violence in last two weeks makes him sick to his stomach. The top priority of government service is to protect and keep citizens safe. When he was sworn in as a fire commissioner, he promised to do his best to protect the safety of all his constituents in South County Fire including the residents of contract cities like Edmonds. The recent harassments and attacks on Asian Americans have been extremely dangerous and upsetting. Public servants and elected officials can no longer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 7 be silent and tolerate hate crimes. He asked everyone to join him in denouncing these acts of violence, to give support and comfort to Asian Americans within the community who are now living in fear. Standing up to racists and bullies is not political, it is just human decency and our obligation. He asked attendees to raise their hands and promise to speak out against all violence. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments Denise & Mark [no last name given] said it has been a disappointing week for the City. The citizens of Edmonds lost a dedicated professional in Chief Lawless. As Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Distelhorst run campaigns to retain their seats on Council, she said many people will question their leadership and decision -making on behalf of the citizens. Elected officials are supposed to represent citizens and many spoke out loud and clear about who they wanted for their chief but their ears were closed. She wished them good luck with their campaigns. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a former Citizens Housing Commissioner, thanked the City for the opportunity to serve on the CHC and said he learned a lot. He thanked his fellow commissioners; a diverse membership that served the City well. However, he was disappointed in the process used to reach the CHC's recommendations. The CHC used a legislative process to solve problem, a process that was foreign to him and that he did not think served the commission very well. It was a tool in the City's toolbox that is used all the time but if there is only a hammer in the toolbox, everything looks like nail. He felt the CHC was using a hammer to solve something that was not a nail and didn't really know what problem they were trying to solve. Personally, he would have created a vision statement for the City, developed a set of guiding principles or values as a starting point and then the process would be subservient to that vision. The CHC ended up with non-integrated ideas and no clear goal of what they were trying to achieve. The legislative process was misused, the CHC was siloed into committees that prevented cross -collaboration in public meetings. A true legislative process documents majority and minority opinions that are sent forward out of the commission. That was not done so the Council is left with a set of recommendations without any of the background data or information available to the CHC. He invited the Council to reach out to him, he has plenty of recommendations as the process moves forward. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 8.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER. REPORT ON BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2021 OVERLAY PROGRAM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 8 Councilmember K. Johnson noted for record the committee report states as the bid was lower than the engineer's estimate from the overlay program, there may be opportunity for supplemental contract for additional work. She requested staff consider adding 92" d Place West, a 1000' strip of pavement north of Bowdoin Way where a drainage project 5 years ago laid a zipper but it was never paved over. She has mentioned this in the past and was uncertain an overlay would save the road. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ITEM 8.3. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. UPDATE ON TRENDS AND DATA FROM ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Chris Collier, Program Manager, Alliance for Housing Affordability. She explained the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) is a countywide organization that includes the City of Edmonds which has been a member for several years. The basic purpose of AHA is to provide assistance to cities and the county related to housing such as research, assistance, information about tools and examples, etc. Mr. Collier reviewed: Background o AHA comprised of local jurisdiction in Snohomish County o AHA's role to provide data & analytics, technical expertise & outreach to member jurisdictions o Assist cities in understanding housing affordability shortage o Council encouraged to reach out to hire via Ms. Hope and/or Councilmember Distelhorst, Council liaison to AHA Board, and ask questions • Regional Context o Graph of 2000-2020 comparison of new households established in Snohomish County and new housing units built in that year (rental or ownership units) ■ There has never been a deficit in the housing stock in Snohomish County until 2017 - Lack of housing causes prices to increase o Graph of 2000-2020 Median Sale Price, Median Income, Required Income, Average Rent in Snohomish County Year Median Sale Price Median Income Required Income Average Rent 2000 $306,290 $86,613 $306,290 $1,145 2020 $525,000 $92,781 $121,909 $1,550 Who Can Buy Where o Map with averaee hoLlsine vrices Housing Type Edm Lynn MLT Mill C Muk 1 Evrt LS Sno SFR $750k $560k $519k $751k $729k $458k $445k $550k TH/Cndo $439k $290k $597k* $545k $459k $280k $396k $360k o Incomes: Occupation: 251h Pct - 501h Pct Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 9 Administrative Law Jude $110k-$132k Physicist $104k-$130k Emergency Mgmt. Dir. $95k-$115k Audiologists $77k-92k • And so on. ■ 1.5M occupations pay <$85k/year median in the Puget Sound region • Who Can Rent Where o Maur with averaize rents • Housin Tye Edm L nn MLT Mill C Muk Evrt County Av I Rent $1,358 $1,451 $1,484 $1,504 1 $1,502 $1,313 $1,436 2B Rent $1,646 1 $1,752 $1,722 N/D 1.$1,723 $1,497 $1,681 o incomes: Occupation: 25" Pct — 50' Pct Chemist $58k-79k $1,458-$1,963 Plumber $56k-72k $1,401-$1,976 Graphic Designer $57k-72k $1,444-$1,790 Marriage & Family Therapist $43k-$51k $1,088-$1,276 • And so on... • In the Puget Sound Region: — 199,520 (85.8%) of Office & Admin Support roles cannot affordably pay $1450/mo rent — 45,600 (46.7%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay $1450/mo rent — 53,130 (54.3%) of Educational Instruction occupations cannot affordably pay $1680/mo for rent For the Record: Rental Data 0 9 properties, 961 units reported for Edmonds 0 2 properties built 2010-2019, remainder <1989 • Helps explain comparatively lower prices o Why so few properties? ■ Surveying private landlords is difficult ■ Prices change fast o Spot checking current listings in Edmonds shows: • Studio: $1,265-$1,464 ■ 1B: $1,495-$4,514 (?!) ■ 213: $1,805 and up Let's Combine Incomes o Cohabitation has become more common among 25 to 34 year -olds o Living Arrangements of young adults ages 25 to 34 o Grab 1968-2018 comparing ercenta e living with s ouse to living with partner Year Living with Spouse Living with Partner 1968 81.5 .2 2018 40.3 14.8 n Incomes Fnrned- Title Median Income Title Median Income Title Median Income Police/Sheriff $87,220 1 Travel Agent $54,490 Sheet Metal Worker $64,970 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 10 Firefighter $85,850 EMT/Paramedic $42,770 Industrial Machinery Mechanic $64,510 Architect $78,480 Security Guard $32,720 Heavy Equipment Mechanic $64,680 Accountant $77,080 Receptionist $36,300 Inspector/Tester/Weigher $61,630 Curator $66,390 1 Floral Designer $34,090 Machinist $54,040 Middle School Teacher $70 360 Waiter/Waitress $33,320 Welder $55 680 Carpenter $63,460 Cashier $29,840 Automotive Mechanic $50,330 Marriage Therapist $51 060 Barista $28 280 General Maint./Re air $45,970 o Income required: City Income Req. for Loan City Income Req. for Loan City Income Req. for Loan Arlington $99 915 Lake Stevens $104,743 MLT $124,140 Edmonds $158,711 Lynnwood $121,256 Mukilteo $162,314 Everett $104,172 Marysville $100,227 Snohomish $120,602 Granite Falls $90,177 Mill Creek $168,206 Stanwood $102,369 o Conclusion: Even though a lot of households have dual income, many cannot afford to purchase a home in Snohomish County. • What's Gettine Built? Edmonds Uninc. Snohomish County Regional Totals Snohomish King & Pierce SF MF1-49 MF50+ SF MF1-49 MF50+ SF MF1-49 MF50+ 2006 51 111 0 3,136 252 0 13,824 5,075 3,728 2007 26 65 0 2,326 391 88 10,940 5,639 8,010 2008 2 67 69 1194 357 0 5,586 3,225 7,871 2009 -1 7 0 1,076 112 0 4,528 1,159 2,104 2010 13 25 0 1,059 247 0 5,680 1,933 2,926 2011 8 35 60 1167 325 88 5,465 2,043 4,913 2012 17 0 0 1,300 700 480 7,031 2,666 9126 2013 14 0 0 1239 655 691 7,619 3,287 8,924 2014 27 58 0 1,338 472 51 6,866 4,912 8,896 2015 40 4 0 1521 516 70 7,241 4,962 13,468 2016 32 32 128 1,485 675 0 7,864 5,916 10,221 2017 42 41 91 1,499 682 0 7,928 6,505 10,643 2018 49 11 0 972 1387 0 6,840 6,666 12,982 Count 320 456 348 19,312 6,771 1,468 97,412 53,988 103,812 % of total 28.5% 40.6% 31.0% 70.1% 24.6% 5.3% 38.2% 21.2% 40.7% • What does this tell us? o Protection from change only ensures unaffordability for our children o Seniors struggle to downsize o Homeowners & renters are both overleveraged & vulnerable • Snohomish County & Lynnwood "Forced Sale" Records 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SnoCo 1,970 2,845 3 091 1 588 746 487 456 39 7 25 42 1 1 587 Edmonds 49 103 91 60 29 1 15 20 1 1 0 4 2 79 Alternative(s)? o Create homeownership options for incomes >$90k - requires $0 subsidy o Create market rate housing options for $50k/y incomes o Create? You mean the city builds housing? o Let's say allow, instead of create. o ALLOW . Current zoning must explicitly allow, otherwise it isn't o Supply takes a while, meanwhile... other tools available. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember Distelhorst said he forwarded Councilmembers the presentation Mr. Collier made in Lynnwood. He recalled seeing the regional context slide at Snohomish County Tomorrow in February 2020 in Everett and how different the current housing crisis is and how outpaced the market has became versus what is available, what people earn and what they can afford. He thanked Mr. Collier for provided all this data. Council President Paine said she also saw the Lynnwood presentation and agreed it was great, data -driven information. She asked what tools have been the most successful for cities to ensure layers of affordability. She also asked whether he thought the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) had been productive or useful. With regard to successes, Mr. Collier said the bad news is no municipality nationwide has figure that out; there is no one true solution, but there are plenty of tools, the best of which is to give people choices. What is allowed in the zoning code determines what current homeowners or prospective buys can do with their property. As an example, he explained common wall condominiums sell for $48/square foot more than new build single family detached homes. That is not to say a single family detached home sells for less; it actually sells for more, but on a square footage basis, a builder makes more money per square foot building a condo than building new single family detached. If common wall condominiums are allowed, he would expect that builders would build something that yields more per square foot. Condominiums sell for about $440,000, but a single family detached new built home sells for $650,000. Therefore condominiums create affordability for lower income people which takes the pressure off existing subsidy and support structure that allows it to operate without being completely overwhelmed. With regard to the MFTE program, Mr. Collier said it was a worthwhile program and worth thinking about. Mountlake Terrace considered it and opted to not pursue it. The City of Everett pursued it and continues to do so today. He recommended Edmonds reach out their municipal neighbors regarding how that program works for them or why opted not to pursue it. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the information contained in Mr. Collier's presentation and complimented him for making complex data more understandable. An important point to her was by not addressing it, it only ensures housing unaffordability for our children. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled him saying Snohomish County's housing deficit began in 2017 and asked when Seattle or King County's deficit begin. She was hopeful the answer would mean if Edmonds acted now, it could avoid the extremes that are happening to the south. Mr. Collier did not recall King County's circumstances in that bar chart but he could investigate that and get back to her. He explained he wanted to hold Seattle up as a where it started, the epicenter of the lack of affordability in the region because it is the economic driver for the entire Puget Sound region. Seattle also remains predominantly single family detached zoned, by the analysis of the Seattle Planning Commission, it is over 75% exclusively single family detached zoned. Mr. Collier explained Seattle is an example of a city that has exclusively tried to throw money at the problem without changing the market forces of supply and demand that make housing more expense. You can neither subsidize nor build your way out of the issue completely, you need to do both and Seattle is a great example of trying to do just one of them. Edmonds can only do so much and cannot feel like it has to take on the world and the entire issue. Edmonds has to do so in a collaborative fashion with its neighbors in Snohomish County and King County. This is as regional issue that started in Seattle and it is critical to think of it as every city has a part to play and everyone has to do the public support option and the building option in equal measure in a way that's appropriate for their city. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in taking a deeper dive into the numbers. Many of the people who talk with her are very interested in this topic. She asked if he said Snohomish County had 1.5M people. Mr. Collier answered there were 1.5M in the entire region of Snohomish, King and Pierce. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Snohomish County has approximately 850,000 people. She asked whether there could be a differentiation among districts, noting there was a property in the bowl that sold in a private sale for $2.2M which would skew the numbers. Mr. Collier said he uses median home sale price to get away from Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 12 the very expensive mansion driving the numbers up or a bargain driving the numbers down. A spot check of homes sold in the RS-8 zone in 2020 in east Edmonds found the median price was over $800,000. He also found on Zillow a 696 square foot home off 220"' selling for $450,000 ($640/square foot). He was aware Edmonds was a view city and that those homes sell for a lot but there is also a lot of Edmonds that doesn't have a view and still sells for outrageous amounts of money such as that 696 square foot home. A shocking change can be seen across the board in the sales price of Edmonds homes that does not leave any structure untouched. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, noting she has friends who are realtors and knew of people selling their house and moving north because of the prices. Mr. Collier termed that riding the wave. He offered to provide a list with addresses of houses sold in Edmonds, public data available from the county assessor, noting is a bit more work to identify whether they were view homes or the neighborhood they were located in. Councilmember Buckshnis said she can get that data from her realtor friends. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Collier reviewed the following: ■ Appendix: Housing Deeper) Dive 2000 2020 2018 2019 Home Type Median Sale # Sold Med. Yr Blt Median Sale # Sold Med. Yr Blt Sales Sales SP<$600k $354 217 649 1977 $450,000 188 1980 255 279 BR 1-3 <1750 sf $294 446 346 1981 $480,000 223 1981 255 272 RS-12 Zone $597 118 117 1983 $930,000 69 1975 102 71 RS-8 Zone $358 188 304 1962 $650,000 179 1960 219 259 BD1-5 Zone $357,366 18 1988 $707,500 12 1999 12 11 Grade <=44 $316,694 101 1956 $570 000 69 1955 74 99 Grade >=46 $559,201 277 1991 $892 500 185 1991 242 191 Grade = 45 $345,440 395 1976 $610,000 246 1969 307 313 Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are a lot of older bungalow type homes and older apartments being rented in the bowl. Mr. Collier encouraged Councilmembers to reach out to him through Councilmember Distelliorst or Ms. Hope with any questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not as concerned about people purchasing $600,000- $900,000 houses; she was concerned with how to accommodate low income veteran, senior, and disabled housing when the city cannot even accommodate affordable housing. Mr. Collier answered it is not easy; the reason he gives this presentation is to provide an outlet for the overwhelming pressure that the entire housing market feels that pushes out the ability serve disabled veterans, seniors, senior disabled households, etc. Their needs are not met because the pressure is so outrageously intense. The programs that exist that would otherwise serve them are overloaded. The waitlist for senior disabled vouchers is over five years at HASCO because there is nowhere else for a household with that description to go because that one avenue that exists and works well is overloaded because needs are not being met elsewhere. It is a very complicated issue; failure to address the broad question means that any niche solution such as VA supportive housing vouchers, Section 8 vouchers, etc. will never get better because the pressure is too great and the number of people needing services is too great. So no matter what is done, if only that is done, it does not fix the structural problem that creates it. His wish was to take the pressure off because those systems and programs can work but right now there is a true emergency. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the regional context for housing stock and asked if that took into account the number of units coming on. Mr. Collier answered it was not reflected in the data; the figures prior to 2018 come largely from PSRC. Cities have to submit an annual report to Commerce describing the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 13 units that have been permitted and PSRC obtains them, applies their own methodology for analyzing the figures and publishes the net gain or loss of units in certain density categories. PSRC is current up to 2018; he rounded out the data set with Office of Financial Management housing stock figures. The data does not describe what is being permitted and not yet been built in Edmonds. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the data Mr. Collier is talking about is primarily past data, what has happened over time, the trends indicate less housing has been built in recent years and it is believed there is some housing on the horizon. The question is whether it is enough to meet today's needs. A magic bullet is unlikely; continuing to look at supply is important, and help is needed such as federal, state, local, and nonprofit programs that can help address the issue but by themselves, any one of them is not enough. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the number of apartments being built along the light rail line which she hoped would change the regional context. Mr. Collier said all the units coming online are necessary to meet future demand. PSRC estimates 1.25M more people in the Puget Sound region by 2050. Whether the need will continue to outpace demand is yet to be determined. Councilmember K. Johnson commented she entered housing market by buying a house that was 100 years old and needed some updating. She put in sweat equity, learning how to restore plaster and lath, window sashes, etc. She purchased a subscription to this "This Old House Journal" with Bob Vila and followed it religiously. After six years they doubled their investment and able to move on. That is called flipping in today's economy; there are still opportunities in Edmonds for people to enter the market if they are young and interested or old and capable. She was troubled by the trend of much of the older housing stock, comprised of smaller houses that housed sawmill workers when Edmonds was first developed, being torn down because the land is more valuable than the house. Often a single family house is torn down and a new million dollar house is built. Those smaller houses were some of the most affordable housing in Edmonds, but they become an economic opportunity for someone interested in developing it. Mr. Collier agreed, commenting that was what he meant by what is allowed. What is currently allowed is a single family house detached home. On a tour of Mountlake Terrace with Mayor Matsumoto Wright, she pointed out numerous homes that used to be single story cinder block from the 1960s and earlier that are now monoliths, still with a single family, because that is all the zoning allows. Would it be more economically to have that be a divided structure or another configuration? Maybe, but it is not allowed. Would the building community have built that? Quite likely if it were allowed. Common wall condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and other configurations of housing are not allowed so what happens is that 696 square foot house off 220"' is demolished as soon as it is purchased and something considerably larger is constructed. That home will exist for 30-50 years, effectively freezing that parcel in time because that's all that is allowed. That is the opportunity that is missed every day to provide different kinds of housing so smaller, more affordable places are maintained because they are economic to maintain with sweat equity or they are allowed to evolve into something that is still effectively two small homes but cojoined. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULAT1ON5 Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the City Council has been working for a while on amendments to the newly adopted tree regulations that relate primary to what needs to be done to protect trees related to development, establish a tree fund, etc. The next stage will look at other programs and other tree regulations that might cover more properties and options. The Council has been working through a list of potential amendments submitted by the Council and will continue that process tonight. She was hopeful Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 14 the Council could reach a preliminary agreement on the amendments tonight so staff can bring back an ordinance with all the amendments at the next meeting. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained using the table developed by Council Assistant Maureen Judge including the amendments Councilmember K. Johnson, he placed the amendments in the code text, highlighting each one and identifying the Councilmember that proposed it. Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson: 23.10.040.D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that significant trees be retained and that non -significant trees be replaced if then are native trees. Councilmember K. Johnson said she could think of examples where the Parks Department has cut down a tree to make room for a piece of equipment and it seemed like an independent action. She wanted to add the safeguard that a smaller tree be replaced with a native tree. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, AMEND 23.10.040.D TO READ, "REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES WITHIN CITY OF EDMONDS' PARKS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PROVIDED THAT SIGNIFICANT TREES BE RETAINED AND THAT NON -SIGNIFICANT TREES BE REPLACED IF THEYARE NATIVE TREES. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the last part of the sentence should be if they are not native trees. Councilmember K. Johnson answered no. Mr. Lien explained a significant tree does not have to be native; a significant tree is based solely on the size of the tree, 6" DBH. A non -significant native tree would be a smaller native tree that is not 6" DBH. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to "significant trees be retained" and asked if the intent was that the Parks Department would not permitted to remove significant trees under any circumstance. Without some other elaboration, if he was presented with this sentence and asked what it meant, that would be his understanding. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if he could suggest a qualifier that would allow some flexibility such as significant trees be retained if at all possible. Mr. Taraday suggested significant trees be processed through the normal code like a private developer would be processed. Councilmember K. Johnson said the problem is the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will act independently on the removal of trees and there needs to be some safeguards because just as private developers need to follow the rules, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department should follow the same rules. Mr. Taraday suggested "provided significant trees shall not be exempt." This is within context of an exemption. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed to reword the amendment as follows: D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department provided that significant trees will ►ro1_be_erempt and that non -significant trees be replaced if they are native trees. Councilmember Olson said Section D meant the City had trust in the Parks that they were committed to the idea of no net loss and if they removed a tree, they would replace it and would only remove a tree if there was good cause. What she liked about Councilmember K. Johnson's proposed language was someone reading the code would have no idea why the Parks Department was exempt. If the Council does not support the change, she suggested language to explain the exemption and the trust in the Parks Department would be appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson said her trust was eroded when saw the Parks Department cutting down some significant evergreen trees. Because of that, this is needed as a safeguard and then the trust will be restored. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 15 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Mr. Lien introduced an amendment proposed by Councilmember K. Johnson: 23.10.050.0 Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement m-ay shall be required for removed trees. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND 23.10.050.0 TO READ, "DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: TREE REMOVAL SHALL BE PROHIBITED AS PART OF A PERMITTED DEMOLITION EXCEPT AS REQUIRED TO REASONABLY CONDUCT DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. TREE REPLACEMENT MAY SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR REMOVED TREES." Councilmember K. Johnson asked why "may" was originally used instead of "shall." Mr. Lien answered shall makes sense; he did not have a good reason why may was used instead of shall. Council President Paine asked if trees that were permitted as part of demolition were included in the development permit that would be necessary to remove the trees. Mr. Lien answered potentially; he referred to 23.10.060, the types of development the statement applies to. It might come up in short subdivisions but most often with replacement of a single family with a new single family where often the demo is done before the building permit. For subdivisions and other similar developments, the demolition permit does not come in until well after the subdivision has been approved. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lien explained the Council left off with this amendment last week. It was proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis but not voted on. There was already language in the code related to tree replacement, but the amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis was related to replacement trees offsite. He reviewed an amendment was tweaked Councilmember Buckshnis' previous proposal, the existing code and addressing when replacement trees are proposed offsite. 23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where re lacenment trees are R.Loposed to be planted at a di event location than the pLakcLik a description of the alternative site and written a roual rom the yropeiV owner must be provided. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO AMEND 23.10.060.B.2.B.VII. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE A DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PRO VIDED. " Councilmember Olson agreed with the proposed rewording. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the location would always be known ahead of time. Mr. Lien no, there is another section of code that addresses phasing the tree plan, where trees will be planted, particularly subdivisions. Often in a subdivision the location of the houses is not known, subdivision review only includes the property boundaries. There are instances where it can phased which is addressed elsewhere in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 16 the code. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this amendment would be in opposition to that or would they work together. Mr. Lien answered they would work together. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are sites available such as tree farms in other areas. Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was the other property owner would provide a conservation easement for these replacement trees or was it permission to have them planted there. Mr. Lien answered if a tree is required to be replaced with development, it is considered a protected tree which is defined. Sites with protected trees are required to record a protected tree covenant. If the required replacement trees are planted offsite, that property owner would need to sign the protected tree covenant. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it was understood that all of these trees would be replanted within the city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien recalled a lot of discussion about that by the Planning Board and the Tree Board. Replacement trees associated with development for the most part would be planted within the City of Edmonds. If a developer could not plant all the replacement trees onsite, they pay into the Tree Fund. There have been discussions about whether that money could be used to buy into a tree bank in another location. The intent would be that the replacement trees for the most part trees would be planted within the City of Edmonds; to meet the no net loss of urban canopy, a lot of it will have to be in the City of Edmonds. With the fee -in -lieu, there could be a significant amount of money paid into the Tree Fund for tree planting and there may not be enough room in the City of Edmonds to plant all the replacement trees per the replacement ratios. The flexibility to buy into a tree bank or contribute to something like the Mountain to Sound Greenway would make sense. Tree Fund aside, Councilmember L. Johnson asked if a property owner or developer could choose to replace a tree on a property not within the city limits of Edmonds. Mr. Lien answered he did not think this code prohibited that. Councilmember Olson recalled the Tree Board having this conversation when she was on the board. In terms of the environmental impact, obviously everyone loves the trees in the City but to her recollection, the Tree Board was satisfied that trees would be replanted in the general vicinity. Based on Mr. Lien's point about the fee -in -lieu possibly being quite substantial, she suggested allowing property to be purchased to preserve existing trees and/or as open space where trees could be planted with money from the fee -in -lieu. With that in mind, the City likely would not end up with too much money due to how expensive property is. Councilmember Buckshnis commented trees could be planted in Yost Park as well as other areas where trees need to be regenerated such as the marsh. There is also a tree farm in Redmond, a farm that was turned into a tree bank. Council President Paine offered a friendly amendment, after "alternate site," add "within the city limits of Edmonds whenever possible." Councilmember Buckshnis accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember L. Johnson asked who would determine whenever possible. Ms. Hope answered that would be a challenge because what one person thinks is possible, another may not. Councilmember L. Johnson preferred the language without "whenever possible." Ms. Hope said another potential would be "within the city limits of Edmonds preferred" as that would leave the option of planting elsewhere. She reminded this is not a code just for this year but for years to come. If the Council had any preference about where the replacement trees were planted, Mr. Taraday recommended stating a specific geographic area where they need to be planted such as City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds or a neighboring city, etc. The Council could say Snohomish County but then they could be planted in the mountains and he was unsure that was what the Council intended. He urged the Council to be prescriptive with regard to the geographic area. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis suggested "preferred within the city limits or Snohomish County." Mr. Taraday said "preferred" is not enforceable. Ms. Hope said it probably gives the City some leverage but does not force it. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to say "preferred" rather than mandate a location. Another option is to just say Snohomish County. Councilmember Olson understood the enforceability point Mr. Taraday was making but she like "preferred" to show to staff and the person reading the code what the Council hoped to have happen. Ultimately all the urban areas, depending on what happens with density, there will be less yard if a detached ADU is constructed and Edmonds is a small city. She was okay with stating a preference but demanding all the replacement trees be planted in the city limits was not something the city could live with. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Edmonds is not necessarily a small city, it is the third biggest city in Snohomish County. She preferred to have the replacement trees planted in Edmonds and not in Snohomish County or in neighboring cities. If the issue is Edmonds has too much tree canopy, then the number of replacement trees needs to be reduced. She did not want people who live in other cities or in Snohomish County to benefit from Edmonds' ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds benefits from a Snohomish County Park which is included in the UFMP; one of the biggest tree canopies in Edmonds is Southwest County Park. It may be possible to plant replacement trees there. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern with unforeseen and potentially beneficial loopholes. Although the City was not yet identified no net loss because a starting point has not been established, ultimately that is the goal. This potential loophole, a potential loss of trees in Edmonds, defeats the ultimate purpose. While this is a long term plan, in the long term, the City want to keep trees. She summarized she was concerned about loopholes and would not support the change. Councilmember K. Johnson said this begs the question about places within the City where replacement trees can be planted; maybe that needs to be defined as public properties or parks. She suggested discussing with Parks having receiver areas within parks where trees can be planted. For example, if 100 trees are cut down in Edmonds, where will they be planted in Edmonds? That needs to be coordinated with the Parks and Public Works as they responsible for public lands in the City. Council President Paine agreed with the sentiment expressed by Councilmembers, that it needs to be within the city limits and a specific area as Mr. Taraday recommended. Mr. Lien said if the Council wants all replacement trees to be planted within the City of Edmonds, he suggested that language be in 23.10.080 Tree Replacement rather than having it buried within the tree protection plan. Councilmember Olson asked if the maker of the motion and the seconder wanted to make the amendment as suggested by Mr. Lien. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Lien was suggesting to move the language to 23.10.080.B. Mr. Lien said the discussion has been where will the replacement trees be planted. If it is an alternate site and the Council wants the alternate site to be within the City of Edmonds, rather than have that requirement buried within the Tree Retention and Protection Plan, it makes more sense to have "preferred within the city limits or Snohomish County" in 23.10.080 as a new A, B or C such as, All replacement trees shall be planted within the City of Edmonds or whatever geographical boundary the Council decides. Councilmember Buckshnis said her issue is the loss of tree canopy in the City and the desire to replace big trees that are being removed. If the Council limited it to the city limits, she was unsure there was enough Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 18 room in parks or on private property. She suggested "Edmonds proper" so it would include South County park. Mr. Lien said South County Park was within the city limits. Council President Paine suggested moving the language into 23.10.080 as a new A or B. [this was voted on as a motion at 2:48:55 on video and failed.] Councilmember Olson expressed support for moving that language. With regard to Edmonds being the third largest city in Snohomish County, that was based on population, not land mass. She asked it if was reasonable that the city could accommodate all the replacement trees within the city limits. Mr. Lien said he did not have an answer for that. He said the UFMP identified potential planting areas within the City. The map in an earlier draft was removed because the consultant looked at the canopy coverage in the City and identified places without trees, the majority of which were in view areas in the bowl. Given the replacement requirements, he said it would be difficult to find places in Edmonds parks or otherwise to put all the replacement trees. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she got her data from the County executive's office. She asked why the proposal was to require a certain number of replacement trees for every tree cut down if there was not enough room to put the trees. It did not make sense to require developers provide excess trees if there is not enough room to put the trees. She liked the potential to plant replacement trees on county property within Edmonds' boundary because Esperance is a huge area and it could be beneficial to them. She would support the proposal because it gets the City partway there, but in the long run if it looks like there are too many trees, the responsible thing would be to reduce the number of replacement trees. Mr. Taraday referred to the UFMP, emphasis on urban, and suggested another option would be to change the geographical description to urban areas within Snohomish County. That would provide a larger area but still ensure trees are planted in an urban area and would create a much larger receiving site. Logistically speaking, once replacement trees are planted outside the City, the City will lose its ability to track and determine if in fact that tree is retained. If a developer submits an application on a replacement site in the future, it will be in another jurisdiction and the City will not even see it or find out that the replacement tree(s) were taken out. Even if something is recorded on the property, there is no guarantee the jurisdiction doing the review will see it. With regard to boundaries where trees could be planted, Mr. Lien proposed another option. In talking about environmental mitigation such as wetland banks or tree replacement ratios, what is usually looked at is an ecological boundary rather than a political boundary. One ecological boundary is a water resource inventory area; Edmonds is within WRIA 8. An option would be an ecological boundary versus political boundary. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, stating even if there are no replacement tree locations, trees need to be replaced with development as the City continues lose large trees. She suggested putting that wording in 23.10.080.D.4 which talks about the ecological boundaries of WRIA 8. She agreed with using an ecological boundary rather than a political boundary. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO ADD 23.10.080.D.4 "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY OF THE WRIA 8 JURISDICTION." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating there was already a motion on the floor_ Council President Paine referenced a motion she made [actually a suggestion at 2:35:16 on video] to add as a new A or B to 23.10.080. "Replacement trees should be within the ecological boundary of WRIA 8 jurisdiction, preferably within the Edmonds City limits." Mr. Lien suggested adding this as 23.10.080.13. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 19 Councilmember L. Johnson referred to 23.10.080.E regarding tree replacement fee -in -lieu, if a replacement location cannot be identified a tree replacement fee -in -lieu can be paid. The City could make a decision where to plant a tree at a later date or potentially in the future the funds could be used to acquire land with trees on it. If the ultimate goal is no net loss and possibly even net ecological gain, she questioned how that would be accomplished by planting trees somewhere else and losing control and inventory of them within the Edmonds tree canopy. She said if trees cannot be planted in the City, the answer is already in paragraph E. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson; if a location cannot be found in Edmonds, they pay into a fund. She understood the concept of planting trees regionally, but she preferred to have trees removed in Edmonds be replanted in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED. Mr. Taraday stated the pending motion: ADD "REPLACEMENT TREES SHOULD BE WITHIN THE ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARY OF WRIA 8 JURISDICTION, PREFERABLY WITHIN THE EDMONDS CITY LIMITS" AS 23.10.080.B. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of information, asking what motion the Council was on now. Mr. Taraday advised there was no pending motion; Mr. Lien was reviewing the amendments proposed by Council. Mr. Lien clarified the initial motion was the language regarding alternate site and that had been amended. The original amendment was to revised so that 23.10.060.B.2.b.vii. read, "Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where re lacetnent trees are pMposedto be plantedat a difLerent location than the ro'ect site a description of the alter native site and written approval row the pi-ope;U properowner must be prodded " A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.13.2.13.VII. TO READ, "PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF ANY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES AS OUTLINED IN ECDC 23.10.080 AND TREES REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. WHERE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THE PROJECT SITE A DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST BE PROVIDED." AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.B.2.B.VII, ADD "WITHIN EDMONDS OTHER" FOLLOWING "LOCATION." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her intent was the trees could be planted in Edmonds in unincorporated Snohomish County. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if within the City of Edmonds also be included in 23.10.080.13.2. Mr. Lien said if there is a requirement that replacement trees be planted within the Edmonds city limits, he preferred it be in 23.10.080. Councilmember L. Johnson offered that as a friendly amendment to move it to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 20 23.10.080. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed to the friendly amendment. Mr. Lien asked if the Council preferred to have it as a separate letter or incorporated into D. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have it in D Replacement Specifications. Mr. Lien suggested the following: 23.10.080.D.4 "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1). Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Taraday to weigh in from a legal standpoint whether that included unincorporated properties within the City of Edmonds. Mr. Taraday said it would include the park which is within the city limits but would not include Esperance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her motion was intended to include Esperance. Mr. Lien suggested adding "or its Urban Growth Area." COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: Add as 23.10.080.D.4. "Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban Growth Area." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1). Mr. Lien introduce an amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: Replace Section 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv with "Description of hazardo_xrs_ trees inch(e ing location and basis for hazardous determination." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REPLACE SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.C.IV WITH "DESCRIPTION OFANY HAZARDOUS TREES INCLUDING LOCATIONAND BASIS FOR HAZARDOUS DETERMINATION." Councilmember Buckshnis said this was a very confusing code. There was already a description of hazardous tree and this was intended to keep it simple. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there is often confusion between hazardous trees and nuisance trees. She suggested revisiting what a nuisance tree is. Mr. Lien said there is also a definition of a viable tree. This section is addressing the possibility that when a site is developed, a tree that was once viable is no longer viable for a number of reasons which are listed in paragraph iv. It may not be a hazardous tree but it may no longer be a viable tree which requires documentation. Councilmember Olson preferred the original description proposed by staff. Councilmember Buckshnis read the definition of hazard tree, A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes is subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. She felt section iv was repeating that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 21 definition. Many people have expressed to her that the tree code is very complex and confusing and she was trying to simplify it. UPON ROLL CALL (MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: 23.10.060.C.I change requirement to 50% retention of significant trees (regardless of development type). Councilmember Buckshnis preferred 50% over 30%. There has been a tremendous loss of large conifers. There are few pocket forests left and it is important to increase the tree canopy. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED IN 23.10.060.C.1 CHANGE REQUIREMENT TO 50% RETENTION OF SIGNIFICANT TREES (REGARDLESS OF DEVELOPMENT TYPE). MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: Revise 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree relention re uirements noted above, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.C.4 TO READ, "IN ADDITION TO THE TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS NOTED ABODE, EVERY SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT IS REMOVED UNDER THIS CHAPTER MUST BE REPLACED CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 23.10.080." Mr. Lien said "noted above" is not good code language; he preferred to reference the code. He suggested revising 23.10.060.C.4 to read, "In addition to the tree retention re uirernents in szebsection C.] a this section above, every significant tree that is removed..." Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Lien's suggestion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: Revise 23.10.060.D to replace the list of Priority of Tree Retention Requirements with "Grouyi= of 5i ni cant trees that form a tree cangRy and wildlife corridor must be retained to the maximum extent possible." Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the code is confusing to many. She preferred to make it simpler and just state the City is trying to keep significant trees that are pocket forests or tree canopy. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO REVISE 23.10.060.D TO REPLACE THE LIST OF PRIORITY OF TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS WITH "GROUPINGS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT FORM A TREE CANOPY AND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MUST BE RETAINED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE." Councilmember Olson asked about the term "maximum extent possible." Mr. Taraday said it puts the burden on the developer to establish impossibility. The language he was concerned about before was stating a preference. This is a regulation that require something be done a certain way unless the developer can demonstrate that it is not possible. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 22 Mr. Lien said there will be some sites with trees that do not form a tree canopy and there will be isolated sites that are not connected with a wildlife corridor. With regard to trees that should be protected, the preference is to protect large trees, but there could be large trees on a site that are not part of the canopy or a wildlife corridor. He did not think the proposed language describes all sites or the trees that should be given priority. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECONDER. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis: Add 23.10.060.D.1.f. "Development Services ma require site plan revisions in order to preserve Priority One trees on The site plan." COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD 23.10.060.D.1.F. "DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MAY REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVISIONS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE PRIORITY ONE TREES ON THE SITE PLAN." Councilmember Buckshnis said this was proposed by another citizen which is why it was contrary to the previous amendment. The goal was to trying to preserve Priority 1 trees. Councilmember Distelhorst commented the list is types of trees or situations and the proposed language does not seem to belong in this section. Mr. Lien said it could be moved to 23.10.060.E. Councilmember L. Johnson said it was redundant. If an applicant had not adequately or appropriately prioritized, they would need to submit site plan revisions to prioritize them as identified in this section. Mr. Lien advised there would be some back and forth on reviews. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECONDER. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, there are 12 minutes left and 2 agenda items remaining. She said it was getting late to continue this item and she preferred to move on to the next agenda items. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, THAT WE STOP MAKING AMENDMENTS NOW AND BRING THE ORDINANCE BACK FOR ADOPTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON TONIGHT. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support stopping and moving the ordinance to Consent. She was also concerned that the moratorium ordinances expire tomorrow and she would like to extend them. There are more amendments that have not yet been vetted. Councilmember K. Johnson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' concerns. She questioned why the ordinance would be on Consent when the Council had not completed its review. Council President Paine commented the Council has been on this topic for months. She acknowledged there were additional amendments that Councilmembers would like to make, but there will be an opportunity later this year. This is the fourth meeting where the Council has discussed amendments to the tree code. A lot of good ground has been covered, but there are other things the Council needs to move onto for the good of the City such as additional housing items. She recommended incorporating all the amendments that had been approved tonight, put the ordinance on the Consent Agenda and move on to new topics. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 23 Councilmember Olson did not support the motion; the Council is in the process of reviewing amendments and has not completed their review. If an additional meeting was required where the Council only worked on the tree code, she was happy to support that. She summarized the Council needed to follow through and complete the work. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the last three amendments had witldrawn. She suggested placing the ordinance on Consent and if there are additional amendments, it can be pulled from Consent. She urged Councilmembers to ensure their amendments were valid and not redundant as that would move the process along more quickly. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed the Council had spent an incredible amount of time on this, not having a meeting next week may alleviate some workload so the remaining amendments could be reviewed to ensure they are appropriate for discussion at the next Council meeting, whether it was on Consent and pulled or on the regular agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to make an amendment to change Section 4 of the ordinance to extend it. Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the comments were not germane to the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis said in 11 years she has never had a half -finished process go to Consent. Regardless of the fact that a couple amendments were withdrawn, that did not mean the Council was not still going through the vetting process. A number of citizens complained that the tree code agenda item was very late at night at the first two meetings. Even though the Counci I has had four meetings on the tree code, the first two discussions were less than a half hour, the third was 45-50 minutes and this one was somewhat lengthier. She agreed with Councilmember Olson that a meeting should have been held strictly regarding the tree code. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were not germane to motion. Councilmember Buckshnis said she disagreed with the motion. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: Bring the tree code as amended to date to the Consent Agenda at the next Council meeting. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. 11. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Reports are included in the Council packet. 12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES Minutes are included in the Council packet. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 24 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:35 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson referenced the tragedy that occurred in Atlanta, stating he was encouraged to see residents and the community come out to support Asian residents on Sunday afternoon on Highway 99. He was also encouraged by drivers waving, honking, and showing their support for Asian community members. He said hate is not acceptable anywhere and certainly not in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson reported the Snohomish County COVID numbers are down to 72/100,000 which is great but last week the numbers were 70/100,000. Although the numbers are down they are plateauing. The State is entering Stage 3, but to stay there, the numbers cannot go back up. He urged everyone to continue wearing masks, watching their distance and washing their hands. There is still nowhere near enough people vaccinated to effectively prevent the spread. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson promoted a rally against hate this Saturday at Esperance Park from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. There will be an open mike for people to share their experiences. She plans to attend to the rally to listen to that input and will be there afterward for anyone who wants to share their experiences and what the City can do to better support them. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was troubled by recent incidents. As has been said in the rock and roll song, love is the answer. Everyone needs to love each other. The United States is a nation of immigrants who come from all over the world. Everyone needs to get back to basic ideals; this is the land of the free and home of brave and people need to forget about their divisiveness and try to work together. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked everyone that continues to socially distance, wear masks and wash their hands because they are responsible for lowering the COVID numbers. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed the sentiments about Sunday's event; it was wonderful to see so many from the Edmonds community, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and across Snohomish County come out in support of the community. It was especially meaningful for his household. Councilmember Distelhorst reminded there are always free resources for people experiencing a state of crisis or mental health. The WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov webpage is still available and contains a comprehensive list of free resources available to residents to call, chat online or text with professionals in Snohomish County who are available to help. Council President Paine thanked Mayor Nelson for the recognition of Intellectual Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, commenting it was nice to hear from local agencies. She echoed Mayor Nelson and other Councilmembers' comments that the rallies against hate are necessary to show support and unity against violence and hate. It has lately been gun violence, something that needs to be addressed by families and the community. She welcomed the City's new Acting Police Chief. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed the COVID numbers were increasing slightly in Snohomish County. If it goes up to a certain point, Snohomish County will go back to Stage 2 and there is insistence that that return to Stage 2 happen immediately. She encouraged everyone to wear masks, maintain social distancing and do not gather in large groups. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 25 Councilmember Fraley -Manillas agreed Saturday's rally was wonderful but it was followed by the murder of ten people in Boulder, including a police officer, a day and a half later. She thanked Mayor Nelson for everything lie has done with regard to gun safety and people locking up their guns. Those in Atlanta and in Boulder have been on her mind and in her prayers for days. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas welcomed Acting Police Chief Michelle Bennett, commenting she was thrilled to have her join the City and looked forward to her service. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR TWO MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson welcomed Acting Chief Bennett to Edmonds and was glad she had joined tonight's meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was wearing orange tonight, the color worn by gun violence prevention advocates. Gun violence is a crisis across the nation. Firearms are the tool used most by those infected by hate fueled by racism, xenophobia, misogyny and domestic extremism and used to terrorize and inflict the most harm and carnage. Easy access to guns gives a single hate filled individual the means to shatter numerous lives. This was seen last Tuesday in Atlanta when an individual murdered eight people including six Asian women in a hate crime committed by someone using a gun believed to have been purchased the same day. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, yesterday in Boulder ten individuals were gunned down while grocery shopping, an act committed by someone using an AR-15. Within the same week, five other mass shootings were carried out in California, Oregon, Texas and Pennsylvania by someone using a firearm to inflict terror. These horrific mass shootings do not even begin to account for the roles guns play in dramatically increasing the lethalness of suicides and domestic violence. In the U.S. more than 100 people are killed by guns every day. It seems we are slowly becoming numb to the violence. We must not let this become our new normal. We do not have to live like this. Gun violence is preventable but only with action. She hoped the community would join her in calling on federal and state legislators to enact meaningful, impaetful, common sense gun prevention reform. Enough is enough. Councilmember Buckshms thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for mentioning the availability of the WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov website. She assured there were many places for anyone who is feeling sad or depressed to call. She urged everyone to think back about happy times. She thanked the people who continue to contact her; she agreed there were decorum issues that were not being addressed. She summarized let's all just be happy for a while. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 26 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed Saturday's rally was wonderful but it was followed by the murder of ten people in Boulder, including a police officer, a day and a half later. She thanked Mayor Nelson for everything he has done with regard to gun safety and people locking up their guns. Those in Atlanta and in Boulder have been on her mind and in her prayers for days_ Councilmember Fraley-Monillas welcomed Acting Police Chief Michelle Bennett, commenting she was thrilled to have herjoin the City and looked forward to her service. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR TWO MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson welcomed Acting Chief Bennett to Edmonds and was glad she had joined tonight's meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was wearing orange tonight, the color worn by gun violence prevention advocates. Gun violence is a crisis across the nation. Firearms are the tool used most by those infected by hate fueled by racism, xenophobia, misogyny and domestic extremism and used to terrorize and inflict the most harm and carnage. Easy access to guns gives a single hate filled individual the means to shatter numerous lives. This was seen last Tuesday in Atlanta when an individual murdered eight people including six Asian women in a hate crime committed by someone using a gun believed to have been purchased the same day. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, yesterday in Boulder ten individuals were gunned down while grocery shopping, an act committed by someone using an AR-15. Within the same week, five other mass shootings were carried out in California, Oregon, Texas and Pennsylvania by someone using a firearm to inflict terror. These horrific mass shootings do not even begin to account for the roles guns play in dramatically increasing the lethalness of suicides and domestic violence. In the U.S. more than 100 people are killed by guns every day. It seems we are slowly becoming numb to the violence. We must not let this become our new normal. We do not have to live like this. Gun violence is preventable but only with action. She hoped the community would join her in calling on federal and state legislators to enact meaningful, impactful, common sense gun prevention reform. Enough is enough. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Uistelhorst for mentioning the availability of the WeCare.EdmondsWa.gov website. She assured there were many places for anyone who is feeling sad or depressed to call. She urged everyone to think back about happy times. She thanked the people who continue to contact her; she agreed there were decorum issues that were not being addressed. She summarized let's all just be happy for a while. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. I MIC AEL NELSON, MAYOR OTT PA -CYO 61TY Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 26 Public Comment for 3/23/21 City Council Meeting: From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:49 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the March 23, 2021 Council Meeting The City's Official Street Map needs Review and Update. It is inconsistent. I am still waiting for answers to the 11 questions I brought forth on April 23, 2019 - see Questions below. (Questions slightly modified due to 450-word limit for public comments) I think answers will benefit the public, elected officials, and City Staff. In general, I think there is much confusion at City Hall about what a Right -of -Way is. Our Code does not define "Right -of -Way". Our Code fails to discuss the dramatic differences between Opened and Unopened Rights -of -Way. Our Code does not include the word "servient". Our Code's definition of easement is wrong. Our Code fails to make it clear that the rights of both dominant and servient estate owners are not absolute and must be construed to permit a due and reasonable enjoyment of both interests so long as that is possible. History shows Edmonds City Government thinks it can require grants of benefits to third parties when the City vacates its dominant estate. Third parties who have no rights to the property whatsoever! Questions: 1. What is a "planned right-of-way"? A search of the City Code for "planned right-of-way" yields no results. 2. How does a "planned right-of-way" end up on the City's Official Street Map? 3. When was this "planned right-of-way" added to the City's Official Street Map? 4. The 4/24/2019 Planning Board Packet Page 23 states that "With future development of the underlying property, the Official Street Map would require dedication of the 60-ft right-of-way as a public street". I don't follow that. Is there an actual Code Section that requires this? If so, please provide the Code section that requires dedication of the 60-ft right-of-way as a public street. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 27 5. How does something not yet dedicated end up on the City's Official Street Map? Does a street have to be dedicated and accepted? 6. As it appears that there has not been a dedication, how did City Water, sewer and storm utilities get located partially within the 60-ft planned right-of-way? 7. Did the placement of City Water, sewer and storm utilities within the "planned right-of-way" open the right-of-way or is a right-of-way only opened when it is improved so that it can be used for ingress/egress? 8. Was this "planned right-of-way" bonded for? If so, should the bond have been used to pay for the construction of the street? 9. Why does this process not involve a closed record meeting? Have the State's related regulations been reformed since 1997? 10. What is the difference between a "planned right-of-way" and an unopened right-of-way? 11. If something is on the Official Street Map - why is this not being treated as a street vacation? From: Dmitry S Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:35 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmond unit lot subdivision amendment I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. Best wishes, Dmitry From: Dmitry Semyonov Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:33 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmond unit lot subdivision amendment I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 28 -- Thanks, Dmitry From: Tam Dang Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:38 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Thank you - Tam From: Andy Miller Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:23 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: unit lot subdivision I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in downtown Edmonds. Both of my parents grew up in Edmonds in the 50's and 60's and we love the town. We'd like to move our family back to Edmonds and raise our children there but have thus far found it unaffordable and have no interest in condo living. This amendment seems to increase non -condo affordable housing options without increasing density - please support it. Andy Miller From: top shot Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:08 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds unit lot I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From: Jeromy Amy Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:42 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 29 <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds sub division I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. From: in stock Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:38 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From: steady cooking Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:36 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Do the right thing I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. From: nike snkres Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:20 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds division I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 30 From: Doug Neou Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:04 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision should be done I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. From: doug shoemaker Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Unit Lot Subdivision I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the down town business district. It seams like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes cost cheaper because I wont have to pay condo fees. From: HOME SEARCH Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:38 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From: Taylor Gant Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:35 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision Amendment Hello, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 31 I am writing to voice my opinion that I support the update for Unit Lot Subdivision in the downtown business district. It seems like there is no difference in what can be built, and it makes costs cheaper because I won't have to pay condo fees. Thanks! Taylor From: Jeromy Lewis Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:23 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Its the right thing to do I support the amendment for unit lot subdivision in down town Edmonds. This is a huge win for affordable housing, Edmonds does not need more condos. From: Vasily Stepin Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:33 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit Lot Subdivision To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the unit lot subdivision amendment! From what I understand, it will lower the cost on construction and we do not need any more condos in the city! Highest Regards, Vasily From: S O Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:08 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Unit lot subdivision downtown Edmonds I'm in support of this amendment. Seems like it will allow for more affordable housing. Sean Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 23, 2021 Page 32