Cmd041321EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
April 13, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
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
Council President Paine 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."
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. JOINT MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
The following Planning Board Members were present, participating remotely: Mike Rosen, Chair; Alicia
Crank, Vice Chair; Roger Pence; and Matt Cheung.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 1
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the Planning Board meets with the City Council
periodically to clarify items in the Work Program and discuss upcoming ideas and issues.
Chair Mike Rosen advised there is one vacant position on the Planning Board as well as the Student
Representative position. He explained the presentation will identify priorities, seek the Council's input on
those priorities and guidance on how the Planning Board can better serve the City in the future. He
reviewed:
• Activities undertaken since Last Joint meeting (7/20/20)
1) Public Hearings
a) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - New Chapter
b) Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for 21 Properties on 9th Ave. N
c) Proposal to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation From "Neighborhood
Commercial" to "Multi -Family - Medium Density for Two Vacant Parcels in Perrinville
d) Proposed 2021 - 2026 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plan
e) Tree Code
f) Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process
g) Outdoor Dining interim zoning ordinance
2) Briefings
a) Regional Code Collaboration - EV Ready Codes Research Summary
b) Update on development activities in the city
c) Climate Goals Planning and status update
d) Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Updates
3) Joint Meetings
a) Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee
• Validate priorities
1) Code updates implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), including additional
work on the Tree Code(s)
2) Code updates reflecting Climate Plan Goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure
3) Housing - as directed by the Council
4) Low impact subdivision code updates
5) Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development
6) Low impact / stormwater code review and update
7) Sustainable development codes review and updates
8) Parks and PROS Plan support
9) Further Highway 99 Implementation
10) Neighborhood Center Plans
11) Comprehensive Plan update prep
• Continued areas of interest:
1) More public engagement
2) Increased youth involvement
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled priorities from past years that were not included in this list, specifically
updating the subdivision and PRD code. Vice Chair Crank responded the Board has discussed that and it
was included on the list in the past. The Planning Board looks forward to the new code writer assisting with
that and at the last meeting, that was included on the list per Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented another issue that is not identified is the Five Corners
Neighborhood Plan. She recalled efforts many years ago to update the code relative to Westgate and Five
Corners, but that does not seem to have been included as it has in the past. Ms. Hope answered the list
includes neighborhood center plans and although Fiver Corners is not specifically identified, the Planning
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 2
Board is very interested in addressing it. Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to highlight that so it did not
get lost in the shuffle.
Councilmember K. Johnson was uncertain the code writer would be undertaking the subdivision and PRD
code. She recalled there was some initially discussion at the Planning Board approximately eight years ago
and then was shelved for reasons she did not know. It may be appropriate to have a general discussion about
where we have been in the past, where are we now and what do we want to accomplish before the code
writer is expected to draft language.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the Planning Board's work and said she enjoys
reading their minutes. Her interests include the tree code, stormwater, watershed, climate and she recalled
the Council was provided the low impact development code for subdivisions several years ago. Although
some of the new tree code is good, it still does not address no net loss or net ecological gain. Her priorities
include the deteriorating watersheds which can be caused by the loss of trees, stormwater, and weather
events. She asked how that could be incorporated into the Planning Board's priorities. Chair Rosen
commented many of the priorities are related to the environment but their impacts on the environment are
not necessarily equal. There are many other items that have impacts such as transportation and land use as
well as other items the City does not control. He hoped the Planning Board's minutes reflect their passion
about protecting the environment and the character of the community, understanding and appreciating
property rights, ensuring they listen to the community and not creating unintended consequences. He
understood it was a balancing act.
With regard to the tree code, Chair Rosen relayed the Planning Board was also interested in the metrics that
would be used, the starting place for no net loss and recognizing that the tree code will be part of a process.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen unintended consequences over the past years while
awaiting the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and the tree code.
Councilmember Olson recalled the Planning Board leadership reached out to the Council so the Council's
priorities could be reflected in the list of priorities. Housing will be a significant part of this year's work;
implementing ideas so that there is a good outcome will be important. Ideas are often not necessarily good
or bad, it depends on how they are implemented. She recommended including in that conversation the issue
of variances and when they are appropriate. For example, there is not a lot of value to determining setbacks
or building heights if they will be waived during the process. She was interested in the Planning Board
discussing what has to exist for a variance or waiver to be approved.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented in reviewing the Planning Board's list, their environmental focus
is evident and she felt the Planning Board definitely considered her input. She expressed her full support
for the environmentally focused priorities specifically the tree code, UFMP update, and climate plan goals
including the EV charging. She asked for clarification on Priorities 4 and 7, how they are distinguished
from each other and where they overlap. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered the
Planning Board is still working on this. There has been some work done on low impact subdivision code
updates as well as more opportunities for a sustainable approach to subdivision codes. Priority 6, Low
impact / stormwater code review and update, has a climate, environmental and infrastructure impact.
Priority 7, Sustainable development codes review and updates, the intent is to ensure development codes
are sustainable such as net ecological gain. Those will be considerations as the code update occurs.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she also appreciated the increased youth involvement and looked forward
to hearing how that will be accomplished. Chair Rosen said increasing public engagement in general is of
interest to the Planning Board and he was pleased there was a new community outreach person at the City
and looked forward to collaborating with her and providing ways for the public to participate in ways they
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 3
are comfortable and specifically the youth. The Planning Board has had several conversations about how
to better involve youth and be more proactive.
r
Council President Paine commented a comprehensive tree code as well as a tree canopy assessment will
assist the Planning Board with their environmental focus. As there is a lot of concern about sidewalks, she
was glad to see that on the list of priorities. She appreciated the focus on infrastructure and accomplishing
it in an environmentally responsible way. She appreciated the Planning Board's review and discussion
regarding the tree code. Vice Chair Crank said the list of 11 priorities was not in priority order. In
developing the list, the Planning Board acknowledged limits in time and space and wanted to focus on items
they could touch this calendar year. The Planning Board also recognized there had been a significant change
on the Council since the last joint meeting so they wanted to leave space to include other topics and
reprioritizing items.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if she had been contacted, she might have suggested adding zoning
of the waterfront to the list of priorities.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Planning Board Members for attending and expressed his appreciation
for the conversation with Board Chair Rosen earlier this year. The priority list is fantastic and he wanted
the Planning Board to do all of it. He appreciated the discussion on intersectionality of some of the issues
and hoped the Planning Board would look at that beyond City boundaries. Some key state legislation has
looked at climate, housing, transportation and vehicle miles traveled — some have passed and some have
not. With regard to unintended consequences, some of the City's actions which may be seen as pro -
environmental in Edmonds can have impacts outside the City's borders. He was excited about taking a
regional, holistic approach to decisions on housing, transportation, and land use. Highway 99 would be
another priority as well as coupling bicycle storage facilities in multi -unit developments with the necessary
infrastructure improvements to ensure people feel safe riding. For example, it does not make sense to have
multi -unit developments on a very busy corridor with a speed limit of 40 mph where people cannot use
their bikes for transportation. He suggested that to be considered with a comprehensive lens rather than as
a one-off. Chair Rosen agreed most issues are not geographically restricted especially related to the
environment.
Councilmember Distelhorst said staff has been working on a regional DADU working group; nearly every
city in Snohomish County allows DADUs and Edmonds is the only that does not. He cited a DADU under
construction in Esperance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said funds were included in the budget to do a Comprehensive Plan review of
the waterfront. She recalled Edmonds Crossing is still identified several times in the Comprehensive Plan
and agreed the zoning of the waterfront needs to be reviewed. She asked if the Planning Board has any
interaction with other commissions. Board Member Pence said he is the liaison between the Planning Board
and the Economic Development Commission, primarily communicating the Planning Board's efforts such
as tree code.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the list of priorities were in a ranked order or a general list. Vice Chair
Crank said it is a list of priorities; they are not in a ranked order. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested
they could be called the Planning Board's work program rather than priorities. Chair Rosen answered the
intent of this presentation was to ensure the City Council agrees with the Planning Board's list, whether
anything needed to be added or removed. Ms. Hope relayed tree issues will be next on the Planning Board's
agenda.
Student Rep Roberts asked if the Planning Board saw any opportunity for collaboration between the Youth
Commission and the Planning Board on projects. Chair Rosen said the board recognizes it has not done a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 4
good job accessing youth as a resource and they plan to do better. Vice Chair Crank said Planning Board
Member Daniel Robles reached out to the previous student representative for suggestions regarding what
the Planning Board was doing right, what they could do better, etc. The Planning Board is open to
collaboration.
Council President Paine suggested neighborhood plans would be a good opportunity for collaboration with
the Planning Board. She expressed her appreciation to the Planning Board for all the work they do. Chair
Rosen relayed the Planning Board's job is to ensure the City Council has information to make good
decisions. He asked if there was anything the Planning Board could do to better assist the Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on the importance of communication, pointing out better
communication would be helpful for both the Council and the Planning Board. Meeting once a year does
not allow the members of the Council or the Planning Board to get into specifics. Chair Rosen welcomed
any specific input, relaying there has been discussion about using the three minute public comment to
provide brief updates regarding topics the Planning Board is discussing and/or preparing position papers to
draw attention to certain topics. He welcomed any specific suggestions for improved communication.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested pairing Planning Board Members with Councilmembers to
provide periodic updates and/or gather feedback.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she thoroughly enjoys reading the Planning Board minutes and observed
the Planning Board meetings videos have been posted. She suggested utilizing the Development Services
Report as a way to communicate Planning Board issues to the City Council.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for Chair Rosen reaching out to her and felt the
priorities reflected her input. In addition to the Planning Board seeking input from Council, she said it was
also important for Councilmembers to reach out to the Planning Board for more information on topics they
are considering. She asked who she should reach out to. Chair Rosen said there is always benefit from
hearing directly from individuals; he appreciated one-on-one conversations. The Planning Board is a group
that works for the City Council and he did not want to imply that Councilmember could provide individual
direction. Vice Chair Crank appreciated the positive feedback on the minutes, commenting in a large part
because of Chair Rosen, Planning Board Members have been purposely verbose in the minutes to ensure
all discussions are being captured. Chair Rosen is very adept at summarizing the entire discussion and that
is included in the minutes.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the members for their service on the Planning Board. It is a very
important role for the City and having served on the Planning Board, she was aware at how much in-depth
work they do. It is appropriate for the Planning Board to assume that role because the Council simply does
not have the time. She appreciated the Planning Board's advisory role to the Council and that they take the
time to understand the issues and provide Council their input.
Councilmember Distelhorst recognized that Chair Rosen and other Planning Board Members have
professional experience in public engagement and public participation. He asked how the Council can
support the Planning Board in ensuring long term continuance of public participation. He appreciated
receiving more online surveys and household mailers from the City in the last six months than ever before.
He asked what the Planning Board needed to ensure the Council and staff could continue providing more
equitable public participation opportunities. Chair Rosen said he has heard from both the Mayor and
Councilmembers that public engagement as well as increasing engagement is a high priority. The days of
requiring the public show up in -person to a building is not in a comfort zone or convenient. The City needs
to have enough tools to allow people to engage in whatever way they are comfortable in engaging as well
as doing a good job informing them of those opportunities. The tools as well as the evaluation are important
to ensure the loudest voice doesn't always win as sometimes the majority voice is incorrect.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 5
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND TO ADD ORDINANCE NO 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT
THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX
MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION AND
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY, AS ITEM 8.2
Councilmember Buckshnis explained since she did not have the votes last week to get Ordinance No. 4200
on the agenda, she would like to introduce Ordinance No. 4217.
Council President Paine pointed out there is a public hearing next week on Ordinance No. 4217.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to opine on this. Mr. Taraday explained
the point of a public hearing on an interim ordinance is to determine whether the Council wants to continue
the interim ordinance or repeal it. The presumption is the interim ordinance is adopted without a public
hearing so the public hearing occurs after the fact to essentially confirm that the Council wants to leave the
interim ordinance in place.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about adding another emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating she was adding this ordinance to the agenda for
discussion and perhaps an amendment. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was unclear how that affected the public hearing. Mr. Taraday
said he had not seen the ordinance that Councilmember Buckshnis requested be added to the agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Taraday had not written the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said he
had not.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT 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 OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA, ADDING AS ITEM 8.2, UN -TABLE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST
THAT WAS TABLED A FEW WEEKS AGO.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern that requests have been made to add two items to the agenda;
it was her understanding when Councilmembers knew they planned to add something to the agenda, as a
courtesy they gave other Councilmembers a heads up and provided information so there was time to review
it in advance. She has done her due diligence to prepare for tonight's meeting and now is being asked to
consider two additional items for which she does not have material to consider. Assuming both
Councilmembers knew they planned to add these items, if she had been provided the information, she would
have spent time reviewing it prior to committees meetings. She summarized she was challenged and a little
frustrated by the last minute requests and it would be easier to consider these items if Councilmembers had
the courtesy of sending them out in advance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 6
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the Rules of Procedure that were on last week's agenda and were tabled
for three weeks include a section on Councilmember reimbursements. His position for the last two months
has been a preference for a long-term policy that addresses Councilmember reimbursements rather than
one-off decisions because that would provide more long term benefit to current and future Councilmembers
rather than handling things in an ad -hoc fashion. He looked forward to discussing reimbursement policies
as part of the updated Rules of Procedure which will come back to Council in two weeks.
Councilmember Olson commented Councilmember L. Johnson made a valid point and she could have done
that but thought everyone knew she intended to bring this back and had asked for it to be on the agenda.
Councilmember Olson offered to withdraw the amendment and requested it be added to the agenda next
week as an un-tabled item. With regard to Councilmember Distelhorst's comments, she pointed out an
upcoming policy will not be retroactive to something that occurred in December. Whatever policy was in
place in December would be relevant to this reimbursement request.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the ordinance the Council passed was related to landmark trees and
Councilmembers should be aware of it. Council has every right to put whatever they want on the agenda;
she has been in meetings all day today so did not have an opportunity to send out information ahead of the
meeting. She assumed everyone knew it was coming since her request to extend the moratorium was not
approved.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis was discussing
a motion that was not approved. Mayor Nelson advised the Council has moved on to another topic.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for reminding the Council that the
Rules of Procedure which include a reimbursement policy will be coming back to the Council.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, was pleased the Council was continuing to improve the tree code and looked
forward to further progress at tonight's meeting. She was particularly concerned about large, old trees for
protecting watersheds and hoped there was some way of preserving trees doing important work in
mitigating damage to fragile watersheds such as Perrinville. She was also concerned that the code makes it
too easy for developers to ignore the tree retention requirement by just paying the fee for removing trees
and passing the fee on to the buyer which does not protect trees. She requested the Council reexamine the
fee -in -lieu provisions.
Robert Boehlke, owner of House Wares on Main Street for the last 22 years, said after listening to last
Tuesday's Walkable Main Street presentation and the subsequent discussion, he and several merchants who
were also in attendance felt they were unheard and invalidated. In their opinion, the survey as written was
skewed to favor Walkable Main Street and their objections were minimized. For that reason, they relayed
their concerns directly to the local community who are a critical component to the success of their
businesses. They composed a statement identifying their position and a compromise that all sides should
be able to accept, Save our Saturdays (SOS). Saturday is a very important day in the retail trade; their local
customers and fellow retailers depend on it. He suggested Sunday be designated Fun Day with a Walkable
Main Street. In response to a comment that few merchants were opposed to Walkable Main Street, an
impromptu canvas of fellow Main Street merchants immediately yielded 14 signatures from businesses on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 7
Main Street or directly adjacent which represents more than half of Main Street retailers. Others expressed
support after the SOS flyer was released. The proposal was presented to the media, copies sent to
Councilmembers and the Mayor and a public rally was held Saturday at the fountain. Community support
at the rally was overwhelming, very positive both online and in person and comments included shoppers
were deterred on the days Main Street was closed. He urged the Mayor and City Council to consider leaving
Main Street open to traffic, business parking and access on Saturdays and reserve Sundays for Walkable
Main Street.
Dave Teitzel, Edmonds, an Edmonds resident for approximately 40 years, said he and his family have
been happy to patronize a wide variety of local businesses for decades. Last year's pandemic caused a major
decrease in revenue for all restaurants and retail businesses and unlike Seattle, Edmonds has been fortunate
that most of its bars and eateries have remained viable through a combination of good management, CARES
Act funding and help from the City. He applauded the administration and Council's efforts in that regard.
Walkable Main Street was a good experiment during the pandemic to allow people to get out and safely
enjoy downtown and maintain proper social distancing. While Walkable Main Street was popular on
Saturdays and Sundays during the pandemic, the effects of the street closures on businesses have been very
uneven. Walkable Main Street has greatly benefit eateries and bars, but many downtown retail businesses
have reported negative effects from the program, experiencing revenue reductions on Saturdays of 30-50%
when Saturdays are downtown businesses' best retail sale days. Many downtown businesses are still reeling
from the pandemic restrictions and desperately need Saturdays sales revenue to allow them to remain viable.
Recognizing that the Council and Mayor had heard directly from a number of downtown businesses
expressing their concern, Mr. Teitzel strongly encouraged them to listen to the concerns of their
constituents, downtown businesses as well as their patrons. Maintaining the appeal of Edmonds requires a
vibrant array of restaurants, bars and retail businesses; all these businesses deserve the City's support. A
fair compromise to help all downtown businesses is to continue a Walkable Main Street program on
Sundays and allow Main Street to remain open to traffic on Saturdays. This compromise would enable retail
businesses to maximize Saturday revenue and still allow bars and restaurants to attract foot traffic. It is the
responsibility of elected officials to listen to their constituents; in this instance their constituents are asking
for a compromise regarding Walkable Main Street.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, found the joint meeting with the Planning Board very interesting and he
appreciated the comments. He suggested the Council missed an opportunity to assist the Planning Board
by helping them prioritize their list of priorities. He was surprised not to hear anything about a vision for
the City, a vision that integrates housing, businesses, and environmental stewardship which all culminates
in the planning for the City. He was disappointed not to hear discussion about a vision such as a dense,
urban environment or a neighborhood suburban environment. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan be a
priority because that integrates the various topics. Until there is a vision for the City that encompasses the
Comprehensive Plan, "any path is going to get you there if you don't know where you're going." In his
opinion, the City did not know where it wanted to go and until the Comprehensive Plan was updated based
on today's environment, technology and resources, the City will continue to struggle with all the individual
topics such as tree code, housing code, etc. versus being part of an integrated plan.
Rebecca Anjewierden, owner of Rebekah's Boutique on Main Street, spoke regarding Walkable Main
Street, explaining she pays Main Street rent in order to attract drive -by and walking customers who are
drawn in by their windows. The closure of Main Street last summer cut her Saturday revenues in half and
she feared it would do the same this year. Her regular customers said they are not comfortable coming on
the weekends and will be avoiding Walkable Main Street. July and August are typically her biggest months
for selling clothing when people are out and about enjoying the beautiful weather. The closure of Main
Street eliminates a lot of parking and customers tend to go to the farmers market to get flowers and do not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 8
return to shop downtown after walking 3-4 blocks to their purchases in their car. She did not agree with
Walkable Main Street and preferred the compromise to close Main Street on Sundays.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42 year resident, was pleased that the Council was considering fixing the tree
code tonight and hoped the Council's discussion was not cut off again as it had been at the last four Council
meetings. The Council should not adopt an inadequate tree code; it will only result in the loss of more
mature trees in total contravention to the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City spent considerable
time preparing and adopting. The Council needs to discuss and resolve public comments that have been
submitted over the past two months which to date it appears have been ignored. Tonight's action not to put
the Landmark Tree ordinance on the agenda is another example of the Council refusing to discuss serious
tree -related issues. It is the Council's job to discuss and resolve those issues and it should not continue to
be put off and ignored. Everyone knows that the tree code is very complicated and contentious but it should
not be judged by some Councilmembers by how many meetings it has taken to resolve. For example, the
fee -in -lieu provision in the current code is a mess; it is difficult to tell if and how it applies to developer
tree retention requirements. That is a fatal flaw and must be resolved and cannot continue to be put off. He
was disappointed the Council was not listening to the public; the Council was sent a letter yesterday
cosigned by 24 citizens asking to take this issue seriously and consider the comments that have been
submitted and concerns about retaining a green environment in Edmonds and he found it troublesome that
that was not being acknowledged. He hoped the Council read the letter and took it into consideration.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES „OF MARCH 23, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM., PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope said tonight staff and Council will go through several
amendments that have been presented. The new tree regulations were intended to improve and strengthen
tree protection during development. Three Councilmembers worked with City Attorney Jeff Taraday,
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien and her to vet the remaining amendments. Mr. Lien will
review the amendments and Councilmembers will have the opportunity to make motions to include or
change the amendments.
Mr. Lien explained the proposed amendments have been inserted into the tree code that was adopted via
Ordinance 4218 in a redline/strikeout format. The redline/strikeout amendments without comments have
been voted on at previous Council meetings. He suggested starting with the first amendment in 23.10.060.
Council President Paine suggested beginning with the most contentious amendment that will require a fuller
discussion in 23.10.080 related to tree replacement and fee -in -lieu on page 11 of the ordinance. She referred
to the proposed amendment in 23.10.080.E, expressing concern it would diminish the effectiveness of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 9
fee -in -lieu and using it as an incentive. She anticipated this would be a very meaty topic and preferred to
handle it first.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the reason the proposed amendment was in two colors was the
discussion began at the March 2" d meeting and then the meeting was stopped and the Council never returned
to this discussion. A subgroup was formed after a simple majority put the tree code on the Consent Agenda.
The subgroup considered the amendment shown in green. She agreed this entire section had not been
addressed since the March 2"d meeting which ended abruptly.
Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien could follow the amendments if they were handled in this order.
Mr. Lien assured he would be able to track the amendments. He explained he would focus on the
amendment highlighted in green; the yellow highlight was included because it was an amendment made
and seconded at a previous meeting but never discussed.
Mr. Lien presented the following amendment (shown in green highlight in the packet), that had been vetted
by the subcommittee:
Revise 23.10.080.E Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read, "A er providiizg clear doearrzzetzlatiotr to
Development Services that all tree retention andlor re lacenzent Qj2tions have been considered and are
infeasible, including arborist re orls as necesLa the develo er shall pak afee-in-lieu for each
replacement tree required but not replaced --A- e0 ,'ie l Of tFee pkmefivent inay be all lewed, subject to
IIP„ .,I I-.. _the .d: eeter after a ns'... en ide of all ether options. A 6- 0pla o .. nt fee
Fv. . a .,I. ..L., a ..+ tree ed Lut flet planted on the �l [Ea�iB�i� OF call Ace . 4P. I •:.� »
a
Mr. Lien explained this sentence recognizes there may be instances where the 30% tree retention standards
in 23.10.060.0 cannot be met; the trees are in the way of development. This sentences says when those
retention standards are not met and the required replacement ratios are not met, then a fee -in -lieu is required.
There are also amendments proposed with regard to how the fee -in -lieu is calculated.
Council President Paine expressed support for the proposed language because it is clear that each tree that
cannot be replaced or retained would be considered for fee -in -lieu after all the other options are considered.
She was not a fan of fee -in -lieu, finding it just the cost of doing business. However, she recognized
sometimes there are trees smackdab in the middle of a project and it would be infeasible to retain them.
This text makes it clear that any tree not retained or replaced can be considered for fee -in -lieu.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN GREEN AS WRITTEN.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this language was developed by the subcommittee in collaboration with
Mr. Lien.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien referred to an amendment made at a meeting in March:
Add the following to 23.10.080.E.3 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu: "For each sign tree greater than 24" in
DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using
trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required."
An associated amendment was in made in 23.10.080.A.3 "For each significant tree greater than 14 inches
and less than 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required."
With those amendments, there is no replacement requirement for trees greater than 24 inch DBH, only the
appraisal and fee -in -lieu. Those two amendments were made due to the potential for a double dip if both
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 10
the appraisal and a fee -in -lieu was required based on replacement trees, there was potential to charge for
the 24" tree as well as its replacement.
Mr. Lien presented the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Olson:
Revise 23.10.080.E.1 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read:
1. Fee -in -lieu payments shall be deposited into_ the Tree Fund. The value of the po�menl shall be determined
as provided in subsections La and 1.b below:
a. The amount of die Fe ""^" b $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree
eplaee eji -^amply ivith the tree retentionrequirements of this seetiemi and shall be deposited
it�-'s Tree Fund ECDC 23.10.060. C.1.
fib. 5350 multiplied by the tzarnrber at trees necessary to saliLs& the tree replacement requirements ofECDC
23..10.080.A beyond the retention standard of ECDC 23.10. 060. C.1.
Mr. Lien explained this code is different than other jurisdictions' codes. Most other jurisdictions' codes
require fee -in -lieu to get to the replacement/retention standard. Edmonds' code goes beyond that; even
when the retention standard is met, the fee -in -lieu is still required for the replacement trees that could not
be planted on the property. This amendment has two different fees; if a development removes more than
the 30% and could not replant to reach 30%, the trees to reach 30% are charged at $1,000/tree. Once they
reach the number of trees required to be retained, then all remaining trees that were not planted are charged
at $350/tree, the cost to purchase and plant a tree.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Lien to describe the Planning Board's position on the $350. Mr.
Lien answered the Planning Board's position is tied to the previous amendment. The first thing is to retain
as many trees as possible, the next step is to replant as many trees as possible, and the third step is fee -in -
lieu. With regard to the fee -in -lieu amount, the Planning Board considered several options, an alternate
replacement ratio, not requiring so many replacement trees and a different fee -in -lieu number instead of
$1,000. The Planning Board wanted the higher replacement ratio and the higher dollar amount as an
incentive to retain trees. The Planning Board's thinking was if developers have to pay more to remove and
plant trees, they will make greater efforts to retain trees.
Mr. Lien reviewed the following in the fee -in -lieu development examples:
Example I
• Assumptions
o Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree removed into Tree Fund
■ Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example
■ Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees
(low $541, high $12,415)
• No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund
o Fee for Replacement trees not planted
• 1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement
• $350 per tree beyond 30%
• Fee -in -lieu development
o New Single Family Development
■ 15 trees pre development
• 30% retention — 5 trees
• Tree retained — 6 trees
• Assume plant 3 replacement trees
• Tree fund Payment $22,610 ($22k)
• Required replacement trees not planted — 4 ((350)
• 24" DBH Trees cut — 7 ($3,030)
■ Parks/traffic/Sewer/Water - $18,450
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 11
o Short subdivision — Four Lots
• 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention —12 Trees
■ Trees Retained —13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot —12 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$57,110 ($58K)
— Required replacement trees not planted —16 Trees(* $350)
— 24" DBH trees cut —17 (* $3,030)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$34,730 ($37K)
— Required replacement trees not planted —4 Trees(* $350)
— 24" DBH trees cut —11 (* $3,030)
• Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o Subdivision — Ten Lots
• 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention —27 Trees
• Trees Retained —20
■ Assume 3 Tree/lot —30
■ Required replacement trees not planted —74
■ Tree Fund Payment-$73,320 ($98K)
— Required replacement trees not planted —45 (* $350)
— 24" DBH trees cut —1 9 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Design
• Standard subdivision design
— 153 Trees Predevelopment
— 30% Retention —46 Trees
— Trees Retained —15 Trees
— Assume 3 Tree/Lot —12 Trees
— Tree Fund Payment-$180,720 ($315K)
— Required Replacement trees not planted —230
Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000)
Additional Replacement Trees —211 (* $350)
— 24" DBH Trees Cut —29 (* $3,030)
— Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
• Clustered design
— 153 Trees Predevelopment
— 30% Retention —46 Trees
— Trees Retained —62 Trees
— Assume 3 Tree/Lot —12 Trees
— Tree Fund Payment-$110,300 ($202K)
Required Replacement trees not planted —142 (* $350)
24" DBH Trees Cut —20 (* $3,030)
— Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
o Multi- Family Development — 10 Unit Apartment
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention —2 Trees
■ Trees Retained —0 Trees
• Required Replacement Trees —18 Trees
■ Tree Planted —36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0)
— 24" DBH Trees Cut —3 (* $3,030)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 12
Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Example 2
■ Assumptions
■ Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree Removed into Tree Fund
- Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example
- Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees
(low $541; high $12,415)
- No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund
■ Fee for replacement trees not planted
- $1,000 per tree
■ Fee -in -lieu development
o New Single Family Development
■ 15 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -5 Trees
■ Tree Retained -6 Trees
• Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
• Tree Fund Payment $25,210 ($22K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -4 (* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -7 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
o Short Subdivision
■ 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -12 Trees
■ Trees Retained -13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$67,510 ($58K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -16 Trees(* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -17 (* $3,030)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$37,330 ($37K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -4 Trees (* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -11 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o Subdivision - Ten lots
■ 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -27 Trees
■ Trees Retained -20
■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30
■ Required replacement trees not planted -74
■ Tree Fund Payment-$102,570 ($98K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -45 (* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -19 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Designs
■ Standard Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K)
Required Replacement trees not planted -230 (* $1,000)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 13
24" DBH Trees Cut-29 (* $3,030
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
Clustered Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K)
• Required Replacement trees not planted -230
(* $1,000)
• 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
o
Multi -Family
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention -2 Trees
■ Trees Retained -0 Trees
■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees
■ Tree Planted -36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0)
- 24" DBH Trees Cut -3 (* $3,030)
■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Exapn le 3
• Assumptions in the fee -in -lieu development
o
Fee for replacement trees not planted
■ $1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement
■ $350 per tree beyond 30%
0
3:1 replacement ratiofor24"andgreater DBH trees
■ Fee -in -lieu Development
o
New Single Family Development
■ 15 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -5 Trees
■ Tree Retained -6 Trees
■ Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment $8,750 ($22K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -25 (* $350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
o
Short Subdivision
■ 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -12 Trees
■ Trees Retained -13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees
* Tree Fund Payment-$20,300 ($58K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -58 Trees
(* $350)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$12,950
($37K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -37 Trees(*
$350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o
Subdivision - Ten lots
■ 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -27 Trees
■ Trees Retained -20
• Assume 3 Tree/lot -30
- Required replacement trees not planted -74
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 14
■ Tree Fund Payment-$35,700 ($98K)
■ Required replacement trees not planted -102 (* $350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Designs
i Standard Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention —46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$129,950 ($315K)
- Required Replacement trees not planted -317
• Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000)
Additional Replacement Trees -317 (* $350)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
Clustered Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -62 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$74,900 ($202K)
Required Replacement trees not planted -214 (* $350)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water 470,801
o Multi -Family
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention -2 Trees
■ Trees Retained -0 Trees
■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees
■ Tree Planted -36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment -$0 ($0)
■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether flexible layout design in the 10-lot subdivision and the
multifamily examples in order to save 24+ inch trees was incorporated into the code. Mr. Lien said he did
not run the flexible subdivision design in his example but that was something that could potentially be
applied. In the standard conservation subdivision design example, it is difficult to retain trees to the
maximum extent possible due to access easement requirements, utility easements, building footprints
outside the setbacks. Once the building footprint is filled, trees that were growing in a stand are now
vulnerable to windthrow and not the right tree in the right place anymore. A 10-lot subdivision could
definitely utilize flexible layout and staff would encourage it. The Conservation Subdivision Design was
adopted under Ordinance 4218 and the new section in the subdivision code 20.75.048.
Councilmember Olson said one of her motivations for this amendment was this code is different and special
from most jurisdictions in that it requires replacement and/or fee -in -lieu even for the ones meeting the
retention requirement. It is also true that the space where a building will be located is currently occupied
by trees and those two things are inconsistent. It is important that at the same time the Council is
incentivizing developers to retain all the trees they can, especially the big ones, to also not be punitive for
the trees that have to be removed for the sake of development on properties zoned for development.
Secondarily she had some concern and wanted Councilmembers to think about the unintended consequence
of smaller contractors who may not be able to front these enormous fees if the Council adopts something
that does not have an adjustment and is more reasonable.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 15
In the context of meeting goals from the standpoint of maintaining tree canopy, Councilmember Olson
hoped the City would provide education/outreach to developers to get them to want to retain trees because
they are vested and care about the environment and the value of the trees from an environmental standpoint
even if it makes their job more difficult. She was concerned the outsized fees would prevent smaller
contractors from doing business in Edmonds and only the larger contractors, who would pass on the fees to
the home buyer, would be able to do business in Edmonds. She was uncertain that was on the Council's list
of goals.
Council President Paine said she would support the proposed Section a but not Section b
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the examples, expressing concern with how much the fee drops and
the possibility to incentivize the fee -in -lieu over retaining trees based on how low the fee would be. On the
flipside, he also had concerns with how high the impact fees are and passing them on to housing costs
especially when prices in Edmonds have increased 20% in the last year. He suggested that could be
addressed via housing policies versus reducing the fees which may have an unintended consequence if
developers simply pay the fee -in -lieu and not retaining any trees.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a very complex code and she preferred to keep it simple. She
noted there are very few forested areas left so she did not envision small developers constructing homes
unless it was their own home. She pointed out 27 significant trees were removed for a 4,000 square foot
home. She preferred to retain the existing language.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested dividing the question as she had heard comments in favor of Section
a and in favor of Section b.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if Section a could stand without b. Mr. Lien answered they are tied
together and he did not think a could be included without b. He clarified the portion of a that could remain
was the reference to ECDC 23.10.060.C.1, but "comply with tree retention" did not make sense without b.
Councilmember Buckshms preferred to retain the original language for a, but recalled in order to add b, the
language was added to a.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE
"COMPLY WITH TREE RETENTION" IN A AND TO REMOVE B.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, suggesting the Council vote on the original motion and then
address it through the amendment process. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion:
TO ADD SECTIONS A AND B TO 23.10.080.E.1.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND
L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday suggested Mr. Lien illustrate what the code language would look like without all those
amendments. Mr. Lien showed the code language without the proposed amendments:
23.10.080.E.1 The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy
the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 16
Mr. Taraday said one of the things that the Council discussed during the last debate was the issue of
retention versus replacement. With the amendment that was just voted down, there was a clear implication
in the code, an implication that was voted down, that one could buy their way up to the retention
requirement. He was unclear whether in voting that down the Council was trying to direct staff that it does
not want developers to be able to buy their way out of the retention requirement or if it simply wants all
trees, whether they are trees to fulfill a retention requirement or trees to fulfill a replacement requirement,
to be paid a fee -in -lieu if not planted at the rate of $1000/tree. There are multiple ways he and Mr. Lien can
interpret the Council's deliberations and they are unclear what the Council's intentions are.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was interested in drafting the language in a way that it does not allow
developers to buy their way out. Mr. Lien referred to the amendment in green approved earlier, "after
providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options
have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary..." pointing out that
language infers there will be situations where the 30% retention standard cannot be met. The language in
green acknowledges documentation will be required and after considering it, each tree not replanted per the
replacement standards is required to be paid at a ratio of $1,000/tree.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to clarify what he was alluding to in his previous comments.
Mr. Taraday wanted to ensure, 1) that the Council understands this code, and 2) that staff understands the
Council. In listening to the debate, he was not clear on the Council's position with respect to the retention
requirement. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the Council should vote on their intention so staff could
direct the Council on the way to meet it. She was unclear why Mr. Taraday was providing that advice and
what he was asking of the Council. Mr. Taraday said if the 1-6 vote that the Council just took was an
indication that they did not want developers to be able to buy themselves out of the retention requirement,
then the word "retention" in the green amendment needed to be removed via an amendment. If there are
circumstances as Mr. Lien just described where the Council recognizes there will be situations and is okay
with those situations after providing the requisite documentation where developers could buy their way out
of the retention requirement, then "retention" in the green amendment can remain.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested removing "tree retention and/or" in the green amendment,
commenting the Council seemed to be getting confused with tree retention and replacement trees. There
are requirements for tree retention and for tree replacement and she did not want developers to be able to
buy their way out.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE
"TREE RETENTION AND/OR" IN THE GREEN SECTION.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if to address Mr. Taraday's concern, should "tree retention and/or" be
removed from the green section or should "or tree retention" be added to Section 1. Mr. Lien said having
retention in both places might be clearer. Mr. Taraday said there are a lot of options depending on what the
Council is trying to accomplish. If "retention" is removed from the green section as stated in the motion,
that means a developer cannot buy themselves out of the retention requirement and there will need to be
another process developed for what happens if the retention requirements cannot be met because, as Mr.
Lien stated, that is likely to happen on occasion. There are other possible ways to address that other than a
buy-out. Ms. Hope said it would be important to address what happens when tree retention is not possible.
Paying into a fund was one way to address that; if that was not allowed, another method needed to be
determined.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if adding "retention" to Section 1 addresses that for the instances when
everything has been exhausted and there is no other option. Mr. Lien said even without adding it to Section
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 17
1, it is addressed. It would add clarity if it was added to Section 1 as well. If a tree is removed, it will need
to be replaced to the standards in 23.10.080.A whether or not they met the retention requirements. If not
replanted, there would be a $1,000 fee. Deleting "retention and/or" as stated in the amendment will require
development of another process for properties that cannot meet the retention requirements.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Section E is titled Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu, so she did not think it
should address retention because retention is addressed in 23.10.060 Tree Retention with Development.
She relayed Joe Scordino's comment that there are conflicts between the fee -in -lieu and tree replacement.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this was referenced as the amendment in green, but the code section on
the screen also contains underlined, strikethrough and highlighted text. Before the Council votes, she
wanted to be clear what it was voting on. Mayor Nelson clarified the amendment is to revise 23.10.080.E
to read, "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree reteiitieii ,..a'..r
replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the
developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced."
Council President Paine suggested adding "for any tree not able to be retained, the amount of the fee shall
be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees that were not retained..." to the tree retention section. Mr. Lien
said the tree retention section references the fee -in -lieu. Mr. Taraday said it did not. He pointed out the
significance of the proposed amendment would essentially be to direct staff to come up with some other
means of dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. Ms. Hope said it is confusing
to say that someone could buy their way out of retaining trees. Clear documentation is required to show it
is truly infeasible; then if they meet that requirement, they pay a fee -in -lieu. A developer cannot just choose
to pay instead of replace.
Mr. Lien said with regard to infeasible, other changes were made to the tree retention and protection plan
regarding the documentation. He referenced language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "For trees not viable for
retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk, of failure due to
structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no
reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." That is part of the
documentation they would have to provide to show tree retention is infeasible.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday interpreted this motion to mean the Council wanted staff to develop a different means of
dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. One of the options would be to create a
process they would need to go through that would be more than an administrative process. For example,
something akin to a reasonable use exception where there is a public process and there is a fairly rigorous
standard that needs to be met. If they can meet the rigorous standard and there is a public opportunity to
contest the evidence, they would essentially get a variance of sorts from the retention requirement. That
would be one option that would be more than just a financial payment but a rigorous procedural requirement
that would subject the assertions of infeasibility to a high standard and a public process.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the public process would occur, whether it would come to Council.
Mr. Taraday responded it would probably go to the Hearing Examiner. It would depend on the type of
application, but it would likely not come to Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented over the past decade small and large developers have taken the
approach of clearcutting every tree prior to development which is not what the Council wants. The Council
wants to retain the largest trees and replace those that cannot be retained.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 18
Councilmember Distelhorst asked for Ms. Hope's input, noting public processes have often been used to
block certain items. He had concern with that given that the Citizens Housing Commission
recommendations, provided after an 18 month process, include streamlining the permitting process and
simplifying code language related to housing and development. Ms. Hope agreed there is a tendency
sometimes for these kinds of public processes to play out in ways where people may expect that simply
showing up and protesting at a public meeting is the answer to stopping a development, when in fact the
Hearing Examiner has to go through a rigorous process of looking at the facts and criteria to determine
whether it is feasible or not. A developer would go through that process and receive a determination that
they have to replace the trees or do not have to replace the trees and would not have to pay into the tree
fund. It would be a very complicated process and although a developer would have to pay for the Hearing
Examiner process, there would need to be a process by which a developer paid additional money if they did
not meet the criteria. She was concerned that additional uncertainty would complicate things. Conversely
with a fee -in -lieu program, if a developer adequately demonstrates they truly cannot replace the trees, the
money goes into a Tree Fund that is used for tree activities and tree replacement.
Councilmember Olson said it was her fault the Council ended up on this journey. Mr. Taraday took the fact
that the amendment was voted down 1-6 as the Council was not supportive of a fee -in -lieu program, but it
may be that they were not in favor of the $3 50/tree. She asked if there was a way to assess where the Council
stands, whether they were fine with fee -in -lieu if it was more substantial. Mr. Taraday offered a hypothetical
question to the Council: imagine a scenario where a developer comes in for a five -lot subdivision and the
developer could meet the tree retention requirement if he only developed four lots, but to get the fifth lot,
he has to take down trees; it is infeasible to get five lots and meet the tree retention requirement. In that
scenario, would the Council want the code to say sorry developer, you only get four lots or say you get five
lots but you have to do something else instead? He said these are the type of real world examples that staff
will be faced with once applications begin to be submitted. The hypothetical he provided highlighted the
policy challenges and policy choices the Council has before it.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she clearly understood what Mr. Taraday was saying and she did not want
to add any language that provided any type of discretion for the fifth lot to happen. There is a tree retention
policy and a tree replacement policy and a fee -in -lieu. There is a price associated with replacement trees,
but it is not clear in the code whether retention or replacement takes precedence. There are conflicts between
the tree retention and fee -in -lieu and there is no indication which one supersedes the other. Councilmember
Buckshnis acknowledged she had had a long day of meetings and may not be articulating her concerns
clearly.
In regard to Mr. Taraday's hypothetical, Councilmember Distelhorst said in his view the key determination
would be what are the items for that fifth lot; there are a lot of variants that could be applicable that may
sway his opinion one way or another.
Council President Paine referred to the Planning Board's list of priorities, Items 4 and 7, Low Impact
Subdivision Code Update and Sustainable Development Code Review and Update. Using Mr. Taraday's
example, she would be satisfied to get the fifth unit if there was greener development put in place via the
code. She agreed if the developer had to be told sorry, you can get four lots but not five, and at the point
the Planning Board's priorities 4 and 7 can be completed, those are areas that can provide more wiggle
room and address retention aspects in this code once those items are completed.
Mr. Lien referred to the Conservation Subdivision Design in the code that allows for flexibility. In the
example Mr. Taraday provided, that would be one consideration — what else could be done to meet the
retention requirement. Even with that, there will still be instances where the retention standards cannot be
met. Another comment he has heard from Council tonight is that the retention language is in the wrong
place. Instead of developing an entirely new process, he suggested acknowledging in 23.10.060 that there
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 19
will be instances where tree retention cannot be met instead of in 23.10.080. As Ms. Hope pointed out, there
will still be a fee -in -lieu payment when the retention requirements cannot be met and that money can be
used for tree planting. Another amendment has been proposed to use the Tree Fund to purchase and preserve
forested properties and open space.
Councilmember K. Johnson said a developer doesn't have to build up to all the setbacks. If it means saving
trees, perhaps one of the considerations should be a smaller building footprint. Especially in areas that are
already downzoned, it is important not to build large buildings. She said that is done because they are spec
homes and the developer wants the maximum profit feasible. She has been told by developers that when
they market their homes, they want a clean landscape with nothing on it because that makes it more
appealing to home buyers. She contended that the code should keep as many native, large trees as possible.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for Mr. Lien's comment about adding retention fee -in -lieu
language somewhere else to add the clarity that Mr. Lien and Mr. Mr. Taraday requested. Councilmember
Olson concurred.
Recognizing it was 9:34 p.m., Mr. Lien said this was not something staff could draft on the fly tonight. He
suggested the Council proceed with reviewing the simpler amendments and asked for direction regarding
adding language in 23.10.060 for instances when tree retention requirements cannot be met including
whether it is administrative process or a public variance process variance as Mr. Taraday outlined.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that after working on this for 90 minutes, she was uncertain
the Council would make the best decisions by continuing to review amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to met with the subcommittee again to resolve the retention
requirements, pointing out 23.10.080.E was one of the original amendments proposed on March 2"d. Ms.
Hope suggested that would be more efficient than trying to resolve it tonight. If there was still the will to
review the simpler amendments, those could be completed tonight and staff could come back with
everything at the next available meeting. She was also tired after a long day of meetings.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was aware that three Councilmembers worked with staff to review the
amendments. She asked if that was the subcommittee that Councilmembers and staff were referring to,
recalling she and Council President Paine also worked with staff early in the process. She asked who
constituted the subcommittee and expressed support for continuing to review the simpler proposed
amendments.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was why she did not think it was best for the Council to continue
reviewing the amendments tonight. She started her Zoom meetings today at 2:30 p.m. and was reaching the
7' hour of meetings today. She encouraged Council not to continue with the review of amendments, fearing
it would "just go south."
Councilmember Buckshnis said she started her Zoom meetings today at 2 p.m. She offered to work with
administration, whether it was called a working group, a subcommittee or whatever. She was simply
offering her services as this was originally her amendment on March 2"d
Councilmember Olson expressed support for continuing to review some of the easier amendments, recalling
Council President Paine had wanted to start with the meatier ones, but there are several that can be voted
on quickly.
Council President Paine agreed there were several amendments that could be addressed quickly. She
acknowledge everyone has had a long day, but extending the meeting slightly would allow the Council to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 20
get through all the amendments and then figure out what to do about tree retention. She proposed the
Council start with the first highlighted amendment and work through them.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine and previous Councilmembers that there
were several amendments that should be quick and benign. He said he would refrain from comparing what
time he started work this morning.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.060.2.b.i to read: "Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint,
access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical crreas, buffers and required landscaped areas clearly
identified..."
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ADD "CRITICAL AREAS" AS SHOWN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, explaining he proposed it based on Council discussion:
Revise 3.95.040.0 to read: Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as
provided for in ECDC 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting or acga Lft and preserybw
wooded areas and open space_"
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD
"OR ACQUIRING AND PRESERVING WOODED AREAS AND OPEN SPACE" IN 3.95.040.C.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.100.C.2.f to read: "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required
to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and/or required tree replacement.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD "/OR" IN 23.10.100.C.2.f. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.080.13.1 to read: "The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition
with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, or reasons not attributable to the deuelo inent."
Mr. Lien explained by adding this language, if a tree has to be removed due to damage associated with the
development, replacement would be required.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADD "FOR
REASONS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT" TO 23.10.080.B.1. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Add 23.10.070.C.6 to read: "Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood,
steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED TO ADD
23.10.070.C.6 "LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS COVERED
BY MULCH, PLYWOOD, STEEL PLATES OR SIMILAR MATERIALS, OR BY LIGHT SOILS,
TO PROTECT THE TREES CRITICAL ROOT ZONE."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 21
Council President Paine asked how this differed from 23.10.070.13, Placing Materials Near Trees. Mr. Lien
answered B refers to parking equipment, storing building materials, etc. near trees; 23.10.070.C.6 is related
to limiting the time that tree protection measures would be in place during development refers.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how limiting the time would be determined, whether it was enough to
say "limit the time" or was that too vague. Mr. Lien said every development would be different. Sites are
often developed in stages, so when work is completed in that area of the site, the protection measures can
be removed. Another section of the code refers to a preconstruction meeting; this section can be discussed
during the preconstruction meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be beneficial or redundant
to say, "limit as discussed during preconstruction meeting." Mr. Lien did not think that was necessary.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development to read: "Prior to development activity
or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accyrdw2ce
with ECDC 23.10.060.B shall be protected from..."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADD "IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.B TO 23.10.070. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.060.D.3 to read: "Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other
trees have been evaluated for tension and are not able to be retained because of inalitre frees that area fall
hazard except where adjacent..."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED, TO ADD
"BECAUSE OF MATURE TREES THAT ARE A FALL HAZARD" TO 23.10.060.D.3.
Councilmember Olson said she was part of the subcommittee and accepted this amendment at the time, but
when she studied the packet later, the intent of the amendment was unclear. Mr. Lien described how he
interpreted this amendment: priority three trees are listed as alders and cottonwoods which have their place
in the environment; alders are nitrogen fixing and are usually associated with riparian corridors or wetlands
but are not necessarily the best urban tree which is why they were give priority three status. This amendment
adds because they are fall hazards to the reasons that alders and cottonwoods shouldn't be retained.
Councilmember Olson said the amendment seemed to state it was because of the other trees that are fall
hazard that it may be possible to keep the alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien said the fall hazard is not the
other trees; the fall hazard applies to the alders and cottonwoods. Councilmember Olson said then they
should not be retained and they are not a priority at all if there is concern with them falling. Mr. Lien said
that would be one of the considerations for retention; if they are a fall hazard, they are not trees that a
developer will want to retain.
Councilmember Olson suggested moving "and subject to a fall hazard" to follow "except for when not
adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers." Mr. Lien said that changes the intent; alders and
cottonwood are a priority three. Where they would not be a priority three is where they are adjacent to open
space, wetlands or creeks. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation that
alders and cottonwoods would be a higher priority when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers.
Mr. Lien agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 22
Councilmember Olson asked if it clear as written for a layperson when she, as a layperson, did not
understand it. Mr. Lien referred to priority one trees in D.l .d "significant trees adjacent to critical area and
their associated buffers" and the exception in D.3 "except when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek
buffers." When alders or cottonwoods are adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers, they become
priority one trees.
Councilmember Olson suggested adding, "except for when the terms in priority one apply." Mr. Lien
responded he did not think that was necessary. Councilmember Olson said other Councilmembers were
indicating it was also confusing to them.
Council President Paine did not support the proposed change, primarily because if alders and cottonwoods
are present on a development site, it is probably in a wetland or riparian area or adjacent to one or adjacent
to one that is not functioning efficiently. She accepted them being priority three, but unless they go through
a hazard analysis, she would not support the proposed changed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said alders are part of the succession forest; once an area has been logged, they
are one of the first trees to come back. As Mr. Lien said, they are nitrogen fixing and they have many
advantages such as wildlife habitat and they mature around 40 years. Young alders and cottonwoods may
be a priority three but once they mature, they become a fall hazard. This is evident on Main Street on either
side of Yost Park and in residential areas near Yost Park. She concluded it was perfectly fine to have alders,
just not when they were fall hazards.
Mayor Nelson commented this seemed to be a controversial amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson
pointed out staff did not object to the proposed language.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION
CARRIED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR
20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2).
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise first sentence of 23.10.060.E to read, "In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City
shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that
ihcrf are mature and_nigybe he a fall hazard, including..."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO REVISE
23.10.060.E TO READ, "IN CONSIDERING TREES FOR RETENTION, APPLICANTS AND THE
CITY SHALL AVOID, TO THE EXTENT KNOWN, THE SELECTION OF TREES THAT MAY
BECOME HAZARDOUS BECAUSE OF WIND GUSTS THAT ARE MATURE AND MAYBE BE A
FALL HAZARD, INCLUDING..."
Councilmember Distelhorst said this seemed to make more sense because it was applied to all consideration
for tree retention versus alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien agreed.
Council President Paine did not support the motion, preferring a hazard tree analysis that was scientifically
valid.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 23
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the point raised by Council President Paine would be consistent with
this. Mr. Lien referred to language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "for trees not viable for retention, a description of
the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable
isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is
possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." If the developer is claiming hazard tree, one of things
required for documentation of hazard trees is the arborist completes the Tree Risk Assessment form that
determines whether or not a tree is a hazard. If it comes back as high or extreme risk, then it is considered
a hazard.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this was approved, was it redundant or did it create another opening in
the code. Mr. Lien said all this amendment does is replace "that may become hazardous because of wind
gusts" with "that are mature and may become a fall hazard." It is very similar language, just a small tweak.
Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien continued to support the statement that staff does not object or did
he feel it added no value. Mr. Lien said he still did not object to this amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, stating he preferred the revised language:
Revise last sentence of 23.10.060.E to read: r e .,ladling tFeeS Hi -be s tible to ble .,d.,wns been se of
less ef a buffler &em OtheF trees, grade ekanges aff-ecting the tree health aiid stabilil),, anWer- the pFesenee
of buildzng" i.i elese pro? I a mvised b0dinzplacemenl would result in the retentions o nzore andlor
hi her riorit trees the development plan should be adjusted to tnaaximize the retention o such trees.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REVISE LAST SENTENCE OF 23.10.060.E TO READ: "REMAINING TREES MAY BE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BLOWDOWNS BECAUSE OF LOSS OF A BUFFER FROM OTHER TREES,
GRADE CHANGES AFFECTING THE TREE HEALTH AND STABILITY, AND/OR THE
PRESENCE OF BUILDINGS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. IFA REVISED BUILDING PLACEMENT
WOULD RESULT IN THE RETENTION OF MORE AND/OR HIGHER PRIORITY TREES THE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO MAXIMIZE THE RETENTION OF SUCH
TRF. F..0 "
Councilmember Olson said this was a good amendment and thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for
suggesting it.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Move 23.10.060.D.2.d "other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees" to priority one.
Mr. Lien explained staff recommends against this amendment because other significant native evergreen
trees could also be located within healthy groupings, within the setbacks or have a screening or priority
function. If more and more is moved into priority one, it downgrades what the City is trying to retain such
as specimen trees, significant trees that form a contiguous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than
15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and buffers, and other big significant trees 60 feet in height
or 18 inches in diameter. As more trees are added into priority one, a developer could argue saving one of
these other trees over a specimen tree. Moving more into the priority one degrades the trees that the city
really wants to save which was why he did not support this change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 24
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled the subcommittee had this discussion and did not reach an agreement.
Her focus is on the native evergreen and deciduous trees. She preferred they be encompassed in priority
one, pointing out they were not enumerated. For example, one of the priority one is "significant trees over
60 feet in height," and she assumed most of those were native trees. She wanted it to be clear that the City
wants to keep the native tree canopy.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented most of the trees being cut are conifers, at least in the areas she has
seen in the last 4-5 years. She understood Mr. Lien's opinion, commenting the goal is to keep, retain or
replace native trees because the City has been losing its canopy for years. She expressed support for the
proposed change.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested inserting "significant native trees that form a continuous canopy" or
"significant native trees over 60 feet tall," then the priority three category would basically be the smaller
trees. Mr. Lien said smaller trees can form a contiguous canopy. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was
more important to maintain large conifers, bigleaf maples, etc., the trees that really represent the natural
forest.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking if the supportive comments from Councilmembers K.
Johnson and Councilmember Buckshnis could be treated as the motion and second. Mayor Nelson answered
no.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
MOVE 23.10.060.D.2 "OTHER SIGNIFICANT NATIVE EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS TREES"
TO PRIORITY ONE.
Councilmember Olson referred to D.l.e, "significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than
eighteen (18) inches DBH" which addresses the spirit and core of Councilmember K. Johnson's
amendment. Mr. Lien point was this waters down the priorities. If the priority is the biggest trees, whatever
they are, she assumed those were the trees that Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to save. She agreed with
not adding to priority one because then nothing is specialized or differentiated. Contiguous canopy is one
of the biggest priorities from an environmental standpoint and usually it is comprised of bigger trees. She
did not support the proposed amendment even though she made the motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Add 3.95.040.A.6: "Purchasing and planfing_ofirees by the .City of Edmonds includirrgplanlingstreet trees
within the righ!-a,--wa, ."
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
ADD 3.95.040.A.6: "PURCHASING AND PLANTING OF TREES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
INCL UDING PLANTING STREET TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY." MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien said an option for tree retention will be developed and returned to Council for consideration. He
suggested a subcommittee draft options.
Councilmember Olson asked if the Council needed to pass the code as amended so something better was
in place. Mr. Taraday said the Council has that option; there is an ordinance in the packet and the Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 25
could pass that ordinance with the amendments that have been approved tonight. Alternatively, the Council
could wait until the tree retention language is drafted and approve everything at the same time.
Mr. Lien said if the ordinance is adopted with the changes that have been approved so far, if the tree
retention requirements could not be meet, the development would have to be denied because there is no
process for a site that cannot meet the tree retention standards. Mr. Taraday agreed, there was no escape
valve or pressure release mechanism for such developments.
Councilmember Olson said she could accept that since it would probably only be 1-2 weeks before it was
brought back.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE CITY'S TREE REGULATIONS AND TREE FUND PROVISIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR
FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES TO 10:25. MOTION CARRIED.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson relayed Snohomish County is continuing to go in the wrong direction with regard to the
number of COVID cases. Several counties are going back to Phase 2; Snohomish County is currently at
152 cases/100,000 and will go back to Phase 2 if it reaches 200 cases/100,000. Regardless of vaccine
distribution, people still need to wear marks, socially distance and wash their hands.
Mayor Nelson wished his youngest son, Henry, a Happy Birthday.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Distelhorst said it has been somewhat heartening to see increased responsible gun
legislation taking place at the state and federal levels. He appreciated the moves being taken to address the
gun violence public health epidemic in this country. It seems there have been killings occurring daily over
the past couple weeks, including in this region. Having lived in multiple other countries that do not have
any such gun violence, he personally struggled to understand why society continued to accept this senseless
violence and killing, including the killing of Dante Wright.
Councilmember Distelhorst wished Happy Ramadan to those celebrating over the next month.
Councilmember Buckshnis announced her reappointment of Nicole Hughes to the Economic Development
Commission. She thanked everyone who has contacted her, commenting she will be busy reviewing 24
grant proposals that WRIA 8 received. She hoped Walkable Edmonds will be reviewed and that Mayor
Nelson will make the correct decision.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her concern about Walkable Main Street, commenting there had
been an outpouring of concern from local merchants and people who support them. The perspective of the
survey people who go to Walkable Main Street, not from businesses' perspective. The joint letters, protests
and local surveys have filled that void. She hoped Mayor Nelson listened to this new point of view.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the reason she abstained from the vote regarding hazard pay for
grocery workers was it was a very last minute proposal which she had not been briefed on other than the
packet materials. It was presented as an emergency so it had to be voted on that night, but that negated the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 26
Council's 2-3 touch rule. She did not appreciate that the topic was proposed as a rush without opportunity
for proper vetting ahead of time. The packet contained one-sided information and did not address any of
the unintended consequences that have been cited by grocery workers such as a reduction in hours and loss
of benefits or questions such as would staffing levels change or would grocery prices increase. For those
reasons, she abstained froth the vote.
Council President Paine thanked the Planning Board for their presentation tonight. She was glad the Council
was dawn to one final issue with the tree ordinance. This is the third meeting after it was anticipated all this
work would be completed, and that was due to a number of reasons including a lack of diligence on the
packet. She recognized the tree code was important to everyone and she encouraged Councilmembers to
ask questions of staff. She agreed the COVID numbers were going in the wrong direction and encouraged
people to continue wearing masks, to be safe and to enjoy the beautiful, sunny weather.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO
EXTEND 5 MORE MINUTES TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Olson acknowledged there are currently a lot of issues of public interest. She invited the
public to a mask -wearing, socially distanced "Talk Then Walk" on Wednesday, April 21 at 10 a.m. at the
85 Degree C Bakery and Cafe near Ranch Market. A half hour chat will be followed by a walk.
Councilmerriber L. Johnson announced her appointment of Keith Hamilton to the Economic Development
Commission. She referred to her expressed desire last week for the City to seriously consider Sundays for
Walkable Main Street, stating she stands by that request, especially considering the strong community
support for that compromise. She looked forward to the upcoming discussions regarding that topic.
Councilmember Fraley -Manillas referred to a comment about reinstating the 2-3 touch rule, noting there
were suggested additions to the agenda that did not adhere to the 2-3 touch rule. There are no policies or
procedures regarding that issue, sometimes it is observed and sometimes it is not. She was hopeful the new
Council Rules and Procedures would include something specific. She announced Linda Carl who was
former Mayor Haakenson's executive assistant and who worked for the Snohomish County Executive's
office and the Health District, retired today. She wished her well,
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she accompanied the Snohomish Health District's Health .Officer
to meet the Washington State Secretary of Health Dr. Urnair Shah and to visit the Edmonds College vaccine
site. She found Dr. Shah a very interesting man with a wealth of information. He came to Washington frorn
Texas and was appointul by till Governor in January. Dr. Steal, cvngrattrlstted Snohomish County for having
Elio most pwple vaccinated of ally caunt)' and Elie numbers continue to be reasonable compared to many
other counties. She said people still need to wear masks, sncially distancs, get vaccinated and avoid large
gatherings,
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said public health is beginning to work on gun legislation as one of the
top public health issues because it is being coming more rampant and more people are dying from gun
violence.
Student Representative Roberts urged the public to continue wearing masks whether they are vaccinated or
not, to please get vaccinated if they can, and to stay safe.
ll. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
MI EL NELSON, MAYOR 5 PASS> Y, CITY CLERK
F,dmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 27
Public Comment for 4/13/21 Council Meeting:
From: Candy Brown
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 7:09 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
I agree with our retailers and Save Our Saturdays. Please show your support for them and keep
Main Street open on Saturdays.
—Candy Brown
From: Janelle Cass
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:24 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Walkable Mainstreet
Dear Mayor and Edmonds City Council,
I am both a resident and business owner in Edmonds. I am writing to urge your consideration of
having more public input for the "Walkable Mainstreet" plan. Any action or decision with this
sheer impact to the business district deserves a public process. I am a board member of the
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and do not recall any requests for input regarding this plan. It
is also my understanding that this was not presented to the Economic Development
Commission either. The public survey was skewed both in the questions presented and in the
fact that it did not reveal to the public what the negative impacts are associated with the street
closure. I have shared this information to several neighborhood groups including the "My
Edmonds Moms" and every remark was overwhelmingly in support of a Sunday WMS. As the
public becomes more educated it would be prudent to re -survey and consider everyone's input.
Thank you for your time,
Janelle Cass
President, Ohana Hyperbarics Inc.
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 20214:02 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens-
planning@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 28
<Kernen. Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code
Hello City Council and fellow Tree Code advocates;
A couple more thoughts besides the Fees -in -lieu -of mess:
How will the Tree Code work in conjunction with the Critical Areas Code? If a proposed
development has critical areas on it, will the Critical Areas Code take precedence and the Tree
Code not be applicable? Or will the Critical Areas Code apply to the critical areas and the Tree
Code apply to the remaining portion of the property?
Under 10.80.D.4, the replacement tree specification new section D.4, what is the Urban
Growth Area ? Is that different then City of Edmonds boundaries? Should that definition,
Urban Growth Area, be in the Definitions section ?
You will need to develop a comprehensive tree replacement planting plan and area. You may
find this harder to do than you think. I would have the Parks Department give you all a
presentation on public open spaces, parks, and other City controlled areas where mass planting
of conifers could possibly occur.
Kernen; in the new draft that I read, it looks like section 10.060.F, Preconstruction Meeting, was
left out,,,?
In the Funding Purposes section 3.95.040; 1 think it should be stated that an aerial forest canopy
analysis should be funded for, at five year intervals.
It should be remembered that all loss of significant trees should be accounted for and replaced
with multiple of -kind replacement trees.
We just lost another 7 significant trees (9 total) last week on our block. That's' a total of
13 large conifers, in the last six months, on one block alone. No replacement trees are being
planted for any of those large conifers.
You all realize that the overwhelming majority of Edmonds residents do not have a view of the
water. We have a view of the trees. And that view is disappearing quickly!
We are counting on you to preserve our forest canopy.
Thankyou
Bill Phipps
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 29
From: Bill Phipps
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:03 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope,
Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens-
planning@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Joe Scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Fee -In -Lieu in Tree Code Must be Fixed
Greetings City Council and All;
agree with Joe, the new fees -in -lie -of (FILO) section is real confusing. Section .080.E.
The change made last time you worked on was a mistake. It could have been a clerical
mistake. My notes say that you were changing it to $350 FILO for replacement trees for original
trees less than 10" DBH; and $1000 for replacement trees for original tree over 10"DBH... ??
But now, as it is written, it's : $1000 FILU for each retention tree not meeting
requirements and $350 for each replacement tree not meeting requirements. Is this what you
meant to say? I hope not.
Fees -in -lieu -of are a slippery slope . They can be taken advantage of by developers. The FILU
provisions should be strengthened, not weakened. A thousand dollars per tree is nothing to a
developer building a million dollar house.
Please keep the FILU provisions as was originally written. Or make them more stringent.
I have other comments but really wanted to amplify Joes' concerns on the the confusing
changes to the FILO provisions.
Thank you for your service;
Bill Phipps
From: joe scordino
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:35 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>;
Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Tree Code - Need for Section on Semi -Annual Reporting to Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 30
The Tree Code needs to have a Section (e.g., 23.10.120) that addresses reporting to the Council
and the public on the "effectiveness" of the Tree Code in achieving UFMP and Comp Plan goals
and objectives.
This can be constructed similar to the Council Reporting in the Critical Areas Ordinance (Section
23.40.55) which states:
"The Director will provide a report to the City Council during the 1st and 3rd quarter each
year,
summarizing .........
The Council can discuss what metrics it would like to see in the semi-annual reports such as
number of parcels with tree removals, affected watersheds, percentage of trees removed on
each parcel, percentage of trees replaced, amount of in -lieu fees collected, effects of removal
on tree canopy, etc.
I'm sure the Council is aware of public concerns about the continuing loss of the "green
character" of Edmonds, and this semi-annual reporting will keep the Council and the public
informed on this important issue.
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:17 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Co -Signed Letter on Unforeseen Outcomes of Council Action on Tree Code
Council,
To be perfectly clear, please consider mine to be an additional signature to the following letter:
Council Members,
We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the unintended consequences and likely
outcomes of the Council adopting the Tree Code as is without addressing the inherent issues
and complications that prudent City management would necessitate. Our questions reflecting
our concerns are:
Does the Council want to allow substantially more mature trees in Edmonds to be
removed (except for those in critical areas such as along streams and in City Parks)?
Does the Council intend to ignore the "no net loss" goal in the Urban Forest
Management Plan (which the City, Council and citizens worked on for three years)?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 31
Does the Council want to allow developers the discretion of determining "feasibility" of
cutting down all the mature trees on a parcel by simply paying a fee (i.e., cost of
business)?
Does the Council want to allow developers full discretion on replacement of significant
trees (i.e., what replacement species, where they are planted, etc.)?
Does the Council want to allow sensitive watersheds, such as the Perrinville Creek
Watershed, to be further degraded by allowing excessive removal of mature trees?
Does the Council want to give full power (i.e., discretion) to Planning Department
individuals WITHOUT OVERSIGHT regarding the numerous developer exemptions?
Does the Council intend to ignore the 'best available science' on the value of large trees
and the intertwined aspects of climate change, stormwater management, residential
flooding, wildlife corridors, over -development, societal benefits of a 'green'
environment, Puget Sound view properties and inherent property values, and the likely
outcome of mismanagement of sensitive watersheds (e.g., the demise of Perrinville
Creek)?
Does this Council really want to be responsible for diminishing the "green character" of
Edmonds that so many of its citizens identify with? Isn't preserving the "green
character" the intent of the UFMP and the Tree Code?
If your answer to any of the above questions is 'No' then we hope and expect you will agree to
devote the time needed NOW to work through the tree code issues and make 'prudent
management' changes to the tree code with an eye towards what the City intended in the
UFMP.
The unforeseen consequences of approving the tree code "as is for now" are too important to
ignore. From a tree's perspective, there is only ONE CHANCE to get this right.
Sincerely,
Joe Scordino
Richard Senderoff
Marjie Fields
Steve Hatzenbeler
Kathleen Sears
Duane Farmen
Deborah Hopkins
Nancy Johnson
Greg Ferguson
Lora Petso
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 32
Cynthia Jones
Marty Jones
David Richman
Bernie Busch
Mike Shaw
Sharon Sneddon
Diana Maish
Dee Piepho
Lynette Petrie
Beth Stimson
Karen Barnes
Jane O'Dell
Susie Schaefer
Joan M. Bloom
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: co -signed letter asking the Council to take prudent management action on the Tree
Code at the April 13 (and beyond) Council meetings.
Council,
I was unavailable this weekend and missed the opportunity to co-sign the letter sent to you by
Joe Scordino. This email is to endorse every point made by Joe and others in the "co -signed
letter asking the Council to take prudent management action on the Tree Code at the April 13
(and beyond) Council meetings."
Please consider mine an additional signature to this letter.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
From: Robert Sears <searslegg@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 20217:42 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Walkable Main Street" on Sundays should have been the program in the first place.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 33
Without having to park blocks away on the biggest shopping and most fun day of the week
(think summer market) the residents of Edmonds and visitors can once again support our small
businesses and enjoy the vibe of a healthy, bustling and vibrant town.
- Bob Sears*
* a 21-year Edmonds resident and Edmonds enthusiast
From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Subject: Co -Signed Letter on Unforeseen Outcomes of Council Action on Tree Code
Attached and below is a co -signed letter asking the Council to take prudent management action
on the Tree Code at the April 13 (and beyond) Council meetings.
Council Members,
We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the unintended consequences and likely
outcomes of the Council adopting the Tree Code as is without addressing the inherent issues
and complications that prudent City management would necessitate. Our questions reflecting
our concerns are:
Does the Council want to allow substantially more mature trees in Edmonds to be
removed (except for those in critical areas such as along streams and in City Parks)?
Does the Council intend to ignore the "no net loss" goal in the Urban Forest
Management Plan (which the City, Council and citizens worked on for three years)?
Does the Council want to allow developers the discretion of determining "feasibility" of
cutting down all the mature trees on a parcel by simply paying a fee (i.e., cost of
business)?
Does the Council want to allow developers full discretion on replacement of significant
trees (i.e., what replacement species, where they are planted, etc.)?
Does the Council want to allow sensitive watersheds, such as the Perrinville Creek
Watershed, to be further degraded by allowing excessive removal of mature trees?
Does the Council want to give full power (i.e., discretion) to Planning Department
individuals WITHOUT OVERSIGHT regarding the numerous developer exemptions?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 34
Does the Council intend to ignore the 'best available science' on the value of large trees
and the intertwined aspects of climate change, stormwater management, residential
flooding, wildlife corridors, over -development, societal benefits of a 'green'
environment, Puget Sound view properties and inherent property values, and the likely
outcome of mismanagement of sensitive watersheds (e.g., the demise of Perrinville
Creek)?
Does this Council really want to be responsible for diminishing the "green character" of
Edmonds that so many of its citizens identify with? Isn't preserving the "green
character" the intent of the UFMP and the Tree Code?
If your answer to any of the above questions is 'No' then we hope and expect you will agree to
devote the time needed NOW to work through the tree code issues and make 'prudent
management' changes to the tree code with an eye towards what the City intended in the
UFMP.
The unforeseen consequences of approving the tree code "as is for now" are too important to
ignore. From a tree's perspective, there is only ONE CHANCE to get this right.
Sincerely,
Joe Scordino
Richard Senderoff
Marjie Fields
Steve Hatzenbeler
Kathleen Sears
Duane Farmen
Deborah Hopkins
Nancy Johnson
Greg Ferguson
Lora Petso
Cynthia Jones
Marty Jones
David Richman
Bernie Busch
Mike Shaw
Sharon Sneddon
Diana Maish
Dee Piepho
Lynette Petrie
Beth Stimson
Karen Barnes
Jane O'Dell
Susie Schaefer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 35
From: J Alex
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:49 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment re WMS
Dear City Council,
I have been reading the concerns of the downtown businesses who found that closing Main
Street on Saturdays is a hardship.
I agree a good compromise would be Main Street open to traffic and parking on Saturday from
8am-5pm; and Walkable Main Street could be on Saturday night from 5pm-10pm and all day
Sunday. Friday night could be added in, unless it does cause a problem due to how early people
need to move their cars.
Thank you got listening,
Judith Alexander
Edmonds, WA 98026-9406
From: Mary Duffy
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
I'm writing in support of the proposal to have Walkable Main Street on Sundays only.
I think this is an excellent compromise, and that the merchants deserve this.
Mary Duffy
Edmonds 98026
From: Cherryl Bailey
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:13 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 36
I support local retail businesses. I would like to see parking available on Main Street on
Saturdays for people shopping in Edmonds.The streets could be closed off on Sundays for
restaurants.
Please support our retail business.
Cherryl Bailey
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 8:16 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane
<Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Martin, Michelle
<Michelle.Martin@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Citizens
Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>;
Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment for April 13, 2021 City Council Meeting
For many years, I have railed against the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate, or
incomplete information to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions. Despite
my efforts, it continues to happen. The Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee
agenda for Tuesday night, April 13, 2021, provides further proof of this. Please refer to page 16
of that Agenda Packet which contains the following three falsehoods:
WHEREAS, the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions would
expire after each of the first four years of the planning board; and
WHEREAS, the initial terms for positions 1 and 2, for example, would have started at midnight
on January 1, 1981 and would have expired at midnight on January 1, 1982; and
WHEREAS, any other interpretation of those initial term lengths would require a conclusion
that the initial terms for position 7 and the alternate position were intended to be five year
terms, a conclusion which is not supported by any evidence and which appears contrary to the
four-year length of all subsequent terms;
The TRUTH is that the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions
would expire after each of years 2-5 of the planning board; and
The TRUTH is that the initial terms for positions 1 and 2 started the very first second of January
1, 1981 and expired at midnight on December 31, 1982; and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 37
The TRUTH is that the initial terms for position 7 and the alternate position were five-year
terms that started the very first second of January 1, 1981 and expired at midnight on
December 31, 1985.
The evidence and the TRUTH are easily found on Page 1 of the December 16, 1980 City Council
Meeting Minutes. I have attached Page 1 for your convenience.
Why are falsehoods presented to decision makers in advance of decisions? Is there ever any
accountability when this takes place? Will the culture within Edmonds City government that
allows this conduct ever change?
There may be further problems with what is being presented to the Planning, Public Safety and
Personnel Committee agenda for next Tuesday night's meeting. Hopefully, whoever is
responsible for preparing the agenda item and the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter
10.40 of the Edmonds City Code will be asked to correct all falsehoods and provide complete
information.
I encourage City Council to implement policies and procedures to address all steps that must be
followed when it becomes known that false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information
has been provided to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions. Please
consider whether these policies and procedures should involve disciplinary action.
Thank you.
Attachment:
From: Kenneth Degernas
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 8:10 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 38
Now it's time to help the retailers survive. They are just as important to the quaintness of
Edmonds as our wonderful restaurants. Open streets Sunday only please.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 39