Loading...
Cmd042021EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 20, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO POSTPONE ITEM 8.1, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO), TO MAY 25, 2021. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not have any particular objection to the ILA, but wanted the City Council to consider the Citizen Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendations more globally and develop a process for moving forward. Postponing this will provide plenty of time to have a robust Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 1 discussion on this topic. She reminded the Council that the CHC's recommendations were presented to the Council but they were not prioritized, no information was provided regarding how the votes were cast by commissioners and there was no sense of what should be done first in terms of the ability to move quickly through some items and postpone others. She felt strongly that the Council needed to have that discussion before moving forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the CHC did no work on low income veterans, disabled and senior housing which is what 1 ASCO is involved with. The ILA with HASCO is related to low income housing and has nothing to do with the CHC. The CHC made several recommendations that the Council needs to work through, but has nothing to do with HASCO. She encouraged Councilmembers not to support the amendment because it would slow the process of assisting those who need low income housing. Councilmember Olson clarified although there may be other reasons to enter into an ILA with HASCO, it was one of the CHC's recommendations. She supported postponing the ILA due to public input regarding this recommendation that was missing from the agenda packet. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion to take a more global approach to the CHC's recommendations before proceeding with any of the other recommendations. She suggested the Council hold a retreat or a Council meeting with that as a main topic so the Council can determine how to proceed with each of the CHC's recommendations such as the process and prioritization for each one. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the process needs to be slowed down and the Council has not had a retreat to discuss the Council's opinions since it seems four Councilmembers opinions are voted on all the time. Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmembers speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken and requested Councilmember Buckshnis to speak to the motion on the floor. Councilmember Buckshnis said citizens are very upset over the housing element as it stands, the recommendations and transparency issues. She agreed with the motion to postpone the ILA with HASCO and recommended a more global approach to prioritizing the CHC's recommendations instead of moving them through without study sessions. She did not have a problem with the ILA, her objection was to how the process was occurring. Councilmember Distelhorst said the director of HASCO had been scheduled to be present tonight; it was scheduled some time ago and it would be very disrespectful to cancel within an hour of the presentation. Additionally, the Council heard the same thing in 2019 when the Housing Needs Assessment was presented to Council, slow down and create a Housing Commission. The CHC has presented their policy recommendation and now the Council is again hearing slow down. A developed recommendation was provided to Council 3-4 different times; this was considered by committee and a presentation to Council was scheduled tonight. He summarized it was prudent to proceed with the presentation and Council can make a decision as they see fit. Council President Paine recommended having the first review tonight and bringing it back to a future meeting if other information needs to be provided. She disagreed this was being rushed, but supported having a discussion regarding the ILA. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she wanted to hear from HASCO, commenting the Council has heard from them 1-2 times a year for the last several years and she did not think postponing this item would solve anything. The process has been slowed and unfortunately the same people who were successful in slowing the process before are again sending emails suggesting the Council not proceed with the HASCO ILA. She pointed out HASCO directly relates to low income housing whether it is senior, veterans, or disabled Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 2 housing. HASCO is a great organization that does good work and partners with various agencies to serve unserved populations. She preferred to hear from HASCO about the ILA and their plans and perhaps delay action until next week. She was uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road because the Council is repeatedly hearing from the same people who are not interested in having low income housing in Edmonds, something that is obviously needed based on the number of homeless in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson said at the committee meeting, it was Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' preference to put this on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, expressing a preference that Councilmembers' names not be used or fingers pointed. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from identifying specific Councilmembers. Councilmember K. Johnson explained there are two members on the committee; one wanted the HASCO ILA to go directly to Consent. There was no presentation from HASCO at the committee meeting so this is a new discussion item tonight. This is not something that needs to be rushed and she preferred to have the presentation tonight and table a decision to a future meeting which would not be disrespectful. When information is presented to a committee, it should be a complete presentation and not repackaged for the presentation to Council. Her intent was not to slow the process down but to have time to learn how this recommendation, made by the CHC, fits into the Council's plans for proceeding with all the CHC's recommendations. This item is premature because the Council has not had that discussion. For those reasons she supported postponing this agenda item and rescheduling the presentation from HASCO to May 25"'. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented HASCO has nothing to do with market rate housing and above. She read her packet before the committee meeting and looked up information online so she was able to comprehend what was said during the committee meeting and was comfortable putting it on Consent. She encouraged the Council not to support the amendment to postpone. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT 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. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD AS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 9.1, COUNCILMEMBER REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. Councilmember Olson explained this was discussed at great length at a previous meeting approximately a month ago. She provided the packet via email and looked forward to having either a large or small discussion and resolving the issue. Council President Paine said she had no objection to adding this to the agenda. She requested the materials provided be included in the minutes packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Pruitt's objections had been provided to Council. Councilmember Olson asked if he had an objection to the City reimbursing her as an employee of the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded he has an objection because he believes Councilmember Olson has implied bias and every aspect of what she did was related to his color. He has spoken with the City's HR Director and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested guidance from the HR Director would be of assistance. Mayor Nelson advised the HR Director was not available this evening. Councilmember Olson commented that would not be relevant anyway. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 3 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was quite important to understand the principle behind a request of this size without getting preauthorization and the interest behind it. She has information she would be more than happy to provide. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the amendment is just whether to add something to the agenda and it was not appropriate to provide information regarding how a Councilmember felt it should have been handled. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not intend to provide information at this point, but it if was added to the agenda, she would provide the information that Mr. Pruitt has provided her. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED 6-0-1, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. He reminded Audience Comments were regarding any topic other than the public hearing later on the agenda regarding the Emergency Ordinance 4217 regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, relayed she and her husband own a small construction company and perform quality remodels on existing homes. Trees are wonderful and a renewable resource and are owned by property owners who also pay taxes. Owners are now penalized for building on land with large trees instead of being encouraged to build homes that would help with the housing crisis and prevent more urban sprawl. They did not object to 30% retention and replacing trees as required but the new penalties are exorbitant. She questioned penalizing citizens who are adhering to the guidelines; the City is acting as if they own the trees, extorting private property owners with large trees to pay the City for the trees' worth, essentially forcing them to pay twice for their own property. It is a pay to play game and is discriminatory. The constitution protects property rights through the 5t" and 14"' amendments due processes clauses and more directly through the 5"' amendment's takings clause; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Edmonds City Council is charging land owners for their trees for the City's public agenda and it is unconstitutional. The Council should protect the citizens' rights and allow landowners to do what every property owner in Edmonds has done before them while adhering to the new guidelines without penalty. All of Edmonds was a dense forest 100 years ago; there are nearly 18,000 homes in Edmonds which required the removal of nearly 100,000 old growth trees for them to be built. Many beautiful views and their taxes reflect that. Until Councilmembers themselves are willing to pay penalties for trees removed for their houses to be built in years past, they should not require others desiring a home to pay them. If more trees is a goal, she recommended the Council consider a tax incentive or penalty for homeowners whose properties do not contain the number of trees the Council wished they have. Her parents, now 86 years old, purchased an acre of land 4 years ago and they have been working with the City hoping to build one level homes so she could care for them. The City has now enacted a moratorium without notification which she felt was illegal. Marlin Phelps, said those who believe justice was served for George Floyd today by the verdict in Derek Chauvin's trial, unfortunately are probably mistaken. Like Scott Lee Kimball who pled guilty in Boulder County District Court, the Chauvin trial was held at the Hennepin County District Court. The problem is constitutionally, a county district court cannot hear a felony case, the most egregious acts are gross misdemeanors. Derek Chauvin and Scott Lee Kimball both likely entered a deal to which their cases are kept out of the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons which means Derek Chauvin will unlikely ever serve Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 4 his sentence at a prison appropriate to the nature of his crimes. Both he and Scott Lee Kimball have every constitutional right to have those guilty verdicts overturned and those crimes vacated. It is an egregious act for a judge to hear a case in which he is not constitutionally allowed to hear. Derek Chauvin's trial should not have been heard in that court nor should Scott Lee Kimball's case have been heard in the Hennepin County District Court. Scott Lee Kimball has close connections to Edmonds. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, an Edmonds resident for 13 years, challenged the City Council to honor their elected positions as leaders in the community to strive for greater excellence. She recognized and appreciated how hard Councilmembers work and the time they devote to the City. However, she found the dysfunctional ity and discourse occurring between Councilmembers very discouraging and the bickering and disfunction embarrassing. The Council has multiple important and interdependent initiatives to consider such as the tree code, climate action plan, and housing opportunities; they cannot be taken apart and piecemealed. They require the Council to step up and put their heads together to have meaningful debate and honest and respectful discourse in order to reach the best solution for the City. Councilmembers are the stewards of the City, their legacies rest on how they work together to address these initiatives and whether or not they are successful. Citizens depend on Councilmembers and need transparency, professionalism and open dialogue and the Council is not functioning in that manner now. Councilmembers are elected to their positions and in honor of that, citizens ask that they step up and behave like leaders. She questioned whether the Council would follow in the footsteps of other cities on these comprehensive initiatives or rise to new levels of discussion and ideation to deliver an innovative approach. She hoped Edmonds could be the city that innovates a completely new approach to these initiatives. She challenged the Council to be the leaders they were elected to be because citizens need more. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Edmonds, explained on December 161", 1980, the Council created the Planning Board through adoption of Edmonds Municipal Code 10.40.02. The end of each board member's term is December 31St. The alternate position is appointed and confirmed and moves into a numbered position upon any vacancy. The board's schedule of appointments, legally established in EMC 20.10.02, is to be administered by City Administration. The 1980 City Council followed a traditional pattern for manning the board. Every year a staggered cycle moves pairs of board members (Positions 1 & 2; 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 7 & Alternate) through the board as they serve four-year terms. At the end of the position's term the citizen can be terminated or reappointed and the citizen can leave the position at any time. The vacant position is then filled by the board member serving as the alternate for the remainder of the term. At the term end, the board member is either terminated or reappointed. This staggering of terms provides both fluidity and continuity. The code is not broken; the schedule is set and needs no revision. What needs correction is aligning the informal roster to the code. Recently, there have been a few Planning Department clerical mistakes, usually one year off, which tumbled some board positions. Fifty percent of the current appointments are in line with the code. A minor adjustment of the informal roster is needed. Please provide direction to the Mayor to administer the schedule of appointments as established by the 1980 City Council in EMC 10.40.020. She expressed her sincere appreciation for being able to serve the City as a member of the Planning Board in recent years. Jess Blanch, Edmonds, speaking as a former Citizens Housing Commissioner and someone who has dedicated her career to ensuring everyone has a healthy, safe and affordable home, expressed support for the ILA with HASCO. An ILA authorizing HASCO to compete on the open market to purchase existing housing without going through a lengthy process to get approval from the City Council will help preserve homes and their affordability. HASCO works to keep rents as low as possible within their operating requirements and works to preserve housing affordability for residents of Snohomish County. She urged the Council to consider and pass an ILA with HASCO tonight due to the need in the community and because there is no time to waste in ensuring more affordability in the community. The CHC learned a lot over the course of a 18 months and she encouraged the City Council to consider all their recommendations with as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 5 much urgency as possible due to the housing crisis facing the region. There is no time to waste or say that things are moving too fast because slowing things down has only exacerbated the problem. 7:35 Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to ask questions of HASCO, commenting there are some misconceptions of what HASCO does and does not do. 1 ASCO does provide fair market housing, in fact looking at their website, of the 2,439 housing units they administer, 68% are fair market apartment rentals. The ILA also has other implications. HASCO has good intent and mission but more could be accomplished by working more closely with them. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda as the minutes were not included in hardcopy packet. Council President Paine reminded Council that the normal minute taker had surgery and will return to the normal schedule with the May 4"' minutes. Councilmember Olson commented it was not appropriate to approve the minutes if Councilmembers have not seen them and she supported pulling them from Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out those three minutes were related to executive sessions and the only content is the topic, times and who was in attendance. Councilmember K. Johnson said she thought these were the Council committee meeting minutes. Realizing they were special meeting minutes, she did not need to pull them. Mayor Nelson advised Items 1, 2, and 3 would remain on the Consent Agenda MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2021 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2021 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GRANT KENDALL 7. EDMONDS MARSH RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT 8. HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION REVISION 9. FEBRUARY 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. NEW BUILDING DIVISION JOB DESCRIPTION Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 6 11. APPROVE A 10-FT DEDICATION FOR 70TH AVE W RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 15809 70TH AVE W 12. APPROVE LOCAL AGENCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CM DESIGN GROUP, LLC FOR THE 76TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT 13. APPROVE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AT 8609 244TH ST. SW 14. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 15. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ISSUANCE OF KEYS TO ACCESS SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN EMERGENCIES PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 4217 REGARDING PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF LANDMARK TREES Development Services Director Hope provided an introduction to the agenda item Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien provided an overview of the ordinance, explaining Interim Ordinance 4217 prohibits the removal of certain landmark trees for a period of six months. The ordinance defines a landmark tree as a tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or larger with DBH measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to temporary protect landmark trees to allow the City time to adopt permanent regulations governing the removal of landmark trees. The ordinance applies to all landmark trees in the City except for under two circumstances, 1) trees that are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees as defined by the ECDC 23.10.020, and 2) trees associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. Mr. Lien explained when this ordinance was adopted, it was adopted at the same time as Ordinance 4218 which adopted the tree regulations that apply to tree retention with development, ECDC 23.10. The exception for trees associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval was included because regulations were being adopted that dealt with tree retention with development. Ordinance 4217 is similar to the subdivision moratorium adopted by the Council via Ordinance 4200 which put a hold on subdivision applications that contained a certain density of trees. Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to work on tree regulations for new development which the Council has been working on and adopted a revised version last week. During review of the new tree regulations, Mr. Lien said the public and City Council expressed a desire for a more expansive set of regulations that provide protection for trees on all properties regardless of whether they are being developed. Ordinance 4217 provides protection for the largest trees while the next stage of tree codes are being developed, landmark trees 24" or greater. Consideration of Stage 2 of the tree code update will begin next week at the Planning Board. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not necessarily agree with Mr. Lien's comment about a subdivision moratorium and that this emergency ordinance took the place of it. Developers can still cut down landmark trees because section 2 provides that exemption. Mr. Lien said he compared this ordinance to Ordinance 4200 because Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to develop tree regulations that apply to development. Ordinance 4217 is not intended to replace Ordinance 4200, but was adopted in a similar vein, where the City Council wants to adopt more expansive tree regulations that apply to all properties regardless of whether they are being developed and in the interim wanted to protect the largest trees. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 7 Councilmember Buckshnis said in the same vein as homeowners cannot cut trees over 24", but developers can. That needs to be made very clear; developers can still cut down trees in subdivisions. Mr. Lien said anyone developing their property can cut down a tree if it is approved with a building permit and subdivision under the new tree regulations that were recently adopted. Ms. Hope clarified with development there are permits, site plan review, etc. which is an extensive process, compared to other properties that are not being developed, there is currently not much process unless it is a critical area. Council President Paine recognized Councilmembers have been receiving a lot of emails from the public. Some of the confusion is due to the code work that has done over the last several weeks; trees on vacant properties being developed will be governed by the regulations adopted last week. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council has never gone over the subdivision flexible code to make any amendments and it is not mandated so subdivisions can in fact still remove trees and developers can still cut down significant and landmark trees. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the Council reviewed the subdivision conservation chapter extensively every time the tree code was reviewed and had opportunity to make amendments. He was glad it had been adopted and was now available for low impact development. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. He invited participants and described the procedures for the public hearing. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said her parents have been trying to divide their property for 4 years and so far have paid $100,000 to comply with the many city, county and fire department requirements for geologists, arborists, architects, surveys and engineers. The additional cost for penalties they will most likely have due to many old trees on the property will be $100,000 - $200,000 in addition to the $100,000 they have already paid. Sadly her parents are getting older and more fragile with the recent disappointing delays voted in by the City Council since November without notice on a moratorium. Moratoriums hurt people and incomes and restrict actions to build home for people who need them. The City is targeting the livelihood of specific property owners intending to build; this has been used as a method to manipulate the laws in place to target specific individuals and is clearly discrimination brought on by specific Council and board members. These laws are dangerous for the City's reputation. Many citizens have stated their concerns and haven't been given any consideration. The loss of their dream of being neighbors to her parents and daughter, which they were told in the beginning by planning employees was possible, is heartbreaking. The City of Edmonds has made building new homes difficult for small contractors by constantly moving the goalposts while moving building elevations to 6 stories for large contractors, mostly likely contractors outside the City. Forcing out mom and pop contractors will bring large, out of town contractors with money and influence to bypass these laws, clearcutting for their needs. Housing material costs have doubled and tripled in the past few months; the Council is making Edmonds an unlivable place for people who just want to have a home for themselves. They have a beautiful, remodeled home near the property that they used to train five young men in the construction field at their own expense. Their neighbor has been using the City to harass them and require permits while the neighbor has done more work without permits. If these new laws stand, her parents should be reimbursed by the City for the $100,000 they have paid to comply with City requirements and the potential loss of earnings. Fred Gee, Edmonds, a 10-year resident, said he loves trees, the forest and the old growth. However, he strongly disagreed with the new tree ordinance and did not feel it was an emergency to pass this onerous restriction on private property rights in Edmonds. They have several large trees on their property and feel it is their right to cut them down when they need to when they become too large. New restrictions and regulations do not encourage people to plant trees, instead they discourage tree planting due to the worry Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 8 over possible restrictions on what can be done with them in the future. Homeowners should be allowed to decide on their own what's best for their property. Most people like trees and want trees on their property but he feared trees 24" in diameter would be cut down to avoid being regulated by this emergency ordinance. He did not agree with taking away private property rights of Edmonds homeowners. Edmonds is not a gated community with rules regulating the height of grass, bushes, etc. People live in Edmonds to have the freedom to maintain their property in the manner they see fit for their own use. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said in the past 18 months, she has spent more than $1800 to address safety and maintenance of a single tree. Work has been limited to safety, improving the clearance to her house, reducing the risk of branch failure and inspecting topping done decades ago for decay and significant cavities. She also spent a day hand -digging and transplanting a maple tree improperly planted near this tree, just 26' from her son's bedroom. She shared this so the Council knew the significant effort citizens take to maintain large trees on their property. She asked the Council to cancel the emergency, interim regulations because she ardently believed the City needs to form a partnership with property owners if they want to preserve large trees and the City's actions are contrary to the formation of that necessary partnership and conflict with the stated goal. After receiving the emergency ordinance flyer, she was surprised to visit the City's website and learn the extent to which the process to adopt tree regulations has already taken place. When she moved to Edmonds in 2019, she reached out to the planning and engineering departments to identify and discuss her interest in tree regulations and questioned why she had not been previously notified, especially since she had previously expressed her interest to the City. With regard to the emergency ordinance, this is not an emergency. The City's statement of urgency in the ordinance is possible removal of landmark trees; the possible removal of trees with a diameter of 24" has been in place since prior to the City incorporation. There is nothing about the statement of emergency that establishes emergent new facts unless the City contends the undertaking of a normal regulatory process is the cause of the emergency which she said was clearly established by the whereas clauses. She was upset by the City's action because the statement of emergency is clearly a false pretense, strips citizens of their normal, fair regulatory process by removing the right to referendum, and strips property owners from their rights to manage property, property owners who have clearly demonstrated their desire to maintain trees. Last year she saw a City employee in her backyard; when approached, he quickly left saying he was looking for a water meter. She submitted a public record request to determine if he was actually trying to survey her property for trees. Citing the lack of notice, an emergency ordinance that strips citizens of their fair, regulatory process, and the potential illegal entry of her property, she reiterated the need to form a partnership with landowners. Partnerships happen when people feel they are being treated fairly; cancelling this emergency ordinance is the first step toward forming a partnership that will be necessary to preserve large trees. Maria Sickle, Edmonds, said citizens feel ordinances are being passed without any notification. Increasing the cost of tree cutting also increases the cost of housing development. She recalled from the March 10 meeting that Snohomish County is behind in housing development. When the cost of development is increased, it increases the cost of housing. Small construction companies will be unable to build in Edmonds because they cannot afford the high cost of tree cutting and the small home building companies will go elsewhere and big, out-of-town development companies will do exactly what the City does not want, clear- cut all the trees because they can afford to. The small construction companies care about the area and want to snake it look nice for future generations, but the tree code is going backwards on that point. The moratorium has been a way to manipulate laws and target specific individuals with the intent to build such as development in Perrinville and she feared taxpayers' money would be used to defend lawsuits. She urged the Council to rethink laws before implementing them and consider what they are looking for before approving them. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 9 James Leach, Edmonds, observed this is a very contentious topic and suggested it be voted on. He questioned why this was considered an emergency and assumed as an emergency ordinance, it was not going through the standard process and when something does not go through a standard process, it looks like an end run to avoid notice to the citizenry. He requested responses to his questions. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing is an opportunity for public comment, not for question and answer. Kristina Stapleton, Edmonds, a homeowner with landmark trees on her property, spoke in favor of the ordinance. Her neighbor has been cutting trees that block her view and she was sad to see them go because they are part of what makes Edmonds a beautiful place. She said just because a person has landmark trees on their property does not mean they do not support ordinances that protect them and she was happy landmark trees were being protected. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42+ year resident, thanked the Council for passing the ordinance, finding it necessary while the Council works on a tree code that applies not only to developers but also to all residents of Edmonds. The City has been working for five years to develop a tree code to preserve trees; a green environment is Edmonds' heritage and he was pleased the City has tried to preserve it. While the City has been working on a code that makes sense for the trees and citizens, hundreds of trees have been cut down including clearcutting of lots for development. In his estimation, trees could have been left around the perimeter but that is not happening so it is clear a tree code is needed to protect the trees for the betterment of everyone. In response to some commenters, these restrictions shouldn't be a surprise; the City has been working on this for at least five years. Two years ago the City passed an Urban Forest Management Plan and everyone knew where Edmonds was headed. He suggested Section 2 of the ordinance needed to be revised to clarify people are currently not allowed to obtain permits to remove landmark trees. As currently worded, it suggests the permit process will proceed as normal and someone can apply for a permit and begin cutting down landmark trees. The Council should also discuss why this ordinance does not apply to significant trees, the core of the tree code. He questioned why significant trees were not used instead of landmark trees. Kimberly Bailey, Edmonds, spoke against the ordinance applying to residents and not developers. The majority of large trees that are lost are on lots clear-cut for development where they take down every tree and blade of grass and leave the dirt bare. The City Council does not have the right to tell property owners what they can do with their own property. She also objected to reference to heritage trees and nothing about the type or quality of the tree; if it is big enough, it counts. For example, a huge holly tree which is also an invasive species and even Parks removes them. Size alone does not make a tree valuable. The Tree Board cites the right tree in the right spot; sometimes after 20-25 years what was the right tree in the right spot is no longer the right tree in the right spot. This ordinance is poorly designed and does not serve taxpayers well. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, a 40+ year resident, said she has seen a lot of trees removed in Edmonds. She referred to the land acknowledgement read at the beginning of the Council meeting and suggested the City was losing its heritage due to tree removal. She believes in native trees and agreed with the previous speaker that large holly trees are not native and squeeze out native trees. For anyone that does not know which trees are native, they can learn about them when the Demo Garden is redone and reopens. All she sees are trees being cut down, none being replanted to realize the Northwest heritage. She often tells kids complaining about the rain that they are tough, Northwest kids. People in this area should be tough and should respect their heritage. This area was forested in the past and she continues to see trees removed for development. The world is changing rapidly and people need all the oxygen they can get. They need to think about climate change every day and actions need to reflect that. She summarized she was in favor of trees. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 10 Mr. Lien relayed staff s recommendation to continue the interim ordinance through its current expiration date while staff works on the tree regulations. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the ordinance would be in effect until December 2"d and then would expire. Mr. Lien agreed it would expire December 2"d, six months from March 2"d. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified this was a temporary ordinance until regulations were developed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she wanted to put this on the agenda last week so she could remove Section 2. She asked if there were permits that had already been issued and if Section 2 were removed, would developers be treated exactly the same as homeowners. Mr. Lien answered a number of permits have been submitted. One of the tree cuttings mentioned during public comments was related to a permit approved two years ago. He was aware of only one application that has been submitted that would be subject to the new tree regulations. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when this was quickly approved on March 2nd, she wanted to add significant trees. She asked whether significant trees could be added to landmark trees. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said there is no legal reason but it is a significant policy change. Councilmember Buckshnis said she knew it was a significant policy change, but the March 2" minutes illustrate how quickly this was done and there were not really any discussions about it. Mr. Taraday acknowledged it was a policy issue so the Council could change its mind. He recalled from that discussion the thought was that significant trees had been adequately addressed through the development regulations that the Council had since adopted and that interim regulations were a tool to deal with important situations and at the time only landmark trees warranted that treatment. That did not mean the Council couldn't adopt other regulations related to significant, but at the time it was the Council's decision to limit it to landmark trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council never vetted 23.075 or 048 for which she had a number of amendments. At the March 2" d meeting, Mr. Lien provided examples related to low impact development and then the Council suddenly approved the entire tree code and attachments without a code number. She wanted it to be very clear how this occurred which is why there have been so many concerns about the process. She expressed support for including significant trees in the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between significant and landmark trees. Mr. Lien answered the new tree code defines a significant tree as a 6" DBH and a landmark tree as a 24" DBH. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the difference was the size of the tree. Council President Paine recalled when this emergency interim ordinance was developed, the discussion on March 2nd included the inability to do code enforcement related to trees. She assumed there had been a lot of inquiries to Development Services about the possibility of trees being cut down. She asked approximately how many subdivision applications the City receives a year and how many are vested under the older tree code. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the past 10 years, the City averages about 10 subdivisions per year, both formal (5 or more lots) and short plats. Council President Paine asked about the number of permits for vacant lots. Mr. Lien said he would need to do more research to determine how many subdivisions are vested and how many have received preliminary approval. Once a subdivision receives preliminary approval, the developer has five years to finalize it. He would need to research the last five years to determine how many preliminary approved subdivisions were still in process. He did not know how many vacant properties there were throughout the City. The City is largely developed and vacant lots are few and far between. Some of the properties left vacant are vacant for a reason, primarily because they are more difficult to develop. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember Olson also recalled enforcement and the administrative burden of including a greater number of trees was part of the consideration. The Council has several options, vote yes or no to continue the ordinance or make amendments. Mr. Taraday anticipated an amendment would take the form of a new interim ordinance as that would be the cleanest way. Councilmember Olson asked if that would require a new hearing process. Mr. Taraday said it would. Councilmember Olson referred to Ms. Seitzs' comments about the emergency designation of the ordinance, recalling she understood the urgency of the ordinance. She asked if it was an issue legally to use an emergency ordinance when trees have been growing all this time. Mr. Taraday answered the Growth Management Act specifically contemplates that interim regulations of this type and other types would be adopted essentially without notice with the idea that there would be a public process after the fact, especially considering that these are just temporary regulations. That is why the GMA created this tool; it is a temporary regulation so that the City can preserve in the short term what needs to be preserved and allow time to have a thorough, deliberative process to determine the best policies for the City over the long term. All the regular public hearings and public processes occur as part of the development of the permanent regulations. These are temporary regulations and the GMA specifically contemplates that ordinances of this nature would be adopted without notice on an emergency basis in order to preserve the status quo. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified this ordinance covered landmark trees 24" DBH or larger and was an effort to protect the largest trees on properties without permits while the City works on the second portion of the code. If the Council used the definition of significant tree versus landmark trees and expanded it to include subdivided lots, the City would be preventing the removal of any trees 6" or larger on any property in Edmonds. Ms. Hope agreed, if the ordinance was changed to significant trees, 6" DBH, and Section 2 was removed, it would apply to all trees other than nuisance, hazard type trees. Councilmember L. Johnson wanted it to be clear what was involved if the ordinance was expanded to include significant trees versus landmark trees. As someone who worked on the ordinance, the effort was to protect the largest trees, those that could not be replaced within our lifetime while the City works as quickly and diligently as possible to craft and enact the second portion of the code. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the ordinance to any tree with a diameter of 18" DBH and call it a landmark tree since there are no definitions in the code as it was voted down. Mr. Lien said there is a definition of landmark tree within the ordinance itself, defining it as a tree with a 24" diameter. The definition is in Ordinance 4217 and not in the code because the code does not specifically address landmark trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the definition of landmark tree could be changed to 18", noting she was uncertain how the definition of 24" was developed. She wanted to keep the moratorium for building permits in Ordinance 4200 which expired March 24"' COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REMOVE SECTION 2. Councilmember Buckshnis said she and many other citizens found this process very disheartening. She did not like how March 2nd played out as she had many amendment that will never come forth, especially in 20.75.048. She objected to quickly passing the tree code ordinance to create the emergency ordinance. If homeowners are prohibited from cutting down trees, it is important to prohibit developers so everybody is treated the same. That is the reason she is requesting Section 2 be removed. Mr. Taraday commented Councilmember Buckshnis likely only wants to remove the last sentence of Section 2 as she probably likes the first sentence of Section 2. Mr. Lien displayed Section 2, "Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval." He explained the exemption in ECDC 23.10.040.A is developed single family properties not capable of being Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 12 subdivided that have no critical areas; those properties are exempt from the tree regulations adopted in ECDC 23.10. The thought behind the second sentence is the City has tree regulations that apply to development in ECDC 23.10. There are no tree regulations that apply to all tree removal on developed properties without critical areas. The intent of the ordinance was to protect the most significant trees, the landmark trees, while regulations are adopted. Mr. Taraday said the removal of the second sentence of Section 2 is a major policy change that could potentially, depending on where trees were located on a developable property, prevent development. He wanted to be sure the Council understood that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to repeat what he just said. Mr. Taraday said if the second sentence of Section 2 were removed from the ordinance, landmark trees could not be removed from even a property that is being subdivided or property with a building permit. If someone came in with a subdivision application and the second sentence of Section 2 was removed and there were a bunch of landmark trees on their property, those trees would have to remain and it was not feasible to build around the trees, there would be no developable area left. Mr. Lien said that would apply not just to subdivisions but also building permits. For example, if someone wanted to build an accessory structure, addition to their house or an improvements that required the removal of a landmark tree, those would also be impacted. He summarized it would affect not just subdivisions but any land development. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 23.10.040 which talks about removal of trees on improved single family lots. She agreed with Mr. Taraday, she would keep the first sentence. This is only a temporary ordinance to allow the City to finish the code and provide sufficient information to administration for the existing code and the code being created and if homeowners were prohibited from removing trees, developers should be treated in the same manner. Councilmember Buckshnis revised her amendment to remove the second sentence from her amendment and leave the first sentence because it refers to single family lots. Council President Paine asked if that sentence if removed, would the ordinance need to be rewritten followed by an additional public hearing process because it is such a substantial change. Mr. Taraday said that would be his recommendation as that is a brand new interim regulation. Council President Paine asked if a public hearing process would be required if the definition of landmark trees was changed. Mr. Taraday answered he believed so. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for clarification; at one point Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to remove Section 2 entirely and later she wanted to remove the second sentence so it did not apply to development. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: STRIKE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 2 (THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH AND PERMITTED THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT, SUBDIVISION, OR OTHER LAND USE APPROVAL.) Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding of the intent was to apply the emergency ordinance equally among both developers and homeowners. She asked if removal of the second sentence would allow landmark trees to be removed with development. Mr. Lien answered removal of the second sentence would have the opposite effect. Removing it, the prohibition against removal of landmark trees would apply to building permits, subdivisions and land use. Including the sentence in Section 2 provides an exception for building permits, subdivisions and other land use approval. Councilmember Olson recalled when Councilmember L. Johnson provided the definition of significant trees, she cited 6" DBH. The Council can define whatever term it wants such as 12" DBH for protection as a significant tree. She relayed she felt very stressed and conflicted; the emergency situation has been Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 13 impressed upon her in the Talbot Road area with the creek and the runoff and she knows trees play a role in rainwater so obviously no development in a forested area is better than any mitigation for stormwater. Legally if something is zoned for construction and construction is not allowed, even if the ordinance is temporary, there may be businesses that go out of business over this. She questioned whether the City would then on the hook legally for those bills. The City would be well served if a philanthropist who wanted to protect forested land in Edmonds came forward and made the landowners an offer they could not refuse and stop monkeying around with moratoriums and other things that are just a can of worms. She felt very stressed and after having her head in this for many months, she was unclear how to proceed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Section 2 currently excluded developers. With regard to the first sentence, Mr. Lien explained in the original adopted tree code, developed single family properties with no critical areas that are not capable of being subdivided are not subject to the new tree regulations in 23.10. By excepting them in Section 2, that means the exemption does not apply when it comes to landmark trees. There is still a prohibition on removal of landmark trees on developed single family properties. The second sentence is in regard to tree removal associated with development; including the second sentence says the prohibition against removal of landmark trees does not apply to building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. What applies to building permit, subdivision or other land use approval is the tree code adopted by the Council in 23.10. Ms. Hope pointed out 23.10 prevents clearcutting properties with development and sets up a lot of regulations, penalties, incentives, etc. that would apply with development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was still perplexed. She referred to the second sentence and asked if a building permit could be single family or multi -family. Mr. Lien answered a building permit could be single family, multi -family, commercial development, etc., anything that requires a building permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said removing the second sentence takes away the exemption for any building permit. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining if the second sentence was removed and someone had a building permit for expansion of their house or an accessory structure and there was a landmark tree in the way, they would not be able to proceed with development if it required removal of the landmark tree. They would have to find a way to work around the landmark tree or wait until the ordinance expires and new regulations are adopted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed that would apply to single family and multi -family. Mr. Lien agreed, anything that required a building permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if the second sentence is removed it takes away the equal application. Mr. Taraday asked what she meant by equal application. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it would apply to single family as well as multi -family. Ms. Hope said it would apply to any building permit, whereas with only the first sentence, any developed property that is not having anything done to it, they cannot cut down a landmark tree. It exempted property where there was development already under the new rules, requirements, penalties and incentives adopted by the Council. Since existing development does not have those rules in place, it was her understanding that Council wanted to stop the removal of really large trees on those properties until there was time to decide what to do about them. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this would stop construction for someone was in the middle of building. Mr. Taraday answered no. Ms. Hope said it would only apply to applications that hadn't vested. If someone wanted to start a new project such as a garage, it would apply. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO CONTINUE ORDINANCE NO. 4217 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 WHICH IS THE SIX MONTH MARK. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 14 Councilmember Olson preferred to wait until next week to provide Councilmembers time to think about it so she will not support the motion. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance requires at the very next meeting after the public hearing, the Council adopt findings either to continue the ordinance or not. He can certainly provide two versions in next week's packet, but it would be helpful if the Council could provide direction tonight on the findings to be included in next week's packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Olson, the Council needs time to digest this. She was uncertain what a second ordinance would include. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council has two choices next week; 1) adopt findings to justify the continuing applicability of this ordinance until September as originally planned, or 2) adopt an ordinance repealing the interim regulation. He was unclear which one the Council wanted him to draft. Council President Paine requested Councilmembers support the motion to allow the work that is being done by Development Services on the Stage 2 to continue which is scheduled to come to Council on May 18"' following review by the Planning Board. She supported developing with all due haste a comprehensive tree code that addresses all trees on all properties. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK INFORMATION TO MAKE FINAL DECISION NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, asking whether that was an amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said the maker of the motion wants to take action tonight but findings need to be prepared and there are two options for next week. The Council needs to give direction to the City Attorney so he can bring back findings and a package for action next week. All the Council needs to do tonight is give the attorney direction. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this needed to be voted on at today's meeting or next week's meeting. Mr. Taraday said he meant next week's meeting. The ordinance states at the meeting after the hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Council could not pass it tonight, but it could be on the Consent Agenda next week. Mr. Taraday said he understood Council President Paine's motion to essentially do what this amendment is expressly directing, giving him direction to bring back findings to justify the continuance of the ordinance applicability until September 2" d. He appreciated the clarification provided by the amendment and said action would be necessary next week either way. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was comfortable waiting for this to come back to Council next week. Councilmember Distelhorst said his interpretation was the same as Mr. Taraday's; he understood Council President Paine's motion to be moving toward adopting findings. That is the action tonight, to give the City Attorney direction regarding findings to prepare for next week. The amendment and the motion seem to be one in the same. Council President Paine agreed the intent of her motion was to have findings prepared for approval on the Consent Agenda next week. The findings can be pulled if further discussion is needed. Councilmember L. Johnson suspected the findings would be pulled from Consent which requires additional time and suggested scheduling it on the agenda instead. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 15 Mayor Nelson asked if the amendment included putting the findings on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember K. Johnson said it did not. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Paine restated the motion: TO EXTEND THE EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO SEPTEMBER 2ND MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday if he had the direction he needed. Mr. Taraday said based on the vote, he will draft findings for adoption at next week's meeting that will justify the originally scheduled continuation of the ordinance through September 2na Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 8. NEW BUSINESS 1, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (FIASCO) Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Duane Leonard, Executive Director, HASCO, commenting this is the first time he has presented to Council. Following Mr. Leonard's presentation, Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson will provide slides and then she will discuss the Citizens Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendation and next steps. Immediate action is not proposed tonight, it is intended to set the groundwork and to consider next steps. Mr. Leonard reviewed: HASCO created in 1971, celebrating its 50t" anniversary this year What is a Public Housing Authority o The US Housing Act of 1937 created the US Housing Authority. ■ Washington State passed "enabling legislation" that is now codified as Chapter 35.82 RCW in 1939 o HASCO is a Local Government Agency established to received Federal resources with no ability to assess local taxes o There are 37 Housing Authorities in the State, many are similar, but all operate according to local housing plans. o Declaration of Necessity ■ Shortage of safe, sanitary, housing that is impacting the public welfare ■ Conditions cannot be cured by private enterprise • Remedying these conditions is a public purpose ■ Declared a matter of legislative intent to immediately work to solve the problem What is our role in the community? o We work in collaboration with local government and non -profits and others to bring people together on housing issues o HASCO does this in three main way: ■ We rent units that we own. We are a landlord. ■ We assist families with their rent ■ We collaborate and advocate on housing issues Photos of HASCO communities (hasco.org) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 16 • 14ASCO Assists Families with Rent (Housing Choice Voucher— Section 8 Program) o The Section 8 Program assists families with rent. The voucher holder pays approximately 30% of their income for rent and the voucher will pay the rest o Demographics • Over 70% of the families on the program are elderly or have a disabled family member — 29% Non -Senior Non -Disabled Households — 9% Non -Disabled Senior Households — 37% Non -Senior Disabled Households — 25% Disabled Senior Households ■ Average annual income is $16,800 ■ Children make up 36% of those assisted • Advocate and Collaborate o Advocate at Federal, State, and Local levels of government on housing issues o Collaborate with Social Service Agencies and Non -Profits o Bring together private landlords and homeowners with renters • Importance of Advocacy and Collaboration o Regional Problems Needs Regional Solutions — Non one can do this alone o % Change in Rent vs. Household Income 2010-2019 ■ All Unit Average — 49% ■ Median Household Income — 7% • Estimated Need o Approximately 77,000 families in need of voucher assistance • Everett Housing Authority and HASCO meet approximately 12.8% of need in Approximately 87% of the need is unmet • Rated and Respected o S&P Global Ratings A+ o Affordable Housing Accreditation Board accredited • In conclusion o Safe, stable, affordable housing has always been needed and necessary, now more than ever o Housing Authorities are local government agencies specifically created to address the issue of housing o 14ASCO can help move the community discussion forward with real examples of successful outcomes Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Leonard for his presentation and for meeting with Councilmember Olson and him this spring to discuss an ILA. He reviewed information related to the City of Edmonds - HASCO ILA • HASCO cannot freely operate within any city unless an ILA is executed to establish HASCO as a city's official housing authority. • Map of HASCO current and proposed operating areas in Edmonds • HASCO in Edmonds o Edmonds Highlands on SR-104 • 120 units, 1-313R, 1-2BA apartments ■ Currently 113 of 120 units rented to residents below 80% AMI (requirement is 60 of 120 units). Of those units, 60 are rented to individuals at 50% AMI or below o Olympic View is 45 units, senior and persons with disabilities only o Sound View • 43 units, senior and persons with disabilities only • What the draft ILA does not do o There are no preferences, incentives, or concessions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 17 o No code, zoning or density changes o Does not guarantee more HASCO properties o No City financing for possible properties as part of this ILA • What is included in the draft ILA o Establishes HASCO as the City's official housing authority o Allows HASCO to operate within geographic limits of the City, like any other property owner o Creates partnerships for: * Research on housing statistics relevant to the City and Snohomish County, as well as information on best practices in affordable housing ■ Coordination on possible regional partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, or other groups as the parties deem appropriate (Lynnwood adopted ILA with HASCO in 1991) ■ Regular communications between appropriate HASCO and City staff to provide information on existing housing programs available to City residents • Recommendations from recent studies focused on housing development o Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission - January 2021: ■ Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. (14-1 vote) o Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) - January 2020: + Then -Mayor Earling and Director Hope participated on HART • Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with HASCO and Everett Housing Authority. o Edmonds Housing Needs Study - December 2018: + Institutional capacity for administering rental assistance is limited. Although providing rental assistance may contribute needed resources to these programs, administration by the City may be difficult given the current lack of local capacity. Coordination with existing public housing agencies such as HASCO would be more effective. o Koenig Report on Homeless in Edmonds • Recommended a partnership with HASCO Conclusions o Edmonds remains highly challenging jurisdiction as real estate prices are extremely high o Edmonds-HASCO partnership could focus on collaboration with existing resources and regional partnerships with other organizations or neighboring cities o Creates opportunity to explore long-term solutions Recommendation: Authorize Mayor to sign ILA with HASCO Councilmember Olson explained in the contracting world, it is not uncommon to have a blanket purchase agreement, but that does not require any purchase orders be issued. It establishes terms and accomplishes pre -negotiations which is similar to an ILA. The agreement would allow HASCO to proceed with a purchase without seeking authorization from Council on a one-off project basis. The ILA puts that authorization in advance. Often in real estate opportunities go very fast; it is critical to give HASCO this authorization if the Council wants them as the City's housing authority. She shared her own perceptions from the vetting done this spring; HASCO has an amazing track record. She was impressed by the quality, upkeep and maintenance of their properties and they are good neighbors. 1 ASCO has a great track record doing this work and demonstrating they understand their mission. By law half the units have to be rented at 80% AMI, but in fact they surpass that in one of their buildings with 120 units, 113 are at or below 80% AMI and of those, 60 are at or below 50% AMI. Councilmember Olson said she has heard concern from citizens about the redistribution of the tax burden; that is fair because the taxation is challenging for a lot of residents who are paying their own way. People Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 18 are stretched and taxes impact what they have available to spend. If the Council approves the ILA, HASCO has the exact same opportunity that every other non-profit has. If the City says yes to HASCO, that does not mean affordable housing will not be done by other non -profits, but they may be non -profits that do not have as good a track record of upkeep and maintenance. The more need there is, the more I ikely others will address the need instead of FIASCO. Ms. Hope relayed the CHC has discussed an ILA with FIASCO as well as many other ideas. The CHC also gathered input from the community via an online open house and survey. CHC survey #2 posed the question, "what is your level of support for the idea to expand cooperating with the countywide housing agency HASCOT' This received some strong support and strong opposition from the public, a virtual tie; 295 respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea and 294 strongly or somewhat opposed the idea. Survey #4 posed a similar question and received a bigger portion of responses that strongly opposed the idea, 128 opposed or strongly opposed and 84 strongly or somewhat supported HASCO's presence in Edmonds. She noted online surveys are interesting and useful, but are not statistically valid. Ms. Hope explained following the surveys, the CHC has further discussion. For example, one commissioner was concerned HASCO did not provide enough low income housing for tenants and its nonprofit status meant the housing was not taxed. Following further discussion, most CHC members felt HASCO's service was useful and needed because they provide housing for an income level that the private sector could not and that HASCO's existing communities in Edmonds fit in well. Ultimately the CHC decided on a 14-1 vote to recommend Edmonds execute an ILA with HASCO to provide services in Edmonds. While theoretically and legally the Council could vote on an ILA tonight or put it on Consent, that is not staff s proposal. Staff understands this is the full Council's first meeting on this topic and that there will be one or more meetings for the Council to consider this issue and make a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Edmonds had signed an agreement with HASCO in the past. She served with then -Mayor Earling on the Joint Housing Task Force with Lynnwood and recalled there was discussion about Edmonds doing an agreement with HASCO in the past. Mr. Leonard answered the proposed ILA would be a blanket agreement; twice before Edmonds has approved HASCO purchasing property in Edmonds and those are the properties HASCO currently owns. When FIASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, the Council approved a specific agreement for that property. The same was done when HASCO purchased Olympic View and Sound View in 2005 or 2006. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that Joint Task Force was interested in the Rodeo Inn, but that fell through when the owner did not want to sell. She recalled then -Mayor Earling set up a tax rebate of $100,000 to be used in a joint venture with other cities in the area who would also provide funding. Ms. Hope said that ultimately was not done because the project fell through. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the HASCO senior housing is located behind the grocery store; there are HASCO properties in the City that people do not know about because they are not identified as FIASCO properties. Those properties provide an opportunity for seniors and disabled persons to live in Edmonds. She was supportive of this opportunity and thanked Mr. Leonard and Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson for putting this package together and moving it forward. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the presentation, commenting she learned a great deal. This appears to be an excellent opportunity to partner on housing for low income, seniors, those with disabilities and children with an agency with a proven track record that goes above and beyond the minimum requirements. This is also an opportunity for regional cooperation; she recalled being excited about the Rodeo Inn when that opportunity arose and disappointed when it fell through and she wanted the opportunity to explore opportunities when they arise. She asked why the City wouldn't do this, noting the only thing she came up with was not prioritizing serving and helping low income, senior, disabled individuals and children. She was very supportive of moving the ILA with HASCO forward next week and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 19 was appreciative of the work that has been put into this from the various groups throughout the years. It has taken awhile but she was glad the Council had finally reached this point. Councilmember Buckshnis said obviously money was required to purchase properties. She was familiar with [tick 5teves' generosity related to the property he donated to the Y because Councilmember K. Johnson and she are involved with the Rotary who rnaintains that property. She asked if there were opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. Leonard said prices are increasing rapidly which makes doing affordable housing very difficult. For example, when he started with HASCO in 1995, HASCO was able to get very good bank financing. HASCO does not have a revenue stream or taxing authority but a lot of the projects in early years, the bank would finance 1 10% of the purchase price, the entire amount plus 10% for immediate rehab. Over time, prices have escalated and after the 2008/2009 recession banks lost the ability to provide that type of financing. Mr. Leonard explained when HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, it was the most expensive development they had ever purchased; $60,000 per unit for 120 units. In 2018 HASCO purchased a similar property in Mukilteo, $302,000 per unit for 230 units. The previous owners of the Mukilteo property had only owned it for 30 months and were in the process of upgrading units and had also increased rents an average of $250/month in the 30 months they owned the property. HASCO has owned the property since September 2018 and although rents have not been lowered, they have not been increased. As a public agency, their goal is over a period of tirne to keep rents constant or lower thereby bringing affordability to the community. As a result the residents have more money to spend at local businesses, one of the goals HASCO tries to achieve. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how HASCO interacts with Affordable Housing Authority (AHA). Mr. Leonard answered HASCO is a member of AHA and also acts as the fiscal agent for AHA. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether citizens indicated in the surveys why they went from not minding a partnership with HASCO to strongly opposing it. Ms. Hope answered there is no information available regarding that; it could be there was a push by people opposed to it or other reasons. In the first survey, which had a larger number of respondents, there were few clear comments opposing it. There were comments about not wanting low income housing, fear of crime, concern with property taxes, but most of the concern was about providing low income housing. Council President Paine commented this is eye-opening data. She recalled AHA shared similar data regarding the unmet need. She was supportive of an ILA with Edmonds to allow HASCO to provide very affordable, stable -priced housing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ILA would allow HASCO to carte blanche purchase property anywhere in the city limits of Edmonds. Ms. Hope said her understanding was it would allow HASCO to purchase property without going through a long process with the City if they meet the criteria in the ILA. It is unlikely to happen often because HASCO does not have a great deal of resources. She assured the Council would be informed and likely Mr. Leonard would make a presentation to Council. Mr. Leonard said they never view anything as carte blanche authority; they view an ILA as a partnership and if they ever surprised a city, they have not done their job. For example, before HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands, there was a due diligence period of 6 months with two 30 day extension, 8 months to get financing in place and get in front of the Council to ask permission. Sellers today will not take a purchaser seriously if it takes 8 months to close; they want immediately closing. For example, the project in Mukilteo closed in 45 days which is not enough time to get in front of the Council for approval. That is the reason HASCO is seeking an ILA. He assured HASCO would discuss with the Mayor any project they were interested in purchasing prior to acting. He summarized HASCO did not want to surprise anyone, they wanted to be a partner. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 20 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out HASCO was not asking the City for money or financial support for construction, but rather approval to act without going through a bunch of hoops. Mr. Leonard agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there is no cost to the City and expecting HASCO to come to the City before making a purchase is unreasonable in today's market. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL CONCLUDE FOR TONIGHT AND PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. Ms. Hope suggested putting it on the agenda the week after or whatever worked for the Council President, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SCHEDULE THIS ON THE MAY 4T11 AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson was glad this item was not on the Consent Agenda, recalling she requested a presentation to full Council. She supported the Council having a more global discussion about how all the CHC's recommendations come to the Council and requested that staff and the Council President schedule that very soon. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adjourning the meeting and postponing the items that the Council had not gotten to. She envisioned the Council would need until 11:00 p.m. to complete all the agenda items and the Council had already been in their chairs continuously since 6 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a motion to adjourn was debatable. Mr. Taraday said it was not. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, suggesting in the Thursday meetings, consideration be given to the timeframe for agenda items. Her research found items were taking close to three times the amount of time allocated on the agenda and perhaps more accurate timeframes would be less tiring and frustrating. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, pointing out a point of personal privilege is something like the room is too hot or the windows need to be opened. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her point of personal privilege was related to comfort and understanding. She reiterated her request for more accurate timeframes for agenda items. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN UPDATE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 21 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser reviewed: ■ Purpose of a PROS Plan o The Plan is a 6-year guide and strategic plan for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails and recreation opportunities in Edmonds. • Policy Strategy Guide o Built on Public Process o Communication Tool o Grant Eligibility PROS Plan Components o Goals and objectives o Capital Improvement Program (CIP) o Implementation strategies o Strategic focus based in gap analysis ■ What are our strengths? It How should we serve our community? R Where should we focus our efforts? Current PROS Plan o History ■ 2008 Parks, Recreation & Open ■ Space Comprehensive Plan ■ 2014 PROS Plan ■ 2016 Update o Proposed Consultant Scope of Work ■ Update the Existing Sections (4) • System Need R System Concept, Goals and Objectives R Action Plan ■ Funding Plan o Goals & Objectives 1) Collaborations and Leadership 2) Parks and Open Space 3) Shoreline Use and Access 4) Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation 5) Recreation Programs and Activities 6) Cultural Services 7) Park Operations and Maintenance Process of this PROS Plan Update Start Up/ Existing Needs Goals & Draft Plan Final Plan Grounding > Conditions Assessment> Strategies > Feb 2022 T Public Involvement ■ Consultant Selection Enhanced Public Involvement — Community engagement — advisory groups, stakeholders, public meetings, events, surveys, correspondence, online communications, etc. o Request for Qualifications (RFQ) y 5 City Advisory Boards/Commissions gave input on project focus • March 15, 2021 - three submittals ■ City Staff Evaluation Team — Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 22 - Development Services Dept - Unanimous decision • Enhanced Public Involvement Tasks - allowing diversity, equity and inclusion o Translated to three languages (Spanish, Korean, Chinese) ■ On-line survey ■ Email communications x Social media toolkit ■ Pop-up event materials and on -site translation ■ Virtual Public Meeting live interpretation o Highway 99 Renewal Plan collaboration • 2022 PROS Contract Fee PSA Contract $138,596* Virtual public meeting interpretation for both meetings (optional service $ 4,800 Contract Total $143,396 * The $ 8,586 cost of Highway 99 Renewal Plan cost covered by Development Services Department Councilmember Buckshnis said she had been in meetings all afternoon and felt it was disrespectful to expect Councilmembers to sit past 10 p.m. She relayed a question many have been asking, will the addition of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) result in delay or not completing the PROS Plan in a timely manner. Ms. Feser said it has been integrated as part of the proposal and the consultant can make the deadline with the additional work. It is simply planning the community engagement component. She has worked with this consultant before and he has never missed a deadline in her experience with him, his references are stellar and he would not have committed to this work if he did not feel he could deliver it according to the timeline. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled there have been many complaints about open houses during COVID including people answering anonymously, unknown whether they are citizens of Edmonds, etc.; the issue of transparence is a concern to the public. She asked if there were plans for in -person open houses. Ms. Feser answered the project is set up to function according to whatever guidelines are in place at the time. There are in -person pop-up events such as the Farmers Market and virtual town halls could become in - person or a combination of in -person and virtual. Some people want to meet in -person and the PIP includes that such as "meeting in a box" that allows meeting with community members on their turf in -person and face-to-face. She was hopeful there would be opportunities for more in -person engagement this summer and fall, but it is set up to run virtually if needed. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a citizen's question about why a firm from Portland which requires additional expense for travel was selected when there are many well-known firms in Washington that can prepare a PROS Plan. Ms. Feser answered she shared with Council the list of projects this consultant has done; they have been in the region for 15 years with more than 100 projects. With a majority of work being virtual, the consultant can work from Portland and still provide materials and set up and hold virtual meetings. The consultant has included $600 for travel in the budget if needed for the entire project. The subcontractors that does the community engagement is located in Seattle and will be doing the in -person meetings and are not charging for travel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the PIP could be under Human Services and just concentrate on the PROS Plan. She asked what other cities have combined a PIP and PROS Plan. Ms. Feser said the PROS Plan is seen as an opportunity to start developing relationships with these communities. It is a fun conversation to have with communities about parks and recreation programs and a good way to start relationships. There needs to be a reason to do outreach; the PROS Plan is the conduit to begin forming those relationships plus the Highway 99 improvement can be added to capture the audience on Highway Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 23 99 at the same time. The equity and social justice component of this is an up and coming and desirable topic. Other Parks Departments such as Lynnwood are updating their PROS Plans and this is a big element for them as well. Councilmember Buckshnis said diversity, equity and inclusion is part of the consideration for WRIA 8 grants. In talking with friends in Parks & Recreation, they were unaware of anyone combining the PROS Plan and the PIP. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his support for including the PIP, commenting support for that was very apparent when Ms. Feser presented to the Diversity Commission. Parks, recreation and open space are not necessarily equitably distributed throughout the City, including physical space, finance and budget. It is an excellent opportunity to begin to build that relationship with underserved communities and it makes perfect sense to overlay it with the Highway 99 Plan. He recognized the subcontractor doing the public participation work as a real regional leader and professional group that does public participation and engagement on major projects throughout the region and he was excited to have them working on this project. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Task 2.3 in the scope of work which includes GIS to analyze the parks, trail and recreation system and areas with optimal parkland and trail access. She suggested also including open space, noting parks different from open space. Task 2.4 is a park inventory and she requested adding an inventory of capital facilities owned by the Parks Department such as the Meadowdale Playfield, Wade James Theater, etc. and identifying the square footage and the lease agreements. She recalled discussion a few years ago about doing an assessment of those facilities for the purpose of identifying their condition and possible redistribution of tenants. Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about the City Partnership Committee that will lead outreach for the PIP that is referenced in Task 3. Ms. Feser answered the City Partnership Committee is an ad hoc group comprised of community organizations and is where the Human Services Program Manager's relationship with those organizations will be used. This temporary committee will be formed to introduce and welcome the City to those communities to talk about the PROS Plan. The committee has not yet been formed, City staff provides the names and the consultant forms the committee. Councilmember K. Johnson said she participated in the PROS Plan update in 2014 and 2016; the City did not have a Human Services Program Manager at that time, but many groups were included such as Planning Board members and City Councilmembers in an overall steering committee. Ms. Feser responded when staff solicited feedback from advisory groups, representation was requested and meetings will be held with them periodically throughout the process to provide updates and gather feedback. That is different from the group identified in Task 3. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the City Council has not been interviewed regarding the ideas for the PROS Plan. She asked how the City Council would be incorporated into the PROS Plan process. Ms. Feser answered the Council's feedback on the PROS Plan will be incorporated via the Council's goals. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been involved in many large planning processes and the kickoff is a key opportunity to bring all the affected individuals together. Observing that the kickoff planned for this update was only City staff, she asked if not including everyone was a missed opportunity for coordination and communication. Ms. Feser said that could be considered if that was the Council's recommendation. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Task 3.1, pointing out she did not recall that the Human Services Program Manager functioning as part of the PROS Plan was part of the job description. Ms. Feser answered the position would be used minimally to identify connections that need to be developed. She will not be running community meetings or involved with all the components of the PROS Plan. She will be used as a resource to identify community leaders. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested looking at the recreation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 24 program such as the p6tanque club, the Penguins at Yost Pool, etc, Ms. Feser agreed stakeholders included user groups, Councilmember K. Johnson said she had many more questions. Council President Paine acknowledged the Council was unlikely to complete the agenda items, commenting it was important that Councilmembers get their questions answered early. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION FAILED (4-3) DUE TO LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Olson announced her appointment of Darrol Haug to the Economic Development Commission. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR FIVE MINUTES. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to postpone the rest of agenda to next week so Councilmembers can get their questions answered. She noted there are citizens very interested in the PROS Plan which is why Councilmembers re -ask questions. Councilmember L, Johnson raised a point of order, requesting that discussion pertain to the motion on the floor, Councilmember K, Johnson said Councilmember Buckshnis' question was relevant; whether the purpose of extending the ineeting was to continue discussion of the PROS Plan or for Council comments. Councilmember L. Johnson said her intent was to have Council comments, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TO 10.40. 3. CODE AMENDMENTTO REALIGN YYvA- KING BOARD APL'OFN'I'MENT SCHEDULE 4. PAII) FAr1'IILY & VMEDICAI, I.CAVF. PFMI.j I't)I,ICY cl.IAN(;I S' 9. OLD BUSINESS 1. COUNCILMEMBER REIMBU'RSr, hMi,"N'I' It[: t]E .I' 10. i AYOR' ' QOMMENTS 11. COUNCIL CO,MME'NT$ 12. ADJOURN The meeting extension expired and the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR CO ASS , CITY CLE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 25 Public Comment for 4/20/21 Council Meeting: From: Carreen Nordling RUBENKONIG Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 20214:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Mayor, City Council, Members of the City Administration- Good Evening. I am here to discuss the operation of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board. Here are some facts. The City Council of December 16th, 1980 gave legal form and function to the Board through adoption of Edmonds Municipal Code 10.40.02. The end of each board member term is December 31st . The Alternate Position is — as the other Board Members— Appointed and Confirmed to serve on the Planning Board and moves into a numbered position upon any vacancy. The Board's Schedule of Appointments, legally established in EMC 20.10.02, is to be Administered— in its form and function— by City Administration. The 1980 City Council followed a traditional pattern for manning the Board. A staggered cycle of every year, moves pairs of Citizen Volunteers (Positions 1 & 2; 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 7 & Alternate) through the Board as they serve four-year terms. At the end of the Position's term the Citizen can be terminated or reappointed. At any time, the Citizen can leave the Position. The vacant position is then filled by the Board member serving as the Alternate for the remainder of the term. At the term end the citizen volunteer is either terminated or reappointed. This cycling, this staggering of terms of service, provides both fluidity and continuity to the Board and its responsibilities. Every year there is change of paired positions. The citizen volunteer position is either terminated or reappointed. The legal Schedule of Appointments is not to be confused with the Pla>ning Department's informal Roster. The Schedule of Appointments administered by the City Staff is to enforce the schedule as legally laid out in the Code. THE CODE, EMC 10.40.02 IS NOT BROKEN. The Schedule is set and needs no revision. What needs correction is alisnina the Informal Roster of the Planning Department to the Code. The Code Mandated Schedule of Appointments has moved through the past 40 years of city over. It works well. Recently, there have been a few Planning Department clerical mistakes —usually one year off— which tumbled some Board positions from the orderly system of Board Appointments. These things happen. 50% of the current appointments are in line with the Code. With the exception of Position #1, the others are only a year off from the orderly Schedule of the Code. This is a minor adjustment — not of the Code — but the Informal Roster of the Planning Department, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 26 The Schedule of Appointments for the Planning Board was set forth by the City Council to steadfastly move through the Decades — as it has done— providing Form and Function to the Responsibilities of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board. Please provide direction to the Mayor to administer the Schedule of Appointments as established by the 1980 City Council in EMC 10.40.020. Thank you for your time. And accept my sincere appreciation for being able to serve the City as a member of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board in the recent past years. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, 04-20-2021 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 20214:37 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Emergency Ordinance 4217 Regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees Council, Please revise Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4217 to REMOVE the sentence that says: "This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval." The landmark tree (>24" diameter) protection ordinance needs to apply throughout Edmonds (no exceptions/exemptions) until the tree removal regulations are resolved for all private properties according to the goals and objectives of the City's 'Urban Forest Management Plan.' I further request that you do everything possible to save the Perrinville Woods from the planned development. Please seek funds to buy back as much of the property as possible, do everything in your power by lobbying for Federal infrastructure funds, and/or seek local Conservation funding to purchase the property. The damage that will be done to the environment, to the wildlife, and to the property of home owners down stream of and surrounding Perrinville Woods will be massive if development is allowed to proceed as proposed. Many adjacent trees on nearby properties will be compromised and cause further damage in the future. A destructive domino effect is the only possible result of this proposed development. Regards, Joan Bloom Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 27 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; 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> Subject: PUBLIC HEARING on Emergency Ordinance 4217 Dear City Council (others blind cc'd), Ordinance 4217 claims it was effective March 2, 2021. Is this true? Councilmember Fraley- Monillas abstained from voting on Ordinance 4217. As all 7 Councilmembers voted the night of March 2, 2021, did not all 7 have to vote yes for the Emergency Ordinance vote to be unanimous? Does an abstaining vote count as opposition to the Motion if there is no declared "conflict of interest" claimed prior to the Motion? Council also voted on March 2, 2021 under the false representation that a super majority was required. There is no way to know how Council would have voted had Council been properly informed that only one vote was needed for the vote on an Emergency Ordinance to fail. This concept also applies to many other Emergency Ordinance votes in the past. How many of those votes would have been different? There is no way to know. What a mess. Nobody made a Motion to pass Ordinance 4217 as a regular Ordinance. No vote was taken on anything other than the Motion that declared an Emergency. The Ordinance Title for Ordinance 4217 declares an Emergency even though Councilmember Fraley-Monillas abstained. Are all Ordinances put forth as an Emergency Ordinance subject to referendum if they do not receive a unanimous vote? Please explain the answer and provide legal support for the answer. In an April 2, 2021 email, I specifically requested: Please make sure what is and isn't subject to referendum is explained in detail to City Council and the public. This can be a confusing area and it would help all if a solid, detailed explanation is provided. My request was ignored. Ordinance 4217 also makes the following Declaration of Emergency: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 28 The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum. This Declaration of Emergency contains falsehoods. City Council has been misguided about this process until very recently. Citizens recently informed City Council that a unanimous vote is required. This has been true since 1985 when Edmonds adopted the powers of initiative and referendum. Why have so many Emergency Ordinance votes been taken under the representation that an Emergency Ordinance can take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council? For example, the motion to pass Ordinance 4189 failed 6-1. Has anybody reported the Ordinance 4189 situation to the State Auditor et? Please advise all Edmonds Citizens about the unanimous vote requirement for Emergency Ordinances mentioned in the MRSC publication (If the code city has adopted the powers of initiative and referendum, the vote must be unanimous and include a statement of urgency.) RCW 35A.11.090(2). Ordinance 4217 states in Section 1. that "The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020.S." This is an error. The reference should be to ECDC 23.10.020.T. Ordinance 4217 has another error in Section 3. Nuisance Tree is defined in 23.10.0201, not 23.10.020.K. Ordinance 4218 also has at least one error. It states in 23.10.050 that removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. ECDC 23.10.040.E deals with routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, not Hazard and Nuisance Trees. I believe Council passed yet another Ordinance last week that contains this same error. I do not believe that flawed Ordinance is effective yet. Council may want to vote to reconsider this new Ordinance for the purposes of fixing this error and reviewing the Ordinance for other errors before it is effective. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 29 Also, how do all the problems with Ordinances 4217 and 4218 impact the Ordinance passed by Council last week? What about the problems with Ordinances 4200 and 4201? Should any of these Ordinances been subject to referendum? Ordinance 4218 has great problems that City Council should consider addressing immediately. After Council President Susan Paine suggested during the March 2, 2021 Council Meeting to continue the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment to the following week, the Council moved on to New Business. That "New Business" involved what would become flawed Ordinance 4217. After the Main Motion on Ordinance 4217 was voted on, the "New Business" Agenda Item was finished. Instead of moving on to the next Agenda Item, Council President Paine made a Motion related to the Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment. Mayor Nelson failed to tell her that the New Business Agenda Item was complete and the next item on the Agenda was for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Public Process. Council President Paine's bizarre motion was made roughly 40 minutes after she had suggested continuing the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment "next week". Council President Paine's motion made no mention of an emergency and did not declare an emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like Ordinance 4218 passed as an Emergency Ordinance. Nobody made a motion to pass an Emergency Ordinance. The Ordinance title for Ordinance 4218 does not declare an Emergency. The Ordinance title for Ordinance 4217 does declare an Emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like they both were effective March 2, 2021. Furthermore, please appreciate the convoluted mess found in the Ordinance Title for flawed Ordinance 4218: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING PRIOR TREE CLEARING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND RCW 35A.12.130 states that no ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title. The title to flawed Ordinance 4218 contains more than one subject. At a minimum, establishing a New Tree Fund had to be done via a separate Ordinance as it is a different subject. This flaw is in addition to what I mentioned earlier - that the Ordinance Title does not declare an emergency. Please stop passing new laws that contain errors. We already have plenty of errors in our city code, a code that has needed to be rewritten since at least 2000. Please figure out how to properly pass Emergency Ordinances and what is and isn't subject to referendum. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 30 Please go back and address all Ordinances voted on in the past under the false representation take they could take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council. Thank you. Ken Reidy From: cdfarmen@ Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:29 PM To: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Misstatement of my email to council Hi Diane, I am openly being personally criticized by some individuals who say I am purposefully overstating the facts around the number of trees removed from the lot behind my home to get gain a more restrictive tree retention code, especially for the Seaview Woods. In trying to learn the basis for that criticism, I found that during the March 2, 2021 council meeting, you cited receiving a letter from me stating 57 trees were being cut down to build a 4,000 square foot home rather than 31 trees which I said were removed. Here is what appeared in the March 2nd council meeting minutes. Referencing page 9 of those March 2, 2021 minutes: Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the issues cannot be considered in silos; issues include housing, stormwater, and trees that are being cut down and not replaced with native or trees with like diameters. She commented a tree with a 12-inch diameter is 60 years old. The Council received a letter from Mr. Farmen stating 57 trees were cut to build a 4,000 square foot home. What I actually stated in my letter to the council was there were a total of 35 trees in the grove, 31 being removed. Here is a copy of my letter to the council: Dear Council Members, 1 thought 1 would send you the attached photo to show in real life the importance of why we need tougher tree code standards. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 31 The photo clearly demonstrates how the current tree code lacks the tree retention requirements sufficient to control the unbridled amount of clear -cutting of mature trees. This 15,000 sq ft lot borders my property. It had a grove of 35 predominantly mature Douglas fir trees. According to the tree faller, the trees in this grove were estimated to be between 80 and 100 years old. The tallest tree of all trees in the grove was a 160 ft tall Douglas fir. After two days of logging this past week, only 4 trees remain standing. It was cleared to accommodate a 3,100 sq ft 2 story home with a 795 sq ft attached ADU. Had the footprint of the new home been moved 25 ft to the north, a small grove of 7 or 8 trees could have been saved. The trees standing in the background of the photo are on the adjacent property, They were part of the grove prior to the main lot being subdivided. I also learned that a truckload of logs could bring in as much as $4,500 per load at local sawmills. It was expected the logs from the 31 trees removed, would provide enough logs for up to 4 truckloads valued at $18,000 to $20,000. The point here is that the penalty should be sufficient so the market value of the logs does not offset the penalty making the penalty an irrelevant issue for the developer. Respectfully submitted, Duane Farmen It would be important to me in resolving the complaint against me if you would correct the minutes from the March 2, 2021 council meeting, at tonight's council meeting, indicating the actual number of trees being removed was 31, not 57. 1 respectfully ask you to do this so my integrity and character are not permanently tarnished. Thank you, Duane Farmen From: ACE President Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:29 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding Item 8.1 HASCO ILA on Council Agenda for tonight's meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 32 Council, We urge you not to take action on the HASCO ILA this evening for the following reasons: Not enough notice was given to citizens that might be interested in commenting on this issue. Director Hope's Housing News Update on April 14, six days ago, referenced the ILA would be on the Council agenda on April 20. Citizens responding to the online CHC open house and survey strongly opposed an ILA with HASCO by a margin of almost 2 to 1. Director Hope gave mixed messages to Council members about whether or not there could be a vote on the issue tonight. PSPP committee was told by Hope that Council could act on the 20th or another date. In response to Council member Buckshnis' email, Hope said "(Note: a final decision is not expected at this meeting.)" Although public funds were spent on public engagement, NO data about public input to the CHC regarding the HASCO ILA was included in your packet tonight. We also have concerns about information that is being provided to Council about the affordability of HASCO properties. In a reply to email questions from an ACE board member, Duane Leonard said the following: "the affordability restrictions that apply [to the Edmonds Highlands property] come from the housing authorities law codified in Chapter 35.82, specifically RCW 35.82.070 (5). The requirement here is that 50% of the units be rented to persons below 80% of the area median income." Please note that 80% of the AMI for Snohomish County is $66,700/1 person, $76,200/2 person, $85,000/3 persons, $95,250/4 person. (NOTE: taken from SnoCo Home rent and income information) Given that there are 100 seniors on the Section 8 waiting list for the other two Edmonds HASCO properties, why is Edmonds Highlands not also ALL section 8 housing to accommodate demand? The Edmonds Highlands property has been operated property tax free for 20 years, and is currently valued at 19.716 million dollars. For the amount of taxes that are thus being shifted to the un-exempt taxpayers, shouldn't we be getting more for our money? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 33 Finally, we are concerned that approval of the HASCO ILA will lead directly to another recommendation by the CHC which is the 0.1% sales tax increase to go to "affordable and supportive housing for low income households". Council member Luke Distelhorst has already demonstrated his support of this sales tax increase by lobbying the Citizens Housing Commission on January 14, 2021, just prior to their final votes on January 28. Here is an excerpt from the agenda for the 1-14-21 meeting: "Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January 14 meeting." Quote from the "letter he had supported": "AHA would like to draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need to support adoption of a 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing." Again, we urge you, do NOT take action on the HASCO ILA tonight. There are a number of non- profit organizations that provide supportive and affordable housing in Snohomish County. There is nothing in the ILA that clarifies what "official" authority HASCO will have over future housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted. Respectfully, Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President Joan Bloom, ACE At -Large Board Member and former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Freddy Gee Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:17 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Ordinance To Whom it may Concern Regarding the Tree Ordinance, I strongly disagree with this "emergency tree ordinance" First let me state that I love trees and grew up in Washington and spent most of my life here. Much time has been spent in the forest. We currently own a home in Edmonds with some mature trees on the property. We had no intention of cutting them down soon. However the moves the City Council is making to try and punish people with trees on their property makes no sense. You should be encouraging people to plant trees -- not punishing them by regulation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 34 Please stop this governmental over -reach and trying to regulate what people do with trees on their private property. Thank you, Freddy G, At Your Service From: Katy Levenhagen Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:13 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Good Morning, I am writing to encourage City Council Members to reconsider the recent ordinance tonite designed to protect the green spaces of Edmonds to preserve it's green character. While Edmonds indeed needs to protect the existing trees in both public, city owned and privately owned land from clear cut ...any established laws need to apply to both developers and private homeowners alike. It is at the very least an oversite and absolutely absurd to have a law in the city for any length of time that allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down the large trees (over 24" DBH) when homeowners cannot. I strongly oppose the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing developers to cut down trees. Any tree that is 24" DBH, (diameter at breast height) should be protected regardless of where it is! Homeowners should not be the only ones restricted from cutting larger trees while the developers are getting a free pass to cut trees "at -will". Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests. Sincerely, Katy Levenhagen Edmonds, WA 98026 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 6:26 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 35 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 20, 2021 City Council Meeting City Council is being presented with a complicated proposal to Realign the Planning Board Appointment Schedule that redefines when a term expires and results in the Mayor being able to appoint four new Planning Board members at the "commencement" of 2022. The new proposed Ordinance continues to promote falsehoods: WHEREAS, of the eight planning board positions (seven numbered positions, plus one alternate), only positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original appointments; and WHEREAS, conforming all positions to expiration dates that would be consistent with the December 16, 1980 original appointments would create five-year terms for positions 2, 3, and 4; and WHEREAS, if possible, the city council would like to return to staggered terms without creating any five-year terms; and WHEREAS, position 7 and the alternate position require special treatment to return to a staggered state; The TRUTH is that of the eight planning board positions (seven numbered positions, plus one alternate), positions 5, 6, 7 and alternate have expiration dates that are consistent with the original appointments. Position 1 could have easily been synched with its original appointment cycle months ago had Council addressed that Council was provided false information on December 15, 2020; and The TRUTH is that conforming all positions to expiration dates that would be consistent with the December 16, 1980 original appointments can be done without creating five-year terms for positions 2, 3, and 4; and The TRUTH is that the full city council has not even met in an Open Public Meeting yet to discuss the idea of creating any five-year terms; and The TRUTH is that position 7 and the alternate position do not require special treatment. The draft Ordinance itself confirms this for position 7! The draft Ordinance states that only Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 36 positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original appointments! 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 City Council for tonight'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. From: Michael Lynn Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:32 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>;-Public-Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree cutting ordinance Good Day Edmonds City Council, I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing developers to cut down trees, but not private property owners. We had a double lot behind our house clear cut to build 2 new houses around 14 years ago, with the very first wind storm and subsequent wind storms within 2 months every one of our 7 plus pine, cedar and other tall trees blew down, 2 following on different neighbors roof. It seems ridiculous to me that an ordinance designed to protect the green aspects of our beautiful city, allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down the nice large old growth trees. I strongly support the moratorium on this ordinance until September so more research can be done. Lets don't ruin our very livable and green city. Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests. Regards Michael Lynn Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 37 From: Amy Lentz Sent: Monday, April 19, 20214:01 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Emergency Tree Code Ordinance Dear Council Members: I am writing in opposition to the proposed emergency ordinance related to the cutting of trees greater than 24" in diameter. For the second time since I have moved here, it appears the City is once again considering legislation to limit what individual property owners can do with trees on their property. The last time this was before the City, the public outcry was great enough to fill the entire Council chambers and the foyer with residents who were against this type of infringement on individual's property rights. Ultimately, the proposal was rejected. Moreover, this is not the first time the idea of restricting individuals' ability to maintain their property has been discussed. In 1990, when the first Tree Cutting Ordinance was adopted, the primary concern was whether the ordinance would "take away individual property rights by not allowing residents to cut down trees in their yards." Edmonds' New Ordinance Limits Tree Cutting, Anne Koch, Seattle Times, October 18, 1990. However, this concern was addressed by limiting application of the ordinance to those properties that could be subdivided into three or more lots or that lie in environmentally sensitive areas. Now, 30 years later, it appears the same concerns are again being raised. I recycle. I compost. I walk and ride bicycles whenever possible. I bring cloth grocery bags to the store. I recreate in the outdoors. I have planted trees in our yard. I am green. However, I do not support the proposed emergency ordinance. In sum, the emergency ordinance discourages landowners from planting, maintaining, and preserving trees on their property, does not apply equally to all landowners, is overreaching, and creates an unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. In anticipation of the City's potential limitation on removing large tress, we recently debated cutting the sole large blue spruce in our backyard and even obtained several estimates. Prior to hearing about the potential limitation, we had not been overly concerned with the tree. However, the threat of the City's limitation spurred the activity. This is certainly an unintended consequence - but foreseeable nonetheless. Rather than deter homeowner's from cutting trees through penalties and invasion of individual property rights, perhaps the City should figure out a way to encourage others to keep Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 38 their trees through on -going education about the benefits to all and financial incentives for maintaining and planting new trees. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Lentz Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 39