Loading...
Cmd042721EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 27, 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 Phil Williams, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Dave Turley, Finance Director 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 Distelhorst 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 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD COUNCILMEMBER OLSON'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST AS ITEM 7.8. MOTION V.1.1.1iI DI1111►`". 9tIOT1911 y 10 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.4, CIVIC FIELD - REJECT ALL BIDS, TO THE MAIN AGENDA AS ITEM 7.0. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 1 Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the Council had not reached the Consent Agenda yet. City Clerk Scott Passey stated a change to the Consent Agenda was appropriate under Approval of the Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED TO HAVE ITEM 6.4 FOLLOW THE CONSENT AGENDA TO MAINTAIN THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA, AND IF THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE, PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA AS ITEM 7.9 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested to avoid confusion, a motion to remove Item 6.4 from the Consent Agenda and a second motion regarding where to put it in Agenda Item 7. Council President Paine agreed. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding any Councilmember could remove something from the Consent Agenda and it was not subject to a vote. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed, explaining this is the problem with mixing the pulling of an item with the placement of it somewhere else on the agenda. Pulling an item from the Consent Agenda is unilateral, the placement on the agenda is subject to Council vote. Mayor Nelson suggested a motion to place it on the agenda as Item 7.0 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege. Councilmember K. Johnson said a personal privilege is related to comfort items like the heat in the room. Mr. Passey said Councilmember Fraley-Monillas may be referring to a point of information which is a question or request for information. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a vote superseded pulling an item off Consent because according to Robert's Rules of Order, a motion of the body is always appropriate. She asked if the vote would stand. Mr. Passey said a Councilmember has an absolute right to remove something from the Consent Agenda and any change to the agenda whether to the Consent Agenda or the regular agenda, should be done under Approval of the Agenda. Typically if there are no objections, the Mayor takes items removed from the Consent Agenda following approval of the Consent Agenda and if there is an objection to that process, the Council votes. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled former -Mayor Earling would state if there is no objection; clearly in this case there was an objection because there was a vote and no one said anything prior to the vote. Procedurally it seems if the body votes, the decision should reflect the vote, not what has been done historically. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO PULL ITEM 6.4 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MOVE IT TO ITEM 7.9. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, explained they purchased a densely treed acre in 2017 because they like trees. They met with the City to divide the property into three lots for them and their then-81 year old parents. At the advice of City planning, they gave a portion of the property away to a critical area, which Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 2 extended the process two years. They attended a preapplication meeting in February 2019 and as required obtained architects, surveyors, geotechs, and arborists at a cost of $100,000 to date. The only buildable areas are where 24" and larger trees are concentrated and will have to be removed to build their homes, just as trees were removed to build other homes in Edmonds. They had intended to retain close to 50% of the over 100 trees, exceeding the 30% retention requirements. Edmonds will still fine them $200,000 to $400,000 for the value of the trees, almost as much as they paid for the property. Potential buyers will factor the new tree ordinance into offers for properties in Edmonds, lowering property values by the value of the trees. Edmonds City Council has devalued their property by $200,000 to $400,000 for the supposed value of their own trees. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the taking of property value without compensation is against the 5"' and 14"' amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ordinance raises the cost of housing for existing property owners with trees in Edmonds, a high density area. The likelihood of selling their property and covering the costs they have already incurred is low. With this fine, it will cost at least $500,000 in professional fees and fines in addition to what they paid for the property before they can begin building their homes. Edmonds City Council also delayed building with moratoriums on applications and tree cutting during a housing crisis while building costs are soaring. Since the application moratorium, the cost of a standard 8' 2x4 has gone up from $3 to $12, a sheet of plywood has increased from $18 to $60. Building a home for their now 86- year old parents without far exceeding market value is nearly impossible. Due to high fines, the ordinance will force more people to build outside Edmonds; that may be the goal but it will also encourage urban sprawl and raise the potential of global warming. After all we've lost during the pandemic, the loss of our time invested, property value and potential earnings is devastating. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Edmonds, the appointment schedule for the Planning Board, per City code, has served the City well for 40 years. She encouraged the Council to retain the code and not accept any misrepresentation of it. Historical records of the Planning Board's roster thatch the integrity of the code in the sample years of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 2011. Each roster states December 3Is' as the last day of the term and cites the authority of EMC 10.40. The informal roster of the Planning Department should be put back on course with the code appointment schedule because it is not broken. Alarm was raised last fall when four members were up for reappointment at the same time, Positions 1, 5, 6 and the alternate, the result of a clerical mistake in the Planning Department's informal roster. Position 1 had fallen out of compliance with the code appointment schedule; Positions 5 and 6 were administered correctly and the alternate situation remedied at a January Council meeting. The typical appointment to the Planning Board is initially as an alternate and the stated date is the City Council confirmation. Its four-year term ends on December 315t Ms. Nordling Rubenkonig continued, the alternate is usually the only position that the Mayor and City Council appoint and confirm due to the alternate progressing into a vacated position such as when Roger Pence moved into her vacated Position #5 when her service to the board was terminated on December 31, 2020. She requested the Council stay with the code and not accept the proposal that the function of the alternate needs to be in line with other groups. The City would benefit if other groups matched the approach of the alternate position on the Planning Board. The needed course of action is administrative, not an amendment to the code rearranging the schedule of board appointments. She suggested Positions 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 be extended to a 5t" year, legislated as an interim year of service for one time only. She summarized the Council should immediately remedy the situation by resuming the official schedule for Positions 1 through 4 board appointments which would be consistent with EMC 10.40 as put forth in the December 16, 1980 Council meeting. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, a 13+ year Edmonds resident, shared her thoughts regarding the tree code, the emergency tree ordinance and her semi -personal quest to save two landmark trees on a development in her neighborhood, comments she had intended to share at last week's public hearing but she was not called on. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 3 With regard to her personal quest, when she realized a permitted development sub -plat that has been dormant for nearly 15 months could result in a significant tree loss, she looked up the permit, and when she was unable to find the unapproved site plan on the Edmonds website, she called and spoke with Kernen Lien who was able to provide her the tree removal plans. She learned 10 trees including 2 very well establish likely over 100 year old trees, a red western cedar and a Douglas fir, would be removed. The cedar was on the corner of the lot away from the houses being built and nowhere near the easement on the opposite site of the property. After speaking with several people at the City, the developer and the developer's engineer, reached a consensus that the cedar might not need to be removed. Upon further review, the City's Engineering Department determined the cedar and the Douglas fir and a few other fir trees were to be considered protected for now and a public hearing would be scheduled. She remains vigilant and hopeful. Ms. Fleming said during this process, she learned there is a City development code that regulates the height allowed for construction and because of the restrictions imposed on them, developers grade the property lower to meet the height requirement. As a result of the grading, trees that may not need to be removed end up having to be removed because the grading jeopardizes their root structure thereby making them unsafe. The code regarding height restrictions is primarily geared toward the bowl which made her wonder whether less trees might be lost if this code were tailored to address the interest in saving trees, particularly in areas outside the bowl. She requested this be considered further by the Tree Board and City Council. With regard to the emergency tree ordinance, if it does not apply to developers with permits, it is ridiculous and unfair given the code restrictions that are basically driving tree removal. She was particularly disappointed by the fact that two Councilmembers who have voted multiple times against amending this ordinance to apply to developers, Councilmembers L. Johnson and Fraley-Monillas, share on their webpages that they enjoy the endorsement of the Sierra Club and the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club respectively. When trees are removed on development projects, the microecosystem is destroyed in the process and cannot be bought back, and wildlife are displaced. She requested the Council review and reconsider the amendments. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the Findings of Fact related to the tree ordinance, stating that until March 2nd, a subset of property owners have willingly subjected themselves to higher homeowner insurance premiums, maintenance costs associated with trees and damage caused to their homes by roots and potential hazards associated with large trees. The City's actions later tonight will make those costs and hazards mandatory for the next four months and likely in perpetuity. The ordinance states additional regulation for the City Council's consideration may apply to all private properties in the City when it clearly doesn't. The strict regulations will be required for some properties and optional for others, properties that have already removed trees. The purpose of the GMA is to regulate growth and development, not existing property and structures. The appellate court in several cases has held that reasons need to be provided for an emergency. The City's actions are not consistent with the values of public process by removing the right to referendum and property rights when more restrictive regulations are put in place. Ms. Seitz pointed out the City's actions are not consistent with the public outreach necessary for this process because the City has only provided a single notice, notice of the emergency ordinance, since July 2019 and the City's Urban Forest Management Plan completed in that month and year identified the City recognizes it has a limited capacity in the care of private trees; now the City is trying to take action contrary to those statements. The City's actions set forth a negative relationship with property owners, the same property owners who have through their individual environmental ethics led them to plant and maintain trees on their property at great cost and potential hazard. Every tree in the City today is secondary growth which means successive landowners either planted or chose to maintain it as a chosen structure on the landscape. Creating regulations around this beneficial activity will only create additional burden on property owners and if planted, incentivize maintenance of trees at earlier growth stages. The actions the Council is taking tonight seem environmental on their face, but in her experience in a maintenance context, the Council will not be successful in promoting trees by regulating property owners who choose to grow them. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 4 Pam Stuller, Edmonds, owner of Walnut Street Coffee and President of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, invited everyone to their annual member meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m. The Zoom link is available at EdmdondsDowntown.org website. The meeting will include a review of 2020 accomplishments and plans for 2021. She is one of the founders of Edmonds Localvore Group that includes Boutique Rogue, Refinery Salon, Scratch Distillery and others. They have a fun event planned this Thursday -Sunday, Edmonds Localvore Passport to Local. Twenty-eight businesses are participating and working hard to create a great event for the community. Augustus Bukowski, Edmonds, referred to the unit lot subdivision proposal and wanted to ensure everyone knew the proposal did not increase density or change what could be built. Unit lot subdivision will allow ownership interest in the property to be fee simple instead of condo. Allowing homeowners to own property fee simple gives them more affordable access to homes in the downtown area versus condo ownership. Construction costs for condos are much higher and setting up the HOA is more expensive. Not having an HOA due is a benefit to a unit lot subdivision versus condo ownership. Contrary to comments that unit lot subdivision will increase density, the BD zoning downtown is the densest zoning in the City and no increase in density will be caused by the unit lot subdivision amendment which is allowed in surrounding neighborhoods such as RM 1.5 or RM 2.5. Unit lot subdivision provides Edmonds owners access to more affordable housing in the bowl. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM CADENCE CLYBORNE AND FRANK CELLI 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. PAID FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE (PFML) POLICY CHANGES Human Resources Analyst Emily Wagener explained PFML was a voter approved initiative approved last January in Washington. She reviewed: ■ Current PFML Policy o Employees can supplement their state PFML payments by using their eligible paid leave balances. o Total payments to employees are capped at 100% of gross weekly wages including state and supplemental payments. • Supplemental Pay Example I 100% FTE based on 100% max Gross Weekly Pa $13214.00 PFML Weekly Benefit 873.00 Max Weekly Supplement 341.00 Weekly Leave Hrs. Used 11.24 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 5 L.Weekly Benefit Cost* E$5�6.92 *Based on family coverage for Med/DenNis on the Regence plan. o Employee's weekly supplement amount covers their weekly benefit cost. o Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also be covered • PFML Policy Issues o The 100% capon total wages negatively impacts part-time and lower wage-earning employees as follows: ■ These employees receive far less in supplemental leave payments from the City. ■ They are unable to continue to pay their benefit premiums while on leave. ■ They will need to pay their benefit premiums while on leave by sending payment into the City or by catching them up when they return to work. ■ They may miss out on the tax benefit of having premiums deducted from their pay. o City staff must track and collect any unpaid employee premiums. o Part-time employees pay a higher cost -share for their benefits than full-time employees. Supplemental Pay Example 2 62.5% FTE based on 100% max Gross Weekly Pa $758.75 PFML Weekly Benefit 643.00 Max Weekly Supplement 115.75 Weekly Leave Hrs. Used 3.81 Weekly Benefit Cost* $249.01 *Based on family coverage for Med/DenNis on the Regence plan. o Employee's weekly supplement amount does not cover their weekly benefit cost. o Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also not be covered. PFML Policy Changes Proposed o Increase the cap on total wages to 150% for those employees who are unable to continue to pay their benefit payments at the 100% level. o Other minor verbiage changes include: ■ Clarifying that supplemental wages (as defined in policy) are not subject to PFML premiums. ■ Reference to the state's annual max benefit recalculation. This will avoid an annual policy change. ■ Reference to how HR calculates the Supplemental leave benefit and what employees can do if they disagree with the calculation. Supplemental Pay Example 3 62.5% FTE based on 150% max Gross Weekly Pa $758.75 PFML Weekly Benefit 643.00 Max Weekly Supplement 495.13 Weekly Leave Hrs. Used 16.31 Weekly Benefit Cost* $249.01 *Based on family coverage for Med/DenNis on the Regence plan. o Employee's weekly supplement amount covers their weekly benefit cost. o Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also be covered. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 6 Important Notes o Proposed policy changes will have a significant, positive impact on part-time and lower wage- earning employees with the City. o Supplemental payments reduce the employee's accrued leave balances. This is not an additional cost to the City. o Increasing the cap for this group of employees may encourage supplemental leave use. o Proposed policy changes are expected to reduce the City's obligation to track and collect unpaid employee benefit premiums for those on PFML. Staff recommendation: approve proposed policy changes on the included redline document. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was to level out part-time staff with full-time staff. Ms. Wagener answered yes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE PAID FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE POLICY CHANGES AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. 2021 APRIL BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Dave Turley reviewed: ■ We have 6 requests tonight; more detailed Decision Packages are found in the Council. • These requests were discussed during Finance Committee meeting on April 13. • If passed, this budget amendment would have no impact to forecast revenues and would add $636,400 in expenditures to the annual budget Fund Increases to Revenues Increases to Expenses Projected Ending Fund Balance General Fund 001 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Marsh Fund 017 - 20,000 20,000 Fleet Management 511 - 80,000 80,000 Utility Funds 421 422 423 - 90,000 90,000 Various (AFSCME & Teamsters Contracts) - 227,400 227,400 Street Construction 112, BEET 125 - 169,000 169,000 Totals 1 $ - $ 636,400 $ 636,400 Mr. Turley introduced the proposed budget amendments: • Request for $50,000 in professional services to support additional project workload in Parks Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not support this amendment, recalling it was discussed in detail at the Finance Committee meeting. The additional $50,000 is due to Mayor Nelson moving the Human Services program into Parks and Recreation including transferring the $564,000 in funding. Had that program not been moved, this request would not be necessary. In her opinion, the $50,000 should be taken from the Human Services budget. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser commented after being with the City for a year and as a licensed landscape architect able to study the workload of the Parks Maintenance division and the small capital projects and major maintenance projects in the Parks division, she reached the conclusion that there is a backlog of over 25 significant projects that haven't been completed in the last 4-5 years. Ms. Feser explained she had planned to include this in the 2022 budget process to provide staff resources to work through that backlog of maintenance projects. With the large projects coming up such as the PROS Plan, Civic Park and Salmon Safe as well as Human Services moving into Parks, she decided to bring it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 7 forward sooner than the budget process and ask for assistance to manage the workload. The 2021 workload she shared with Council two weeks ago illustrated the backlog in parks maintenance projects in addition to regular maintenance activities. This funding will assist with getting some of those projects done. There are beginning to be safety and environmental issues that need to be addressed. Councilmember Olson said she had a similar thought about this but for different reasons. For example, with Civic Park there is an ebb and flow. Many of these are contract things and with the onboarding of a contract there is extra work from a management standpoint, but some capital projects could be put off. From overall economic approach for the City and looking for ways to be fiscally conservative, if this is an overwhelming time with onboarding of contracts, some of the contracts that are being onboarded are management contracts. For example, once Civic Park is in process, there will be management for that project instead of the Parks Department managing construction. She suggested there be different expectations about when these capital projects get done versus contracting out the management of them to avoid spending the extra $50,000. Councilmember K. Johnson said the item description lists a number of individual projects including the PROS Plan, the Salmon Safe Certification, and Civic Park; each of those are individual projects with consultants and do not require an additional contract to manage the consultant. For example, Civic Park is managed internally by the Engineering Department, the Salmon Safe Certification is a policy based analysis that shouldn't require contract management and the PROS Plan is an extensive project that incudes City staff and consultants that do not require an outside contract. That leaves 25 small projects which have been mostly managed by Rich Lindsay internally. She was uncertain what the 25 projects were, but there are not individual contracts for them. She was open to learning more, but it did not seem like what was listed required a $50,000 contract employee to manage contracts already in process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the $50,000 is less than part-time status. She did not envision these projects as ones that should be sent to other departments. There have been many projects added in the Parks Department and it has been many years since staffing has been considered. A professional service contract with a part-time employee is probably smarter than hiring a staff person which requires paying benefits. She suggested considering it again in six months or at the end of the year to see if it was still warranted. She encouraged Councilmembers to support the Parks Department. Council President Paine said she had some familiarity with capital projects and knew there needs to be departmental oversight of the contracts. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR $50,000 IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL PROJECT WORKLOAD IN PARKS. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Ms. Feser to comment on what the COVID guidelines have meant for the Parks Department timewise. Ms. Feser said the impacts of COVID last year continue into 2021, especially if Snohomish County reverts to Phase 2 in a couple weeks; it is a constantly moving target. Every facility rental, every picnic shelter rental, every program the department offers, etc. has to comply with COVID guidelines and every time there is a shift in the guidelines, programs and rentals have to be reconfigured. In addition, Parks maintenance has completely changed the way they do business. They still have two split shifts, employees work on projects independently and do not ride in trucks together and there is very limited volunteer hours due to group sizes. For example, in the past volunteers planted the flower baskets, but the limitations do not allow that. COVID has impacted Parks maintenance crews and with more people outside downtown and at the beach, there is more garbage and litter; litter and garbage service and maintenance on the beachfront this winter were at summer levels. As a result, maintenance staff are not able to do capital projects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 8 Ms. Feser explained the capital projects in the description now require permitting. For example, the installation of a new greenhouse requires a permitting process and selection of the greenhouse; there is no one else on staff to do that work and as a director, she still manages the PROS Plan, Salmon Safe and Civic Park, land acquisition as well as overseeing the small capital project. She is asking for a project manager to help Parks maintenance to implement the small capital projects, to do the paperwork, etc. Rich Lindsay does not have time to draw the footprint of a greenhouse for a permit. This resource will help get through those capital projects that have been deferred for quite some time. Councilmember L. Johnson found Ms. Feser's response very helpful and said it strengthened her support for the amendment. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed concern about ongoing underfunding and the inability to do projects in a timely manner and keep parks open and safe for residents. He did not want to see a maintenance backlog which makes it more expensive and potentially creates hazardous conditions or conditions that aren't up residents' expectations of the Parks & Recreation Department.. Having experience managing consultants and projects, it is a lot of work; just because there is an external consultant does not mean you don't participate in or manage the contract or the project. He appreciated Ms. Feser proposing this amendment and said he would definitely support the Parks & Recreation Department. Councilmember Olson said her question was about the specificity of the capital projects and whether there were any where the deferred maintenance would cause a hazard or safety issue. These conversations are similar to those held during the last budget regarding building facilities and many of those were deferred and not included in the budget. To the extent there is money for deferred maintenance, she suggested analyzing Parks projects against building maintenance projects to determine which are more pressing. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo for all the work Ms. Feser is doing. Her issue is the amendment indicates this position will allow department administration to better focus on Human Services implementation. There was $500,000 included in the budget for Human Services which has been moved into Parks & Recreation. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3) DUE TO A LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out the item description says to allow the administration to better focus on Human Services implementation and park maintenance. Parks is already doing a number of things that qualify as Human Services during COVID. This a fair analysis and includes park maintenance in the description. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was for this consultant to work on the PROS Plan, Salmon Safe Certification and Civic Park projects. Ms. Feser answered no, she was asking for assistance in in the Parks major maintenance capital projects, assisting Rich Lindsay with the permitting process for projects, managing contracts if contractors are hired to do the work, ordering materials for Parks maintenance, organizing volunteer work parties, and lessening some of the Parks maintenance workload related to small capital projects. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was a list of the 25 small projects. Ms. Feser said she emailed Councilmembers the work plan to Council 2 weeks ago and offered to email it again. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the total cost of those capital projects. Ms. Feser said she did not have that broken out, it was usually included in the Parks maintenance budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 9 Councilmember K. Johnson asked if this was a one-time item. Ms. Feser said this is a good opportunity to evaluate the value of assistance in a project management position for the Parks Department. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was work the Engineering Department could do such as project design. Ms. Feser answered she had not had that discussion with Public Works Director Phil Williams; the one individual from Public Works that Parks uses, Henry Schroeder, will be busy with Civic Park and the fishing pier project. She would still have to spend time conveying information for someone in Engineering to do the CAD drawings and permits. She preferred to have someone who can do the project from tip to tail rather than her still managing all the details for the project and using someone in Public Works to do the work. She doubted Public Works would have a project manager available to allocate 400 hours to Parks this year. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Due to the amount of time the previous discussion took, Mayor Nelson suggested doing questions in a round robin format. Mr. Turley pointed out the Council could vote on these individually, particularly the more controversial ones, but typically the Council votes on them together. ■ Request for $20,000 in Professional Services from the Marsh Fund for permitting to access the Edmonds Marsh to do restoration work. Councilmember K. Johnson commented volunteers have been used for restoration in both the locations that are identified. She asked why the wetland needed to be delineated at this time. Ms. Feser clarified the City has had limited access to the marsh to do this work. A critical area permit is required to have full access to the entire area which requires a wetland delineation. This project will delineate the wetland for the permit and then the City will have full access around the perimeter of the marsh for volunteer efforts. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the City will not have access to the Unocal property. Ms. Feser agreed that was private property and the City did not have access. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the wetland delineation was necessary to do restoration work. Ms. Feser answered yes, it is a requirement of the permit to have access into the wetland to do work. ■ Request for $80,000 in the Equipment Rental Fund to provide funds for a mini excavator. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost of a mini excavator. Mr. Williams said the proposed amendment is $80,000 for the excavator and trailer. It is a small, compact piece of equipment and can get into much smaller places. Public Works has two full-size backhoes but they are difficult to use when working in alleys and other small spaces. The biggest need for the mini excavator is the sidewalk crew on sidewalks and ramp projects. When replacing existing sidewalks, a few panels or a long stretch, the sidewalk has to be jackhammered up and often the crew pick up the concrete pieces and load them in the truck before placing forms and pouring the new sidewalk. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not dispute the need, but wondered how much a new one would cost. Mr. Williams said this is for a new mini excavator and trailer, not a rental. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the legislative intent of the sidewalk crew was to work on first the small and then the long missing sidewalks; it wasn't to do bulbs, replace curbs or jackhammer anything and she felt it was a misappropriation of the sidewalk crew to do other projects. She anticipated an excavator could be rented and delivered for thousands of dollars per job site instead of purchasing a new one. For those economic reasons, she did not support this request at this time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 10 Councilmember Distelhorst asked Mr. Williams the intended life cycle of a mini excavator. Mr. Williams anticipated it would last 15 years or more, envisioning the City would get a lot of use out of it. It is the kind of tool that you may not realize how much you need it until one is available. The concrete crew would have first call on the equipment, and to the extent Streets is not using it, other departments such as Parks can use it. It is a very adaptable and efficient piece of equipment and will help the efficiency of flat work. In addition to new sidewalks, the crew does a lot of repairs. The City has more liability associated with bad sidewalks than no sidewalks; the City doesn't get sued for people tripping where there are no sidewalks but does get sued where sidewalks are not properly maintained. Mr. Williams explained there is also a huge backlog of ADA curb ramps; some of them are done as part of pavement projects. Any time a project touches the curb, the ramps have to be upgraded. The City was spending $20,000-$28,000 per ramp to have contractors install them; many of them are done inhouse for much less. Some of the missing sidewalk segments have been done; of the top five number one rated short sidewalk segments, the sidewalk crew did two of them, one was done with a capital project, a private developer is working on a fourth and the fifth is in design. He summarized reasonable progress has been made on the short sidewalks segments in the time the crew has been working. Councilmember Distelhorst summarized it sounded like a good investment that would be well used. Council President Paine said she has seen mini excavators used on private development projects. There is also the cost of implementing traffic control plans and flaggers; this sounds like a fairly safe way because traffic won't be impeded and sidewalks can be closed while they are being repaired and reopened when the repair is completed. She liked that the mini excavator did not require the use of flaggers or implementing traffic control and expressed support for this request. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be fair to say the rental cost combined with the procurement time as well as traffic control, flaggers, etc. would exceed $5300/year, renting versus purchasing the equipment. Mr. Williams answered there is an inertia factor, without the equipment, likely the crew would figure out a way to do something without renting equipment which is less efficient. He acknowledged equipment could be rented as long as it was done far enough in advance; often in the summer months equipment is already rented out. In the long run it was not cost effective to rent equipment. Councilmember L. Johnson said that was her point, that the rental would exceed the purchase price. Mr. Williams pointed out moving full sized backhoes around the City is a pain; sometimes they are driven on City streets which is much faster, but it is large equipment and it does not go very fast. The mini excavator will be on a trailer that can be towed behind any of the work trucks. ■ Request for $90,000 — $30,000 each from the Water, Storm, and Sewer Funds to provide funds to develop formal reserve policies. • $227,400 for the increased Salaries and Benefits that resulted from the ASCFME and Teamsters contract settlements. These contracts were approved after the 2021 budget was completed, so we were unable to include actual numbers in the budget. • Request for $169,000 to allow for changes to Citywide Pedestrian Safety projects. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. _, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4216 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-1-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 11 During the roll call vote, Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the Council could vote on the items individually rather than as a group. Mayor Nelson said the Council had already voted. 3. CODE AMENDMENT TO REALIGN PLANNING BOARD APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there are two ordinances in the packet to provide two different approaches to realigning/fixing the problem with Planning Board terms. When the Planning Board was initially established in 1980, 7 numbered positions and an alternative position were created. The ideas was after the initial terms were satisfied, two positions would come up for appointment and confirmation each year. Somewhere along the way that stopped happening exactly as intended and now there is a situation where the positions are not synched up with what was originally contemplated. Both versions of the ordinance would get the Planning Board back to the two/year schedule, but they have differences. The second version would more closely align the positions with the original schedule for each position. The net effect of the second option is that each position would ultimately get back on the schedule it was intended to be on in 1980. The first option does not do that but still gets back to the two/year schedule but a different two/year schedule. Mr. Taraday explained the first version of ordinance removes the language that has the alternate automatically filling vacancies for the unexpired terms. The second version of the ordinance does not propose that change. It was thought at one point that it might be slightly easier to keep track of the positions and the terms if that language were to be removed but he felt it was a very minor point and did not have a recommendation whether that language should be included or not. The Council could also mix and match; for example, if the Council liked the terms in the second version, but liked the language regarding the alternate in the first version, amendments could be made to combine those. Mr. Taraday observed several people have asked why anything legislatively needed to be done and whether it could be addressed via an administrative fix. For example, it has been suggested that only the roster needs to be changed. The roster is not merely an administrative cataloging; it reflects the dates that Planning Board members were appointed and confirmed. For example, the roster indicate the date of appointment or Position 2 is January 2018. All Planning Board members are supposed to serve a 4 year term so that term would expire at the end of 2021. It was his understanding that the people who have suggested an administrative fix are really suggesting extending Positions 2, 3, and 4 an additional year and everything will be back to normal. He was uncertain that would be true because there was also a reappointment of Position 1 that needed to be fixed. Even if that were the case with Positions 2, 3, and 4, there is still a conflict because the code specifically states Planning Board terms are 4 years which means every 4 years, Planning Board members are subject to appointment or reappointment and confirmation and if that doesn't happen, the code is being violated and the City cannot just administratively pretend that a 5-year term is a 4-year term. Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the idea of combining the two versions. She suggested the Council discuss at a future retreat having Planning Board members selected by Councilmembers which she recalled had been discussed when she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas first joined the Council. She liked the second option which is more aligned with the current code, but also liked having the alternate fill any vacancy as the alternate has been attending meetings. Councilmember Olson said the overriding principles behind the original code have served the City well and include the idea of continuity; the alternate automatically filling a vacancy helps provide that continuity. The two per year is also important so there are no large fluxes in membership, similar to the process for Councilmembers where all positions are not up for election at the same time. The idea in the second version of a one year term and then a four year term does not support the concept of continuity. It is not uncommon for Planning Board members to be offered and to accept the opportunity for a second or third term so it is not unreasonable to extend to five years to avoid confusion. She preferred that option compared to changing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 12 the code. To those who say that five year terms violated the code, she pointed out the violation already happened and changing the code to avoid violating the law is exactly what the City did not want to do regarding the number of people who needed to be interviewed for a chief or director position. She preferred not to change the code and either by resolution or other means maintain the dates in the original ordinance and make them 5-year terms. Council President Paine expressed appreciation for Mr. Taraday's comments to her earlier today. She recalled during public comments, a person saying the best thing would be to put the Planning Board positions back in order quickly. Some of the Planning Board positions have gotten out of order and it cannot be fixed administratively. She suggested the quickest way would be the second version of the ordinance. She did not have a strong opinion regarding the alternate language. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in her 11'/2 years on the City Council she did not find continuity on the Planning Board beneficial. Some Planning Board members have been on the board for about the same amount of time she has been on Council and getting a fresh look at things is a good thing. In her experience serving on many boards including the Senior Center Board, positions term out so fresh blood can join and look at things in a different light. If someone remains on a board like the Planning Board that long, it becomes political. She has served with four Mayors and believed each Mayor had opportunity to change Planning Board membership to those who most agree with their opinion about regulations. The Planning Board is a very important board; they assist in educating the Council what is appropriate with regard to development, zoning, etc. She was interested in whatever method allows turnover, noting it was very common for board terms to vary. For example, on the Senior Center Board, 4 of the 16 members termed out last year and in 2 years, another 4 will term out. Councilmember L. Johnson said this allows for two appointments per year by the current Mayor which would allow a Mayor during their term to make appointments for each position. She asked what appointments were made in 2020 and 2021 and what would be the effect of 5 year terms beyond what this mayoral tern would be afforded the opportunity to appoint versus what the next mayoral term would be afforded the opportunity to appoint. Mr. Taraday answered Positions 1 and 6 were reappointed in 2021, and Position 5, which is currently vacant, will be reappointed in 2021. No positions were appointed in 2020 which obviously was not what was supposed to happen. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how allowing 5-year terms would affect the appointments for this mayoral term versus the next mayoral term. Mr. Taraday answered a new person or a reappointment for Position 2, depending on whether it was a 4 or a 5-year term, would happen at the beginning of 2022 or 2023. For Positions 3 and 4, depending on whether it was a 4 or a 5-year term, it would happen at the beginning pf 2023 or 2024. Those are the only positions with the possibility of a 5-year term. Councilmember Distelhorst preferred to keep the alternate language to allow a person who is volunteering and serving in that position to rotate in. He supported the second version and a cleaner solution on the dates. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday said Position 5 is vacant, however, the language states in the event a regular position becomes vacant, the alternate shall be deemed to fill that vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. She asked if that language also applied when there was a vacancy on the Planning Board. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on the nature of the vacancy. Councilmember K. Johnson said in Position 5, the person was not reappointed so the position became vacant. It was her understanding that past practice has moved the alternate into that position. Mr. Taraday answered the alternate moves in to fill vacancies when there is an unexpired tern, that is the key language in the code. Councilmember K. Johnson asked what happened if the term was not unexpired. Mr. Taraday answered then the alternate remains the alternate. Councilmember K. Johnson said it has been the custom and past Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 13 practice whenever there is an opening, the alternate moves up. She was appointed as an alternate to the Planning Board many years ago and she moved up when there was an opening when someone left the board. One of reason there is an alternate is to prepare them to fill a vacancy when it comes up. However, in this case, Mr. Taraday has said the alternate does not move into Position 5. Mr. Taraday agreed, pointing out that was because there is no unexpired term. The term for Position 5 ended at the end of 2020 so the Mayor can now make appointment to that position for Council confirmation. If the alternate moved into a vacancy created by the end of a term, that makes the alternate a de facto appointee without ever being appointed which is clearly not what the code intended. Councilmember K. Johnson said the code is ambiguous regarding that as it does not say one way or the other and historically the alternative has always moved up when there was a vacancy. Mr. Taraday said he could not speak to the history of every time an alternate moved into a numbered position, but the code specifically uses the phrase, "remainder of the unexpired term," which clearly indicates there needs to be an unexpired term for the alternate to move into in order for the alternate to move into a numbered position. Without an unexpired term, the term ends and is awaiting appointment of a new Planning Board member to fill Position 5. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the terms under A and B; under A, 4 positions, 1, 2, 7 and alternate are proposed to end in 2022 which is definitely contrary to the code where 2 positions expire every year. In the second option, Positions 2, 7 and the alternate expire in 2021 and position 1, 3 and 4 expire in 2022 which is also contrary to the code. She preferred to leave the code alone and do something administratively to make sure the positions line up. The proposal in an email from Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig was Position 1 and 2 end of term would be 2022, Positions 3 and 4 end term would be 2023, Positions 5 and 6 end of term would be 2024 and Position 7 and the alternate end of term would be 2021 which would allow two positions to end every year. She summarized it was not necessary to make a code amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested not making any changes to the code, but adopt a resolution to make whatever changes are need to maintain continuity which may require five year terms as Positions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are out of code alignment. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO CODE 10.40.010 AND INSTEAD ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE ADMINISTRATIVELY. Councilmember K. Johnson said the code is perfect and has worked for 40 years; what is imperfect is the way the code has been administered. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking if doing nothing was appropriate or did the Council need to select one of the options. City Clerk Scott Passey said affirmative action is usually not required to do nothing. If the Council is satisfied with the status quo, a motion is unnecessary. When something is brought to Council for action, Councilmember Olson assumed having a conversation about potential non -action was appropriate. Mr. Passey agreed that was one way to look at it. Another way would be to speak against a potential motion regarding one of the ordinances in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis said the point Councilmember K. Johnson brought up is about the ambiguity in code regarding the alternate position. She agreed in the past the alternate stepped into a numbered position and never stepped back to the alternate position. The Council needs to determine when there is a vacancy or a Planning Board member leaves, does the alternate move into that position automatically. She recalled there was the same issue with the Tree Board where appointments got out of synch. She preferred not to make a decision tonight to allow time to clarify ambiguity regarding alternate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 14 Councilmember L. Johnson asked for a ruling on her point of order. Mayor Nelson said based on the parliamentarian's advice that it could be done either way, he would allow discussion to continue. Councilmember Distelhorst said it did not seem ambiguous to him; 10.40.020.4 states, "in the event that a regular position on the board shall be declared vacant, the alternate shall be deemed to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term." He clarified it would not apply to a term that had expired and therefore has no term left. If that has been a past practice, it was inconsistent with the code. The dates that Councilmember read regarding 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 all match to the second version with the 1 year extension to synch them up. It is cleaner and more accurate to have a record of action that documents the process. Councilmember Olson said she originally wanted to go the resolution route and not make a change to the code, but things brought up in today's conversation could be good changes to the second version. She found the second version preferable because it more closely aligned with the original. She commented what makes the alternate situation ambiguous is precedent. In public comment by Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, she identified three circumstances where the alternate moved into a numbered position. That seems to have been the past practice, and the Mayor makes a reappointment to the alternate position. She saw value in that practice to provide continuity and supported changing the wording to reflect it. Councilmember Olson expressed support for a two term limit, viewing eight years as a good stint. That would still provide continuity and allow for fresh blood and ideas. She preferred to eliminate the one year terms as that would be in violation with the code the same as 5-year terms are in conflict with the code. If the Council reaches consensus about the changes, she suggested getting input from the Planning Board. Council President Paine suggested delaying this until next week UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, APPROVE THE SECOND ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, pointing out Council President Paine indicated it could be moved to next week. Mayor Nelson said he understood that was an opinion but it was not a motion. Councilmember K. Johnson said her concern with the second version was there were too many terms expiring in one year. For example, Position 1, 2, 3 and 4 all expire in 2022, and Positions 2, 7 and the alternate expire in 2021 which is contrary to the original notion that only 2 expire per year. Mr. Taraday pointed out the only way to get back on a two per year schedule was to have something happen in the intervening years and he provided two different options although there were likely other options. There is no way to get back on schedule without doing some kind of intervening unusual appointments because the positions are off schedule and that cannot be fixed by doing nothing. While the code states two per year, there are several provisos so it is not in conflict with the code. A proviso is not a conflict, it is an exception and those exceptions get the appointments back on track. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO DROP "2021 AND" IN POSITION 2, "2022 AND" IN POSITION 3 AND "2022 AND" IN POSITION 4. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 15 Councilmember Olson said one could say the 5-year term is the problem or having more than 2 terms expiring at the same time is the problem. The amendment better supports the concept of continuity and having two terms expire each year and is more tantamount to the original code. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded that Planning Board members terms can be extended. When a Planning Board member's term ends, they can be reappointed to another term. She encouraged Council not to support the amendment, noting straightening things out will never be perfect. She was confident Planning Board members would be reappointed if they were doing a good job Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the amendment, commenting it was as closely aligned with the original code as possible and reduced the number of positions that expire each year. The cleanest approach is to have Positions 1 and 2 expire at the end of 2022, Positions 3 and 4 expire in 2023, Positions 5 and 6 expire in 2024 and Position 7 and the alternate expire in 2021. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the inconsistency with four years in the code created a legal issue. Mr. Taraday answered it did not as it was also in proviso language. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the amendment would approve 5-year terms instead of 4 + 1 terms. Mr. Taraday said because it was in the proviso, it was an exception to the four-year term rule. He did not have any concern with that legally if that was the direction the Council wanted to go. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Planning Board members would have one 5-year term and no extension of the first 4-year term followed by a second 4-year term. Mr. Taraday referred to the packet version where Positions 2, 3 and 4 will have 2 back-to-back appointment cycles where the Mayor would have the opportunity in both back-to-back years to either reappoint the incumbent or appoint a new person. If the amendment is approved, that first opportunity would go away and only the second opportunity would remain. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday explained Councilmember L. Johnson moved the second version of the ordinance and Councilmember Olson made an amendment to change the language regarding Positions 2, 3 and 4 by extending the terms to 5 year terms. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ALLOW THE ALTERNATE TO MOVE INTO EITHER AN UNEXPIRED TERM OR A VACANT TERM. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to testimony from Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig that this has happened at least three times. The benefit of having an alternate is they are learning the job, listening to history, and are ready to participate if a voting member is absent. Codifying this would be endorsing what has happened in the past and allowing it to happen again in the future. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the alternate moved up automatically, but they were not doing their job adequately. Mr. Taraday said he understood the intent of the motion to be that the alternate would move into any vacant position regardless of whether the vacancy was a regular vacancy created by the end of a term or whether it was a mid -cycle vacancy. If Council adopt this, it would take away the Mayor's ability to make an appointment to the position. For example, currently the Mayor can make an appointment to Position 5 because that position is vacant; the amendment would take that ability away. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 16 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the alternative automatically moving into a position could cause issues if the alternate was not doing satisfactory work versus an appointment process. She did not support allowing the alternate to automatically move into a numbered position unless they could show they were able to do the job and did not think that was the best way to appoint someone to a position as important as the Planning Board. Mr. Taraday said he had not studied which appointments were alleged to have been filled in this manner, but it is entirely possible that in the past the alternate was actually appointed by the Mayor to fill a vacant numbered position and the Council confirmed that appointment. He did not know that that was the case and confirming it would require reviewing past minutes. Simply because the alternate moved into a numbered position did not mean they were not actually appointed by the Mayor to fill the numbered position. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she knew of one alternate that was appointed by the Mayor that did not go through Council. Council President Paine asked if the Council adopted Exhibit 2, would Position 5 expire in 2021 or in 2024. Mr. Taraday answered Position 5 is current vacant; if the amendment is approved, it would be filled by the alternate and expire at the end of 2024. Councilmember Olson said everything that applies to numbered Planning Board positions applied to the alternate. In her experience and in documentation, everybody on the Planning Board is quite committed. As soon as the alternate moves into a numbered position, the Mayor appoints the next alternate. She viewed the amendment as a good change. 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. Mr. Taraday pointed out there are some whereas clauses that refer to the desire not to have 5-year terms. Because the Council approved 5-year terms, he requested that either he be given permission to remove those whereas clauses after the vote on the motion, or the Council do it by vote now. It was the consensus of the Council to allow Mr. Taraday to remove those whereas clauses. Councilmember L. Johnson asked for clarification; whether approval of the amendment meant during this mayoral term the Mayor would not have an opportunity to appoint Position 3. Mr. Taraday said Positions 3 and 4 end at the end of 2023. The original appointments were made in December, contemplating they would take office the next year. He assumed an outgoing Mayor would still be able to make those appointments in December 2023 even though they would not be seated until 2024. That would be consistent with the way the original appointments were done. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a 10-minute recess to so he and Council President Paine could confer regarding the time allotted for the remaining agenda items. When the meeting reconvened, Mayor Nelson advised the Council would postpone Item 7.4 to a future meeting, and reorder the agenda as follows: PROS Plan, Civic Field Bids, and Finding of Fact to Support Adoption of Ordinance 4217 regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees. The remaining items will be postponed to a future City Council meeting. 4. MARINA BEACH PARK RENOVATION GRANT MATCE4 CERTIFICATION This item was postponed to a future meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 17 5. PARKS RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PROS PLAN UPDATE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser explained at the April 20"' Council meeting, she presented the purpose, components, history and upcoming process including the diversity, equity and inclusion Public Involvement Plan and consultant selection process for the PROS Plan. Q&A on the project ended prematurely at the conclusion of last week's meeting. She is bringing this back to Council for a second touch and requesting Council consider authorizing the Mayor to enter into a professional services agreement with Conservation Technix for $143,396 to provide consultant services to update the City's PROS Plan. She requested Council approval tonight as there is some time sensitivity related to the project. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROS PLAN CONSULTANT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH CONSERVATION TECHNIX IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,396 TO PROVIDE CONSULTANT SERVICES TO UPDATE THE CITY'S 2022 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. During the roll call vote, Councilmember K. Johnson stated she still had questions so she would abstain. During the roll call, Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting this was moving very fast and asked if Councilmember K. Johnson could be allowed to ask her questions. Mayor Nelson said the Council had already voted, and was now doing roll call. The Council spent an hour on the last item and he was trying to get the meeting back on track as there were a lot of agenda items left. If exceptions keep being made, the Council will never get its business done. The Council is running out of time and although he appreciated the concern, if there is no response when he asked for discussion, he moved forward with the vote. 9. CIVIC FIELD - REJECT ALL I1IDS (Previously Consent Agenda Item 4) Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was on the Consent agenda. Many people are following the Civic Field project and she wanted to go on record that she did not support the two proposals and wanted to reject the bids. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REJECT THE BIDS FOR CIVIC FIELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217 REGARDING PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF LANDMARK TREES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained the City Council held a public hearing last week on Ordinance 4217 which prohibits the removal of landmark trees, trees with a diameter of 24" or greater. The ordinance requires the City Council adopt findings to either continue or repeal the ordinance at the first regular meeting following the public hearing. Exhibit 1 is the proposed finding of fact to continue the ordinance per the direction provided by the Council at last week's meeting. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 18 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the proposed findings of fact on packet page 176, relaying her impression that there would be two different findings of fact. City Attorney Jeff Taraday did not recall being asked to prepare alternative findings, but it is not too late for the Council to go in different direction. If the Council does not want to adopt these findings, he suggested the Council direct him to prepare an ordinance to repeal the landmark tree protections. The Council's choices are to adopt the findings, amend the findings, or go in a completely different direction and repeal the landmark tree ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis said she thought the findings would include the fact that she made a motion to remove one sentence in Section 2, "the ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval." She asked whether the findings were intended to summarize the meeting. Mr. Taraday explained the purpose of the findings is to justify the continued imposition and applicability of an interim ordinance. This is an interim ordinance that was adopted without a public hearing; the Council has now had a public hearing and has to decide whether or not to continue the interim ordinance. He recalled Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in amending the ordinance which would require another ordinance but he did not recall the Council directing him to prepare an ordinance to that effect. Councilmember Olson commented since there had already been a public hearing, any amendments could not be materially different than the original ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered depending on the scope of the amendment, there were two ways to proceed, one possibility would be to say the interim ordinance is fine for the next four months but provide feedback to the Planning Board or whoever else is working on the permanent to incorporate the amendment into the permanent regulations. If that was not acceptable and if the amendment needed to occur sooner than four months from now, the Council could direct him to prepare an ordinance to that effect which would likely require another interim ordinance and another public hearing. He wanted to hear the amendment before voicing a final opinion about it. Councilmember Olson said she did not have a specific amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said if the Council adopts the findings, the Council is continuing the landmark emergency ordinance. If some Councilmembers do not agree to the findings, she asked if that would be done via a motion to repeal. Mr. Taraday said to adopt the findings in the packet, a Councilmember would move the resolution in packet. If the Council wanted to go in a different direction and direct staff to repeal Ordinance 4217, that could be done. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 1.0 which states, "Careful thought and deliberation should be given to crafting of those permanent landmark tree regulations to ensure that any future removal..." and said she was unsure the Council had careful and thoughtful deliberation on March 2nd. Mr. Taraday advised paragraphs A, B, C, D of Section 1 and the whereas clauses were his attempt to put in writing what he believed to be the Council's justification for adopting Ordinance 4217 and for continuing to leave it in effect for the next 4 months. Paragraph C says because time is needed for careful thought and deliberation for the upcoming round of regulations, the Council is keeping landmark trees standing so they are not cut down in the meantime. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out landmark trees are being cut down and there is no enforcement. The ordinance was passed very quickly on March 2°d and she did not know that the Council really had careful deliberation. She was unsure how to vote since the Council had never talked about enforcement related to the emergency ordinance. Citizens have commented how this emergency ordinance is not helping them and pictures have been provided of trees that have been cut. If the Council adopts this finding, she could not say the Council had had careful and thoughtful deliberation on March 2°d. Mr. Taraday reiterated that is not what the finding says; the finding is that the City needs more time to consider and adopt permanent regulations and because it needs more time to work on the permanent regulations, interim regulations are being adopted in the meantime. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 19 Councilmember Distelhorst suggested Councilmembers read packet page 176; the language is quite clear regarding what is referred to in the findings. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AS PRESENTED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217, WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 7. INTRODUCTION REGARDING PRIVATE CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC SECTION 20.75.045.B,_ENTITLED UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION -APPLICABILITY This item was postponed to a future meeting. 8. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON'S REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST This item was postponed to a future meeting. 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported COVID cases are up to the point where there are more COVID cases per 100,000 in Snohomish County than there were in the first wave. According to Dr. Spitters, Governor Inslee and State health officials, Snohomish County is in a fourth wave. This is affecting people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, and they are being hospitalized. Because hospitalizations and the number of COVID cases are increasing and meeting certain thresholds, if behaviors do not change, it is likely Snohomish County will go back to Phase 2 when the next evaluation is done by the State Department of Health. The CDC issued new guidelines regarding wearing masks outside and vaccines, but not enough people are currently vaccinated. Vaccinations are available through the Department of Emergency Management including drive - through vaccination sites. He encouraged people to get vaccinated, wear masks, and to avoid large gatherings particularly indoors unless properly masked and socially distanced. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the volunteers who showed up for the Earth Day celebration at Marina Beach where she saw several Youth Commission members, Students Saving Salmon planted trees at Yost Park and Tree Board members and volunteers removed blackberries at the marsh. She expressed her appreciation for all the volunteers, especially the youth, commenting volunteering is a wonderful gift to the City. She encouraged everyone to wear a mask and get vaccinated. She got her first vaccination after waiting in line at the Arlington Airport for 3 hours.. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 20 Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the Tree Board, Sound Solutions and others who organized the planting of 120 western red cedars, hemlocks and big leaf maples at Yost Park in the rain. There are many vaccination appointments available that do not require waiting three hours. His vaccination took nine minutes from pulling up to shot in arm. They are very efficient and professionally operated. Edmonds College Ash Way Park & Ride also have a walk-up, bike -up, roll -up option so people can take transit, get a vaccination and get back on transit. He urged the public to make a vaccination appointment and get their shots. Councilmember Distelhorst reported a recent study found Snohomish County residents spend the third most amount of time commuting alone in their cars compared to all of Washington State. As transportation is the largest greenhouse gas emitter, he urged people to consider how they travel around the region and the impact they are having. May is Bike Everywhere Month; be careful and watch for more cyclists on the roads. He noted with the nice weather recently, the bike lanes in front of his family's house have been very busy. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding there was another survey for Walkable Main Street and one of the issues was whether to close Main on Saturday or Sunday. Careful consideration should be given to the fourth wave of the pandemic and she was uncertain gathering should be encouraged even outside at this point. The Save our Saturdays for retailers is a good compromise. Regardless, people should avoid gathering as much as possible and there should not be buskers and entertainment to draw more people. The point of Walkable Main is to make it safe, not to encourage people to come and not to create a street fair atmosphere. Councilmember K. Johnson relay a neighbor of hers, Shirley Johnson passed away recently. It was her hope to live out her life in her home and then donate her property to the City of Edmonds for a community garden. That process will take about four months. It will be located off Bowdoin Way next to Yost Park and will be a wonderful asset to the community and a tribute to what she wanted to do for the community. Councilmember K. Johnson was sad that Ms. Johnson had passed away but happy that she got her wish. In response to Councilmember K. Johnson's comments, Council President Paine expressed her sorrow at the passing of her neighbor and said that was a wonderful gift to the City. Council President Paine reported Student Representative Roberts is absent tonight because he is helping family. He has contacted her when he has to be absent and his absences have been excused. She has been invited to join several other South Snohomish County Council Presidents in May to talk about shared interests and goals. She thanked the Lynnwood Council President George Hurst for organizing this. Other cities include Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace and possibly Brier. She will provide updates if/when they meet. Even though many are feeling confident and getting tired, Council President Paine encouraged people to hang in there a little longer, wear masks, stay socially distanced particularly indoors, and to get vaccinated as soon as possible. Councilmember Olson said the City's park system has been on her mind as there have been various park - related items on the Council's agenda. One of the optional items in the outreach for the PROS Plan is translation services and she suggested Edmonds bilingual citizens interested in making translation services available to the City reach out to the administration or to her. Instead of exercising that option on that contract, she would prefer to offer that opportunity to a local company. Councilmember Olson said it was hard for her to think about the City's park system without also thinking about Esperance Park. The location of Esperance Park is ideal for serving south Edmonds; the park is already fabulous but could be even more fabulous if doing more in that location were included in the PROS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 21 Plan. She recalled the Council's discussions a few weeks ago about the 411' Street Arts Corridor and expressed interest in a more internationally inspired arts corridor in that area such as on 224"' that connects Esperance Park to Highway 99. This begs the perennial question, is the separation of Esperance and Edmonds still serving the citizens of both areas well and what are the actual and perceived pros and cons of the separation and of coming together. She questioned whether that should be discussed before Edmonds proceeds with other less ideal park focuses for this area of the City. She encouraged citizens to reach out to Councilmembers and/or the administration and she was hopeful an outreach program could be developed to discuss this more directly. She looked forward to discussing this with the Council and Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Esperance Park is not in Edmonds, it is in Esperance. The people who pay property taxes to support Esperance probably want their park to remain theirs. She agreed it would be beneficial for Edmonds to have a park in south Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported it took her 40 minutes on a Saturday morning to get to Capitol Hill, get her vaccination, wait 15 minutes and get back home. It is not necessary to wait in three hour lines to get vaccinated; there are ways to do it much more quickly. She asked Councilmembers to indicate if they want her to continue sending them public health documents. As Mayor Nelson reported, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Snohomish County may be faced with returning to Phase 2 as the County is above the hospitalization and COVID thresholds; she expected an announcement by the end of the week. She was at the Health District this morning wearing a mask and remaining socially distanced, the first time she has been inside the building in at least a year. She and all the others in the room are fully vaccinated. It was nice to see her peers and coworkers at the Health District. The CDC announced today that masks are not necessary outside as long as you are not in large crowds. There are a lot of opinions and she suggested erring on the side of safety and responsibly by wearing a mask. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard comments lately about the 3-4 votes on Council. Before this Council, she was often on the 3 and sometimes the 2 side in a 4-3 or 5-2 vote. It happens with every Council she has served on; there are always differences of opinion and Councilmembers have different backgrounds and views of the world. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for all the comments regarding COVID safety. She implore the public to do whatever they can to help reduce the rising numbers and to help protect those like her son who is under 16, high risk and not eligible to get vaccinated. He has voluntarily done everything he can to protect public health, already giving up a lot and likely giving up a lot in the future. She encouraged the public to get vaccinated when they are eligible which is everyone over the age of 16, wear masks inside and outside when near others, stay socially distanced and avoid large gatherings. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 22 Plan. She recalled the Council's discussions a few weeks ago about the 41" Street Arts Corridor and expressed interest in a more internationally inspired arts corridor in that circa sueh as on 2241"that connects E-spermice Park to Highway 99, This begs the perennial question, is the separation of Esperance and Bdrnontis still serving the citizens of both areas well and what are tite actual and perceived pros and cons of the separation and of coming together. She questioned whetller that should be discussed before Edmonds proceeds with other less ideal park focuses for this area of the City. She encouraged citizens to reach out to COLknCilmembeTs and/or the administration and she was hopeful an outreach program could be developed to discuss this more directly, She looked forward to discussing this with the Council and Mayor, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Fsperancc Park is not in Edmonds, it is in Esperance. The people who pay prupeny taxes to support Esperance probably want their park to remain theirs. She agreed it would be beneficial for Edmonds to have a park in south Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley -Mon illas reported it took her 40 minutes on a Saturday morning to get to Capitol Hill, get her vaccination, wait 15 minutes and get bark home. It is not necessary to wait in three hour lines to get vaccinated; there are ways to do it much more quickly, She asked Councilmembers to indicate if they want her to continue sending them public health documents. As Mayor Nelson reported, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Snohomish County may be faced with returning to Phase 2 as the County is above the hospitalization and COVID thresholds; she expected an Announcement by the end of the week. She was at the Health District this morning wearing a mask and remaining socially distanced, the first lime slte has been inside the building in at least a year. She and all the others in the room are fully vaccinated, It was nice to see her peers and coworkers at the Health District. The CDC announced today that masks are not necessary outside as long as you are not in large crowds. There are a lot of opinions and she suggested erring on the side of safety and responsibly by wearing a mask. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard comments lately about the 3-4 votes on Council, Before this Council, she was often on the 3 and sometimes the 2 side in a 4-3 or 5-2 vote. It happens with every Council she has served on; there are always differences of opinion and Councilmembers have different backgrounds and views of the world. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for all the comments regarding COVID safety. She implore the public to do whatever they can to help reduce the rising numbers and to help protect those like her son who is under 16, high risk and not eligible to get vaccinated. He has voluntarily done everything he can to protect public health, already giving up a lot and likely giving up a lot in the future. She encouraged the public to get vaccinated when they are eligible which is everyone over the age of 16, wear masks inside and outside when near others, stay socially distanced and avoid large gatherings. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. MIC��dEL NELSON, MAYOR Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 22 Public Comment for 4/27/21 City Council Meeting: From: cdfarmen Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 4:01 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree code Dear City Council Members, There are many city residents who share my viewpoint that the most important issue is amending the tree code to protect Perrinville Creek and its watershed. Perrinville Creek has long been known to have serious problems caused by stormwater runoff. Fixing this problem has been nothing less than a "money pit". Prior and current financial impact on city funds. Since 2014 the city has spent, including grants, $388K for a Perrinville Creek study, nearly $100K installing a 60' long bioswale on 192nd St near 76th Ave W, 6 rain gardens on Sierra Drive, $ amount unknown, other rain gardens by Sierra Park, again $ amount unknown, another approximately $1.4-1.6M for the two-phase stormwater control project in Seaview Park, an unknown $$ amount for repairing Olympic View Drive when stormwater washed out part of the roadway and sidewalk, and the latest to be very costly, is fixing the problems where Perrinville Creek overflowed on neighboring properties due to a blockage caused by sedimentation flowing downstream to that area. Is the majority of the city council willing to keep pouring good money after bad with a band -aid approach to the problem? Unless something is done to fix the tree code to protect the trees and Perrinville watershed, the problems will continue to soak up city funds that are largely taxpayer money. Short of acquiring the property and preserving it as a conservation site, the one important thing that can be done to alleviate future problems is to make the Flexible Conservation Subdivision Design plan the required option if the 30% tree retention cannot be met. For those of you who are more in support of housing than tree retention, it is important to know that using this plan does not reduce the number of home sites, it merely requires placement of the lots in a way to limit the number of trees removed and to reduce the amount of grading to accommodate the subdivision. And, in reality, it can be less expensive for the developer. Also, with the conservation plan there is normally less impervious surface coverage Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 23 than with a conventional subdivision, more open space as a result, more protection for wildlife, and in this case, less damage to the watershed. I am hopeful that in tonight's tree code deliberation, there can be at least a simple majority willing to take the necessary action to protect the Perrinville watershed. Thank you, Duane Farmen Seaview resident From: Sue Hoekstra Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:47 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Walkable Main Street Survey To Esteemed Members of Edmonds City Council, These are my heartfelt comments which I included in the comment section in the recent Walkable Main Street Survey. It is shared simply for your information and for record. "I believe Main Street, Edmonds, WA with its unique approach to our beautiful ferry landing and waterfront should never be closed to local or visitor traffic. Our lovely old buildings are hidden from sight. Retailers have shown financial losses as a result of last year's experience. We just can't hurt them more. Parking is already hindered by "streateries". We can't ask people like myself to walk farther to shop. We are in a pandemic. All events and activities have been cancelled world-wide. How can Edmonds ever justify opening one now, especially every weekend this summer and fall? To me, it is completely irresponsible and should be unthinkable. Please do not pursue this idea further." Susan Hoekstra From: Carreen Rubenkonig earreennrubenkonig Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment of Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig for City Council Meeting April 27th, 2021 on Planning Board Appointment Schedule and the Role of the Alternate Comparison of City of Edmonds Citizen Planning Board Appointment Schedule Showing EMC Code 10.40.02 (mr City Council Vote in 19801 and the Planning Department Informal Roster Board Position # Current Member Inaugural End of Term End of Current Term by EMC 10.40.02 End of Current Term by Planning Department Roster Match 1 Rosen 1982 2022 2024 No 2 Robles 1982 2022 2021 No 3 Cheung 1983 2023 2022 No 4 Monroe 1 1983 1 2023 2022 No 5 Pence 1984 2024 1 2024 6 Crank 1984 2024 2024 7 Cloutier 1985 2021 2021 Alternate Vacant 1985 2021 2021 This Appointment Schedule for the Planning Board — per EMC 10.40.02—has served the City well for forty years, I encourage you to stay with the Code and not accept any misrepresentation of it. Historical records of the Planning Board's Roster match the integrity of the Code in the sample years of 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2001, They demonstrate proper administration of the Code, You can consult the records found at the end of the comments. To confirm the facts —Each roster states December 3151 as the last day of the term and cites the authority of EMC 10,40, The informal rost mi.rst he put back on course with the Code AppoinLinen t SCIVIdL1le. The Code's Appointment Schedule is not broken. Alarm was raised this past Fall when four members were up for re -appointment at the same time; Position 1, 5, 6, and the Alternate. This was the result of a clerical mistake in the Planning dep2rtmont's Informal Roster. Position #1 had fallen out of compliance to the Code appointment schedule, So had the Alternate— but that specific clerical mistake was remedied in the City Council January meeting. Positions #5 and #6 were administered correctly. As to the facts of the Alternate position; The typical Appointment to the Planning Board is initially as an Alternate and the start date with the board is the date of the city council confirmation. However, its four- year term ends, as prescripted by EMC 10.40,02, on a December 31It. The Alternate position is often the only open position the Mayor and City Council recruits, appoints, and confirms —due to the Alternate progressing into a vacated numbered position. This occurred when Roger Pence, Alternate moved into my vacated Position #5 when my service to the Board was terminated on December 3151, 2020. The Alternate position was set up in The Planning Board to seamlessly support board proceedings. This establishes the principle and pattern for all succeeding committees, commissions, and boards. Stay with the Code and do not accept the unnecessary proposal that the function of the Alternate of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board needs to be in line with other groups. The City would benefit if other groups matched the approach of how well the Alternate position serves the organization of the Planning Board. The needed course correction is an administrative action— not an amendment to the Code rearranging the schedule of board appointments, EMC 10,40 remains in effect, If a board member in Positions #1. #2. #3. and/or #4 extends to a fifth year, leoslate it as an interim year of service for one time only. The impacted board members should be informed of the formal (Code) end of term date for their position. This is straightforward. Consider sending them notice through a formal letter, an email, a memorandum, or a singing telegram. As with most medicines, if a dosage is missed, one is advised to take it as soon as possible. Then resume the directions as provided. Clearly medicine was missed for each of the four positions. So let us immediately remedy the situation by resuming the official schedule for Positions #1 through #4 of Board Appointments —to be consistent with EMC 10.40. as put forth from the December 16, 1980 meeting of the. City Council, Public Comment of Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, 04-27-2021 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 25 or - k n.j, 4i PLANNING BOARD 1 � ,e yQ • 1A . POSITION DATE OF TERM NO. NAME _ APPOINTMENT EXP. 1 Rob Morrison (M_ Straueh resigned 7194) ce (AI 6chweppe resigned 417194) (R. Jones resigned 2J20194) 07/19194 12131/94 01101195 12131/98 2 Phyllis BecKer (M. Cooper resigned 12/31194) (alt) 07/19194 12131/94 01/01195 12/31 /98 3 Ga Gra son (B. Lancaster resigned 12131/93) 01111194 12131/95 4 KEN MATTSON, CHAIR 01121/92 12131195 5 Melody Tereski (L. Foreman resigned 12131/93) (alt) 01111194 02/15194 02/16/94 12131196 6 Chris Keuss (alt) 08104192 12131192 01101/93 12/31196 7 Bruce Witenber (P. Marmlon resigned 03120195) 06/06195 12J31/97 Alternate Vacant (1N. LaFon resigned 4/8/95) 12/31197 STAFF LIAISON: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor - 771-0223 AUTHORITY: Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10AD NOTE: Members shall be appointed by the Mayor, subjoct to confirmation by the City Council. Terms are for four years. Members are limited to two consecutive terms. MEETINGS: 2nd & 4th Wednesday of each month, 7 p.m., Plaza Meeting Room dm W€nwordMdsComms%NanBd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 26 aT E a.4- i I PLANNING BOARD 10196 POSITION DATE OF TERM NO NAME APPOINTl1AENT EXP. 1 Rots M rr 2 James Pidduck 3 GARY GRAYSON, VICE CHAIR 4 Lynn Lacy 6 b V Tarns. i (M. Strauch resigned 7194) (Al Schweppe resigned 4,17194) (R. Jones resigned 2/20/94) 07119194 12/31194 01101195 12/31198 (M. Cooper resigned 12131194) (P. Becker resigned 6196) 0619e 12131198 (B. Lancaster resigned 12131193) 0111 V94 12/31/95 01101196 12131/99 (K. Mattson resigned 01119196) 01 /20196 12/31 /99 (L. Foreman resigned 12i31143) (alt) 01/11194 02/15194 02/15/94 12/31/90 6 CHRIS KEUSS CHAIR (alt) 08/04/92 12J81/92 01/01193 12/31196 7 Bruce Witenber (?. M4rrri4cn resigned 03120195) 06l08196 12/31/97 Alternate John Dewhirst (W. LeFon resigned 418196) (L. Laoy moved to Poe. 41120196) (J. Pldduck moved to Poe. 2 6196 a 1213 197 STAFF LIAISON: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor - 771-0223 AUTHORITY: Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.40 NOTE: Members shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmatlon by the City Council. Terms are for four years. Members are Ilmitsd to two consecuilve terms. MEETINGS: 2nd & 4th Wednesday of each month, 7 p.m., Plaza Meeting Room dm YWrtwordM1dwCommaiPi&nBd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 27 �s Y POSITION No. PLANNING BOARD 1/97 GATE OF TERM NAME APPOR TMENT EXp. 1 Rob Morrison (M. Strauoh resigned 7194) (At Schwappe resigned 417194) (R. Jones resigned 2/20194) 07/1 W94 12J31194 01101 t95 12/31198 2 JAMES PIDDUCK, VICE CHAIR (M. Cooper resigned 12131194) (P. Backer resigned 5/96) 081J6 12131/98 3 GARY GRAYSON Y (B. Lancaster resigned 12131193) 01 /11)94 12/31 /95 01/01196 12/31 /99 4 LYNN LACY, CHAIR (K. Mattson resigned 01119196) 01120/96 12131199 5 Melody Tereski (L. Foreman resigned 12131193) (aft) 01111/94 02/15/94 0211 SM4 12131/96 6 Jahn Dewhirst (C.Kews rrUrad 12M) (alt) 08/96 12131196 04/01197 12/31/00 7 Bruce Witenberg (P. Marmlon resigned 03(20196) 06106195 12/31197 Alternate Mario Massle (W. LaFon resigned 418195) (L. Lacy moved to Pas. 41)20196) (J. Pidduck moved to Pas. 2 6/96) (J.oetvhlrstmoved to Pas. 6 1197) 1201D7 STAFF LIAISON: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor- 771-0223 AUTHORITY: Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.40 NOTE; Members shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms are for four years. Members are limited to two consecutive terms. MEETINGS; 2nd & 4th Wednesday of each month, 7 p.m., Plaza Meeting Room Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 28 F u 0,l1r? ti Vd P Planning Board 121 S"" Avenue North 771-0220, 771-0221 fax NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION POSITION I DATE OF TERM NO. I NAME APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION 1 James Jim A. Crim 1/1/99 12/31/02 2 Virginia Cassutt 2/24/98 (Alt.) 12/31/01 7/99 (Position 2) 12/31/02 3 Stanton Monlux 10/26/99 12/31/99 1/1/00 12/31/03 4 Joanne Lan endorFer 4198 12/31/99 1J1/00 12/3l./03 5 Beverl tindh Mice Chair 2/24/98 12/31/00 1101/01 12/31/04 6 .7ohn Dewhlrsr, Chalr 8/96 (Alt.) 12/31/96 1/1/97 (Position 6) 12/31/00 1/01/01 12/31/04 7 Bruce Witenbe 6/6/95 12/31/97 Ca Guenther 1/1/98 12/31/01 Alternate 2/01 12/31/04 STAFF LIAISON: Rob Chave, Planning Manager 425.771.0223 AUTHORITY: Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.40 NOTE: Members shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms are four years. Members are limited to two consecutive terms. An appointment to fill a portion of an unexpired term less than two years in length shall not be considered a full term. MEETINGS: 2°0 & 4h Wednesdays of each month, 7 p.m., Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5`" Ave. N. Updated 05/10/01 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 29 From: Carreen Rubenkonig Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:20 AM To: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouse lawgroup.com>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comment for April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting Thank you! Carreen From: Ken Reidy Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 7:03 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for April 27, 2021 City Council Meeting City Council should immediately repeal flawed Ordinance 4217 and start over from the beginning. Ordinance 4217 makes the following false Declaration of Emergency: 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. Majority vote plus one has not applied to Edmonds since Edmonds City Council adopted the powers of Initiative and Referendum in 1985. Council 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. 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? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 30 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. 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 23.10.020.5." 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. 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. 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, including Ordinance 4189. From: joe scordino Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 9:41 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; My Edmonds News <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Subject: State legislature passes E2SHB 1216 Concerning urban and community forestry The WA State legislature passed E2SHB 1216 and it is on its way to Governor Inslee for implementation. Shouldn't Edmonds be heeding the State's intent in E2SHB 1216 (copy attached) concerning urban forest management? (Web link in lieu of whole bill: htt lawfilesext.le .wa. ov biennium 2021- 22 Pdf Bi_lis/House%20Passed%20Le islature/1216-S2.PL.pdf?Q=20210427144336 ) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 31 Section 1 of the bill should be informative to the City's current effort to hopefully implement a viable and effective Tree Code in Edmonds. It says: "The legislature finds that preservation and enhancement of city trees and urban forests contributes multiple benefits, including stormwater management, carbon sequestration, local air and water quality enhancements, and fish and wildlife habitat, and is a cost-effective way to meet these objectives. The legislature further finds that climate change is impacting our state in numerous ways, including summer heat waves, heavier winter rains, and lower air quality, all of which can be improved by increased tree canopy. The legislature further finds that modern and well -crafted urban forestry programs can have significant additional benefits related to human health, especially when delivered in highly impacted communities with higher health disparities and that also have lower existing tree canopy. Significant research exists demonstrating health benefits of trees and green spaces, including air and water quality improvements, positive emotional responses to being in nature, physical activity, and social cohesion through interacting in public green spaces. Furthermore, the legislature finds that Washington state faces continued urgency in adequately protecting essential salmon habitat, which is necessary to promote salmon recovery and thus help protect our endangered southern resident killer whale population. It is the intent of the legislature to enhance urban forestry programs that maximize cobenefits related to human health and salmon recovery." The necessity of adequately protecting essential salmon habitat is very pertinent to the disaster the City has created in the Perrinville Creek watershed. From: cdfarmen Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:39 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Fwd: Hoy permit at 8051 184th St SW --- Original Message From: cdfarmen To: "Lien, Kernen" <Kernen.Lien edmondswa.go > Date: 04/23/2021 5:22 PM Subject: Hoy permit at 8051 184th St SW Hi Kernen, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 32 Today when the contractor was back filling the foundation, they also back filled against my fence. There was supposed to be a 30" high concrete block wall installed 6" off my fence and then back filled up to the block wall. It is not acceptable to have any backfill against my fence. It's bad enough that their lot will be 24" above the grade of my property. I thought they should also have weeping tile installed along the base of the block wall so there is no drainage onto my property. I was told there would not be weeping tile installed. I ask that this problem be corrected before they do any more work on the job. Thank you, Duane Farmen From: Bonnie Piest Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 4:37 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Emergency Ordinance 4217 Comments I was unable to attend the full City Council meeting held on Tuesday April 20, 2021 and the public Hearing section on the Emergency Tree Ordinance 4217. 1 did listen to the recorded meeting on Wednesday and there were quite a few positive comments reinforcing Edmonds direction with tree protection and specifically on trees on private properties. As the July 2019 UFMP identifies that 83% of the tree canopy in Edmonds is controlled by Private property owners. The Cities ability to have a long term impact on preservation of the tree canopy can not be successful without including regulations on private properties with a focus on preservation of Landmark and Heritage trees. I have reviewed the Chapter 23.10 ECDC that was adopted by the City Council on March 2nd. I have been advised that this is specific to development properties and not private properties and that the development of the Phase 2 will be focused on the Private property regulations. My understanding is that is expected to occur and be completed by the before the end of the Ordinance 4217. My recommendations are the following: 1. That the Emergency Tree Ordinance 4217 be modified to include the definition of "Tree Removal". This would provide further clarification on what is considered "tree removal" and protection against any potential severe pruning of heritage/ landmark trees during the ordinance period. I propose modifying the ordinance to include the following language contained in the Chapter 23.10 ECDC Definitions in section 23.10.020 23.10.020 Definitions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 33 T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. 2. The Emergency Tree ordinance 4217 that is for a 6 month period ending September 2, be considered for extension until such time that the city has fully completed and adopted the Phase 2 private property regulations. 3. That the final Phase 2 private Property regulations include the Definition of Tree Removal as state in section 23.10.020 as well as many of the additional definitions contained in 23.10.020. There are many King and Snohomish County cities that have adopted tree preservation regulations for multiple years at this point, I am specifically aware of the City of Seattle, City of Woodinville and Lake Forest Park. In my opinion, the city of Edmonds is behind in these efforts and needs to make a concerted effort to prioritize completing and implementing these tree preservation regulations for all properties including development, private and city owned properties. I appreciate your consideration of my recommendations, Thanks Bonnie Piest From: cdfarmen Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:27 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Misstatement of email information Good morning to all of you, I have had a good conversation with Council member Buckshnis and the issue has been favorably resolved. I do accept her explanation that it was an honest mistake on her part. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 34 Having accepted her apology, I would like to point out that whether it was 31 or 57 trees clear- cut, is not the real issue at hand. It is the fact too many significant trees are being removed at an unprecedented and uncontrolled pace from the city's tree canopy. Therein lies the need for a good tree code that works for all citizens of Edmonds. Please continue with due diligence in developing a good tree code that can stand the test of time. Our natural environment, whether it be trees, wildlife, or a local watershed, is as much important as the Edmonds marsh, the Edmonds waterfront, and I will also include housing as well. What would our city be like without trees? Thank you, Duane Farmen Seaview resident Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 27, 2021 Page 35