Loading...
Cmd052521EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES May 25, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis 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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page l Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments Kerry Radley, Edmonds, relayed her understanding that Walkable Main will happen both Saturdays and Sundays starting June 191" until after Labor Day weekend. She relayed her concern for the retailers, commenting she and her husband have had their own business for 40 years and it is a lot of work running a retail business. It took years to build up the City's retail core to what is now with the wonderful stores which is part of the draw for downtown Edmonds. She recalled 14 retailers expressed concern about closing Main on Saturdays, their biggest sale day of the week, especially during the summer and holidays. Since the decision was made to close the entire weekend, she talked to several businesses including the theater and they expressed a desire to at least have the street open on Saturdays. She feared the Saturday closure could hurt retail businesses, businesses that have come out of the worst year they've ever had. Some of the businesses were new before the pandemic began and some have been hanging on by their fingernails. The City has supported the eateries and restaurants and it she felt it was time to support the retailers. Although a promotion has been discussed, Americans love sales and that's what will draw in crowds; however these businesses cannot afford sales right now. Keeping the street open on Saturdays would help the retail businesses. The theater, which was not open last year but is now, is also concerned. She implored the Council and the Mayor to reconsider the Saturday closure. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the City's intent to regular maintenance of trees on private property, specifically the relationship between trees and property insurance and the right-of-way. In general, damage that is reasonably foreseeable is the liability of the property owner. There are many ways trees cause hazards and damage including damage to sidewalks which may result in injury, falling limbs on property and houses which also may result in injury, as well as damage to foundations and water, wastewater and stormwater lines. Homeowners may already pay additional insurance premiums for trees on their property. Once it becomes reasonably foreseeable that a tree will cause damage, property owners must address the hazard or risk losing insurance coverage for damage created by the tree. Addressing the hazard often means removal; removal, while not cheap definitively addresses the hazard for the property owner and the insurance company at what is in many cases the minimum cost to the homeowner. The City should not fine, fee or hinder a property owner from addressing hazards to the satisfaction of their insurance carrier. Ms. Seitz pointed out an area that private property insurance does not cover is adjacent public property. The requirement for property owners to maintain vegetation and trees on adjacent public property is a significant liability for the affected property owners. This is a known impact and in the City of Seattle, was the subject of a "Get Jesse" segment. She was disheartened to learn about Edmonds code chapter 9.20.060 and 18.85 in the Urban Forest Management Plan. In her experience, property owners do not receive notice of these responsibilities during the purchase of a house and they do place significant burden and liability. Case law including Wuthrich v. King County has found roadside vegetation is part of the roadway and lack of maintenance can create liability for traffic accidents. Private property owners are not public works employees and have limited knowledge of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control or other guidelines that are required near roadways and adjacent property owners do not insure public property against potential damages or persons who may claim an obstructed view after a traffic accident. Safe roadways are a city's responsibility. If the City is serious about maintaining trees on the landscape, the City can start with its property and right-of-way. It would certainly be a starting place to treat the community forest as a community responsibility. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, commented she was grateful to live in a country where she has the freedom to publicly address elected officials. Her comments are intended for Council, the Mayor and residents who like her want to fully participate in Council meetings which unfortunately they are not allowed to. Being able to attend public meetings is one of the many things people took for granted before COVID-19. Like her, many residents did not realize how much they appreciated seeing people's whole face or exchanging handshakes until they couldn't. She missed being able to exchange smiles with people in stores and while Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 2 she enjoys learning new languages, she often finds herself apologizing to people she is talking to, saying sorry I don't speak mask very well when she is asked to repeat herself while wearing one and speaking through plexiglass. There are many things people have taken for granted over the last year, but as someone said early in 2020 when the COVID shutdown began, this too shall pass. Tonight is the time; speaking as a resident, she asked the City to resume in person meetings immediately. It is critical for residents to be able to fully participate in the City's business and there are major issues facing Edmonds that could change the City, not the least of which is the Housing Commission proposal that is being presented to Council. Ms. Anderson reminded that the residents of Edmonds are listed at the top of the City's organizational chart; however, it does not seem like the majority of elected officials acknowledge that. If they did, they would have taken a pause on important issues like the Housing Commission or Walkable Main Street and surely policy deadlines could have been extended due to these unprecedented times. It is time to stop meeting only virtually which limits citizen input to a blank 3-minute screen voicemail. She questioned whether the rally in June 2019 regarding the waterfront connector would have had the same results if it had been facilitated on a Zoom call instead of in Council Chambers. As for safety, enough is known about the spread of COVID-19 to make meetings safe for all and online access could also be continued. The City needs to immediately return to in -person Council and Commission meetings; the residents of Edmonds need full access to elected officials. She urged residents to email Council about this issue and sign the petition posted on petitionbuilders.org. It is time for the Council and Mayor to begin fully engaging with residents again for the good of Edmonds. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the City Council tree ordinance, an ordinance that requires land owners wishing to build to pay for an arborist assessment on their trees' worth and then pay the amount of their trees' worth to the City before they are allowed to remove any tree above 24" DBH. The City's charges or takings begin at $3300 for a 24" tree up to $12,000 or more for larger trees. The City is charging Edmonds property owners and soon every homeowner for the worth of their own trees before they can be removed. She asked how it is constitutional for the City to take the worth of their property before they are allowed to remove it from their land. She asked how the City was entitled to worth of their property in addition to the property taxes they already pay to the city, county and state for the property they own. Councilmembers have sworn to uphold the constitution. She pleaded with the Council to reverse the ordinance that violates property rights given to them by the constitution. The move to punish property and homeowners who need to remove a tree while adhering to the strict guidelines oversteps the Council's duties. The Council has voted to place undue hardship on Edmonds land and homeowners; it is the taking of property without compensation to accomplish an agenda the Council feels is more important than constitutional rights. Ms. Ferkingstad said her family planned to retain 50% of their trees, 20% more than required by the City. Even so, the ordinance will take from them personally $250,000 to build three modest homes where they want them on one acre. They could save perhaps $100,000 in City takings by changing the placement of the homes but that will lower the homes' values by more than $100,000. Either way the City will take at least $250,000 that goes only toward the Council's agenda. They will incur this cost before they are allowed to remove the trees and roots or begin to build. Trees are owned by the property owners, not the City. The City is not entitled to their worth and it is against the U.S. Constitution which was written for people overstepping their governmental duties and attempting to take the worth of their property without compensation. She urged the Council to reconsider the tree ordinance and restore their constitutional rights. Jen Lawson, owner of Crow Boutique on 4' Avenue North, and new Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA)Pres i dent, wanted to introduce herself and inform that DEMA plans to have more members attend Council meetings so they can stay in the loop and pass on new information during DEMA's twice a month meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 3 Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said today's agenda includes another attempt to look at the Housing Commission recommendations and staff has provided two process options to select from. He contended these were not process options, but rather ideas regarding how to prioritize the recommendations. Until a true process was defined regarding how to evaluate the recommendations, he did not see how they could be prioritized. He questioned what benchmarks or criteria would be used to assess the policies and suggested setting a foundation by starting with a set of City values and create a vision for the City based on those values. Strategies and policies should be subservient to this basic construct. Otherwise, the result will be a set of non-integrated ideas with no clear goal in mind. With regard to what problem are we trying to solve, the Comprehensive Plan may be a good starting point; revisit the Comprehensive Plan, and amend it to fit the vision once that is defined and then map the Housing Commission recommendations against it to find gaps and fill the gaps with new policies or codes which he said would be a process. He recommended not confusing process and priorities and hoped the Council could steer the conversation toward developing a true evaluation process before entertaining what order individual policies will be considered. Once a true process is agreed upon, the Council may be surprised to find that the order they originally thought would make sense changes. As the saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, any path will get you there. He questioned whether the City knew where it was going. Jerry Janacek, Edmonds, Chair of the Edmonds Cemetery Board, reminded that next Monday is Memorial Day. Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an Act of Congress in 1971. It is observed to remember and honor all veterans and their families and loves ones who are buried at the cemetery. The City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Cemetery Board have observed Memorial Day at the cemetery since 1982, 39 years ago. This year unfortunately due to the coronavirus pandemic, the City and the Cemetery Board decided instead of the traditional ceremony, to hold a drive through event on Memorial Day from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Families are welcome to visit the cemetery at any time. Those wishing to participate in the drive -through event can enter the cemetery off 15"' Street (the north entrance) and exit on 100"' Street. The Cemetery Board and other volunteers will be handing out commemorative programs and red poppies. He gave special thanks to the VFW Post 8870 who donated the poppies to the Cemetery Board for distribution at the drive -through. He also thanked Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser and other staff including Rich Lindsay, Cliff Edwards and Kim Anderson for their help. The Edmonds Cemetery Board's Walk Back in Time will be held on July 22"d; where the board, with the exceptional help of Betty Gaeng, will be honoring five Edmonds citizens and will discuss how the 1918 influenza pandemic affected Edmonds citizens. He encouraged the public to participate in both events. Joe McIalwain, Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) Executive Director, representing the Edmonds Public Facilities District and ECA staff, expressed their interest in and excitement for the 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor project. This project has been outlined in the City's Cultural Plan and is the primary capital project identified by the City's Creative District and is a key initiative of the ECA's Strategic Business Plan. This project will be of mutual benefit to the City and the ECA. He relayed their support for the project and interest in working in partnership with City to bring the 4"' Avenue Cultural Corridor project to fruition in the coming years. They look forward to working with the City in the design and planning process and identifying funding sources to help make the project possible. He encouraged the Council to support the recommendations made by Patrick Doherty, Frances Chapin and other amazing staff in this visionary project. (Written comments submitted to Pub]icComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 4 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2021 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM NANCY POZNOFF AND ADRIAN MARCHIS 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1, PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2022-2027 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled staff presented the six year TIP last week; the plan needs to be adopted and submitted to the State by July 1" each year. The program included a number of changes including removal of completed projects and addition of new projects. Last week's public hearing was continued to this week. City Engineer Rob English, Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss and he are present to answer questions. Councilmember Olson said a citizen brought to her attention that the priority of the Walnut Street pedestrian sidewalk had been lowered, yet it was their perception, because there were markings on the street, that the street would be redone or something would be happening on the street. She asked about the project that is going on now and whether it makes sense to handle those at different times. The resident's point was closure of the street causes inconvenience and returning in 2-3 years to do a project instead of doing them at the same time seemed like a missed opportunity. Mr. Hauss asked for clarification, whether this was at Walnut & 8"' where a new RRFB was installed, noting there would also be an overlay in that area next year. He offered to talk to the overlay project manager and get back to Councilmember Olson. Councilmember Olson suggested placing approval of the TIP on the Consent Agenda in the event a change was necessary to sync up those projects. Mr. Williams agreed staff would provide an answer this week and copy the entire City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said the reason there were no comments last week was some people felt the public hearing had not been noticed properly so she was glad the public hearing was continued. She forwarded several questions she received to staff this morning. She asked who maintains the Official Street Map and how the City Council can ensure it is accurate. There seem to be examples of planned rights -of - way and public utilities put in public rights -of -way. She was unsure if she had ever seen the City's Official Street Map. Mr. Williams said the last time the Official Street Map was updated was 1980. Staff has talked with Council in the past, usually during the budget season, about funding to update it. The last time an estimate was prepared, it was about $175,000. Updating the Official City Street Map is necessary because there may be things on the map, for example places where property is expected to be dedicated to the City when it redevelops, that may not be needed anymore based on current plans. There are other places where additional property is desperately needed for future projects but it is not possible because it is not on the Official City Street Map. The same is true with rights -of -way, unopened or opened, he recalled there were several questions on Councilmember Buckshnis' list related to that topic. The City maintains its own Official Street Map but it should be updated periodically which has not been done for a long time. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested putting that on the list of things to do. Councilmember Buckshnis said one of issues brought up was sometimes developers seem to get lucky because the Official Street Map is inaccurate. She asked if that was related to the planned right-of-way. Mr. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 5 Williams said getting lucky is not really the right way to put it, but if the Official City Street Map does not show that the City needs property in a particular location to make an improvement, the dedication cannot be required. More often that is related to sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities because the City does not widen streets often. When property redevelops, there is a one-time opportunity to get property that is needed for improvements. If Official Street Map or the Sidewalk Map calls for that improvement, the City can require dedication and as the redevelopment occurs, they would build it. There have been missed opportunities in the past which is the downside of not having the Official City Street Map updated. It does not need to be updated every year or even every five years, but it certainly should be updated more often than every 40 years. Councilmember Buckshnis commented things have changed drastically in the 22 years she has been in Edmonds and she could image that Councilmember K. Johnson or Councilmember Fraley- Monillas could attest to even more changes since they have lived in Edmonds even longer. Councilmember Buckshnis she asked if the City could place public utilities in planned right-of-way. Mr. Williams answered that is often done, commenting one of the questions Councilmember Buckshnis forwarded was what is a planned right-of-way. He suggested City Attorney Jeff Taraday provide a response to that, noting that phrase does not appear in the code. He considered a planned right-of-way a currently unopened right-of-way that the City had plans to open and use. Mr. Taraday said if the Council was interested in having staff prepare a more definitive in response to that question, they were happy to do it. His off-the-cuff answer was a planned right-of-way is a right-of-way shown on the Official Street Map, but that is not present day right-of-way. Councilmember Buckshnis looked forward to pursuing an update of the Official Street Map because things have changed drastically since 1980. Council President Paine asked whether mapping of rights -of -way was germane to the TIP. If there were no drastic changes, she suggested the Council move on with the TIP discussion. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing Liz Brown, Edmonds, a resident on 242 d Street SW, commented on the Highway 99 Revitalization projects. When she tells people she lives in Edmonds, they say it is such a lovely and a charming town. That is true, but she makes sure to tell thetn she lives in Edmonds elevated, the uphill, non -water view part of Edmonds within walking distance of Highway 99. Nobody ever says Highway 99 in Edmonds is lovely or charming. They look south with envy to Highway 99 in Shoreline. Highway 99 and its many businesses are an engine for the City's' economy with a lot of jobs where people end their workdays with dirty hands. They do not expect to have the full flower program up on the hill, but they want a safer highway with ample places for pedestrians and bicycles to cross Highway 99 without terror, street trees and native landscaping, a new, better name than Highway 99, wider sidewalks, a smooth road surface, more amenities that embrace and celebrate the neighborhoods, and for the International District to grow into an even greater destination for shopper and diners. In short, they want an environment that improves the setting for all the businesses and their workers. As light rail progresses north, the Highway 99 corridor is poised to become a highly dense, vibrant neighborhood. She supported the projects in the six -year plan that move in that direction and urged City leaders to send some strong love uphill because they are Edmonds too, elevated above it all. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE 2022-2027 6-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Councilmember Olson requested approval of the TIP be put on the Consent Agenda and encouraged Councilmember not to approve it tonight. She wanted staff to look at the issue on Walnut and potentially tweak the plan to sync those projects if it was prudent. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 6 Council President Paine asked if there were two Walnut Street projects. Mr. Williams asked where on Walnut this conflict existed. Councilmember Olson answered probably between 6"' and 81". Mr. Williams said the bulb outs at 6"' and 8"' have been completed and an overlay is planned perhaps next year. There may be marks related to the planning but beyond that he did not know of any projects that were planned in that area. Councilmember Olson said it was the marks that prompted the resident's expectation that something would be done rather imminently. If there were plans for a pedestrian project and the street would be closed for the overlay, the resident wondered if there was an opportunity to sync up those projects. She suggested putting approval of the TIP on Consent so it could be pulled if a change needed to be made. Mr. Williams said the pedestrian improvement had been completed and an overlay would be done next year. He was unaware of any other planned project. If there were plans to add a missing sideway, it could be done without disturbing the pavement. Mr. Hauss said the only other project identified in the TIP related to Walnut is a sidewalk project between 6"' and 7"'; it is in the out years because there is no funding. Mr. Williams said that could be done without damaging the new paving. Councilmember Olson asked whether the street is closed for a sidewalk project; the resident's concern was closing the street two different times. Mr. Williams said the street would not be fully closed, traffic would be allowed through. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she reviewed the TIP and could find anything to match Councilmember Olson's concern. Mr. Hauss said walkway project # 25 is the only project related to Walnut in the entire document. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL BUSINESS 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled a detailed summary of 2020 conceptual design for the 4"' Avenue Cultural Corridor and the public process and public preferences was presented March 9"'. Tonight's presentation will include a quick summary of that, but the primary reason for tonight's presentation was a request from Council for cost estimating on the public's preferred concept. He reviewed: • 2019-2020 staff worked with CREA Affiliates LLC on concepts, potential phasing and public process. o Edmonds certified as the State's first Creative District in 2018 0 4th Ave Cultural Corridor identified through public process as key capital project for Creative District o Civic commitment to integrating arts and culture into public space • Goals & Objectives o Connect the Edmonds Center for the Arts with Main Street through an enhanced and unique pedestrian corridor. o Celebrate the variety of arts and culture in the Edmonds community. o Provide a visible and accessible public space for arts and cultural events which attract visitors and stimulate economic development. o Welcome mixed -use development while highlighting the historic character of the street. ■ Connecting Anchors o Uninterrupted views between the ECA and downtown. o A block from City Hall, the Public Safety Complex and Civic Park. o Intersects with major paths between the waterfront and civic facilities. • Why 4t" Avenue? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 7 o Characteristics ■ A quiet street. ■ Historic buildings. • Less than an average 350 cars/ day in either direction at Main Street. + Few driveways onto 4th. ■ Secondary access through rear alleys. ■ Artwork references community history Timeline o 2004-05: Planning Board identifies Arts Corridor on 4"' which leads to a creation of BD5 zoning 0 2006: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department updates the Streetscape Plan, adding the 411' Avenue Corridor Concept Plan 0 2007-09: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service Department gets 50,000 from the National Park Service's Preserve America for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Implementation & Funding Plan. 0 2014: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services updates Community Cultural Plan that prioritizes interim steps to implement the 4th Ave Cultural Corridor Plan. 0 2016: Project funded by ECA and Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation "Luminous Forest" by artist Iole Alessandrini 0 2016: Western Washington University and Association of WA Cities on Sustainable Cities Partnership develop four potential public relations campaigns 0 2018: Community identifies completion of 4thAvenue Cultural Corridor as goal in 5 year work plan as a part of its Creative District designation. 0 2019: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services contracts for a site survey and a consultant to facilitate development of a feasible project concept. Meetings held with ECDAC and the public. 0 2020: A tentative conceptual design is developed and tied to cost estimates. Through public input schematic design direction was identified. ■ Recurring themes from public input o Art reflecting both ends of corridor. o Sequential discovery of art elements. o Elements that are approachable and interactive. o Space for cultural events. o Space for street artists. o Pocket park at Sprague. o Encourage artist studio store fronts. o Outdoor cafe seating areas Creating a Special Place 2020 Concept • Proposed Phasing: Three blocks (Main to Daley) will be: o Rebuilt and recreated for pedestrian -oriented design o Recast for temporary and permanent art installations o Rebranded to allow for complementary activities in the public realm + Images of how future concepts could look Considerations for Schematic Design • How do we get there? o How do we create an art -infused safe and inviting pedestrian connection? o With limited right-of-way how can we provide more space for people and art? o What option(s) would you choose for reshaping 4thAvenue's public right-of-way? o How can we carve out a space that adjusts to unique site conditions? ■ Considerations o Need a minimum of 8' for an inviting and comfortable pedestrian experience. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 8 o Need a minimum of an additional 4' for art, displays and activities. o Maintain vehicular access per fire safety standards. o Retain parking (on one or both sides). o Width of public sidewalk can vary to accommodate individual site conditions. o Art space beyond sidewalks can be overseen by adjacent properties. o Wider sidewalks + amenities can occur by either narrowing roadway OR expanding ROW improvements • Roadway Options o Two-way 1 parking o One-way 2 parking o Narrow roadway o One-way back -in o Built -to -standard o Public Preference: One-way (northbound) 2 parking Focus on Pedestrian Realm - options for creating_a pedestrian realm for art, activities and a generous space for walking • Options o New Edge o Wide Edges o Landscaped Walks o Full Buildout Public Preferences o Virtual Open House held 8/24/20 o Online Survey 8/25-9/26/20 0 214 responses received (32 during Open House; 182 from survey) ■ Pedestrian Safety and Amenities are a Priority - Safety of walking surfaces - Wider walking areas - Added seating - Unique lighting - Trees and plantings - Art elements like colorful crosswalks - Permanent sculpture - Occasional exhibits - Opportunity for mini seasonal fairs • Landscaped Walks o Public Preferences: Street Cross -Section and Sidewalk Treatment ■ The preferred option for future schematic design is the One-way Two -Parking Alternative with a focus on enhancing the pedestrian realm. This could be accompanied by new seating, adding color and unique lighting to the street, as well as making sure that the entire public space can host occasional or permanent exhibits, sculptures and events. • This option maintains parking while enhancing walkability, including artistic treatment and allowing for gatherings. Depending on location, improving portions of the right-of-way where encroachment exists would occur on a case -by -case basis and in close coordination with the property owners. Costs o Past Estimates ■ The 15% level design concept presented to City Council in 2009 had an estimated cost of approximately $5.2-5.6 million in 2008 dollars. • This concept included the entire corridor from just south of Main, north past the ECA to 3rd Avenue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 9 a That figure in 2021 dollars would be $6.45- 6.95 million o Current Estimates (Based on consultant's concept -level details and Public Works Dept cost figures based on past streets projects): Phase A-D, Main to Daley Streets General/Logistics $622,004 Site Preparation $242,525 Site Improvements (Paving) $978,750 Site Utilities $980,200 Site Electrical $245,700 Site Landscaping/Amenities $467,445 Site Lighting $148,560 Subtotal $3,685, l 84 Soft Costs/Contingencies/Reserves $2,262,703 Total $5,947,887 Phase E (Daley to 3rd Avenue N $1,982,629 Combined Total $7,930,517 Phase E Potential Partnership o Edmonds Center for the Arts is interested in seeing the improvements continue north of Daley to 3rd Ave N, as conceived in the original project o ECA may be able to assist with the additional costs for that portion Next Steps o Council adopt the publicly preferred concept and design preferences o This action will inform schematic/30% design development in the future o Schematic design development will also involve public input and Council review o Council provide direction on timing of schematic/30% design development — approximately $150,000 Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation to Mr. Doherty and Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin for meeting with her and Councilmember K. Johnson. She asked why the soft costs were so high or represented 62% of project. Mr. Doherty advised a more detailed breakdown of the costs was prepared with Public Works that include everything from design contingencies, management reserves, etc. based on the most recent projects Public Works has done as well as this project being at such an early point in the design development. Numbers tighten up substantially once some of the details of the final design can be agreed upon. Mr. Williams said there is typically a 30% contingency at this stage, a 15% management reserve, as well as internal management costs to manage the consultant design and construction phase, testing, etc. Public Works worked with Mr. Doherty and Ms. Chapin to develop the most discipled cost estimate at this stage. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized her understanding of Mr. Doherty's comments that the numbers are more refined as design progresses. She observed it appeared the cost estimates included everything but the kitchen sink. Mr. Williams said the more that is known about a project, the costs go up but the contingency goes down. There are too many unknowns now so they are included in the contingency. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of information, pointing out the soft costs of $2,200,000+ on a total project cost of $7.9M is not 60% of the project, it is closer to 20-25%. Mr. Doherty said the 60% is on the principle phases A-D. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled a statement that the soft costs were 60% of the project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order regarding Councilmember K. Johnson's comments. Mayor Nelson said Councilmember K. Johnson's clarification was a question, not a point of information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 10 Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Mr. Doherty display the slide regarding the A-D Main street and soft cost contingencies. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested other Councilmembers have an opportunity to ask questions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed in the past she heard lot of comments from people who live on 4"' Avenue who were not happy about the proposed design; one of their main issues was parking which appears to have been resolved. She liked the idea of the street being one way. She asked about the source of funding, noting the City does not have money to build Highway 99, Civic Park, south beach, or to deal with the marsh. She suggested at some point projects need to prioritize and doing five projects that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Doherty said he did not have the answer to that; it is the essence of the Council's decision moving forward, deciding how to pay for it. He referenced the comments from ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain regarding their interest in this project which will help cement the proximity and the inclusivity of the ECA into the heart of downtown, thereby maximizing the economic benefit. The ECA may have the ability to participate financially in the design and construction, particularly for the portion in front of the ECA. The ECA has a very good history of obtaining private donations and have indicated there may be opportunity to bring in private contributions. Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated her previous point, the soft costs are not 60% of the project, but are closer to 20-25%. Council President Paine referred to the estimated cost in Phases A-D and asked how much of the cost is associated with the edges. The most popular edge and the one she prefers is the landscaped edge. She asked if the cost of that option was site landscaping and amenities. Mr. Doherty said he did not have exact number but there are costs to prepare soil, put in plantings, amenities such as benches or art, but the sidewalk with substrate, paving and drainage is likely more expensive than the landscaping. One of options was all paved with pockets of landscaping at the intersections and there are some benefits to that as it provides for a more open festival street when the block is closed. The one that the public liked the most was providing landscaping along the sidewalk as a buffer to vehicles which is similar to the typical street design. What may add more cost is the finesse and finishing, standard landscaping is not expensive. Once a more complete design is prepared, the next step will be determining the level of special landscaping versus standard landscaping, the level of amenities, etc. That may be an opportunity for the private sector to enhance the street such as an adopt a street program where people contribute to art installations, landscaping, benches, etc. He summarized the cost does not exceed the norm except to the extent special amenities are added. Council President Paine asked if 30% design will include those details. Mr. Doherty answered 30% design is a much better design than currently exists but many details will not be included. With a 30% design, the Council could start to conceptualize details and to what degree they would like to pursue those details. For example, a street cross-section that shows how the roadway interacts with the pedestrian realm, landscaping and sidewalk, the Council could make some decisions about landscaping and amenities and encourage private participation or adopt a street to add to it. The 30% design will not provide details but will provide a path toward details. Ms. Chapin said it will provide a firmer direction, not necessarily details. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Chapin for answering questions for him yesterday. If Council approves funds for 30% design, he asked the amount of time to get to 30% and what percentage the project need to be at to apply for grant funding. Mr. Doherty answered there are two potential actions tonight, 1) adopt the public preference at the highest concept level, and 2) state a priority to include the schematic or 30% design development in the 2022 budget at the approximate cost of $150,000. Design would take most of next year. Staff would return to Council during that process because there are decision points within the development of 30% design. He anticipated the 30% design would be completed and presented to Council in fall 2022. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember Distelhorst asked what level of design was required to seek grants. Mr. Doherty answered this type of project does not score highly on typical transportation grants because it does not address a safety issue or a route to a school. It would be a special culturally grant or a future legislative earmark. The further along a project is in design, the more likely it is to get a grant and 30% is an early stage. A 30% design can be a placeholder for requesting funds from the legislature or a granting agency with another request when the project design is further along. Mr. Williams said there is one DOT grant program every two years, enhancement grants. The City received one in the past for lighting on Main Street between 5"' and 6t" and another for Sunset. That grant is for making improvements to existing transportation facilities that add enhancements such as pocket parks. There also may be opportunities with the upcoming federal funds and the state plans to put more investment into transportation in the future. It is an interesting project, one a lot of people will respond to, but because there is not a safety, congestion or access issue, it does not qualify for funding from some of the classic sources. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether Phase E included soft costs. Mr. Doherty answered yes, but Phase E is at a lower level of cost estimating than Phases A-D. The consultants did less work on Phase E because they were asked to focus on the first phase, Main to Daley, and provided a placeholder, rougher cost estimate for Phase E. Ms. Chapin said when Public Works staff worked on this, they basically took the cost estimate for first portion and applied a percentage to the seconds so it is fairly comparable. In terms of design, the design would apply to the entire stretch; the phasing was related to construction. Councilmember L. Johnson shared the concerns Councilmember Fraley-Monillas mentioned earlier regarding all the projects going on citywide and at the same time she appreciated what this could mean for the community. She noted the ECA was interested in seeing Phase E finished and may be interested in helping offset the cost or raise funds. She asked if that same partnership could be possible for the first phase. It appears the City's ability to obtain grants may be somewhat limited, but the ECA may have more opportunity for that. Mr. Doherty said he did not want to overstate what the ECA will or will not do; they have expressed a willingness to explore partnering with the City. The EPFD/ECA may have bonding capacity in the future that would allow them to participate. Their participation may not be entirely limited to their phase; they may be able help with final design for the base phase because that will launch their phase. With regard to fundraising, that happens when project takes shape. Once a project looks like it will happen, people and/or agencies are more interested in contributing. The ECA is set up for that, a percentage of their budget currently comes from donations. The concept of soliciting donations for the project could happen especially as a final project takes place. With the number of projects going on in the City, Councilmember L. Johnson said that would be worth exploring. This project is in the downtown core and the intent is to begin focusing on other areas of Edmonds, finding ways to provide that equitable focus for citizens while continuing with this unique project that was identified in the Creative District. She would like to grow and expand on that so she was supportive of whatever can be done to expand the potential for fundraising. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the design will be for the entire length, Phases A-E. She expressed support for this project because it has been around for a long time and she is on the on Creative District committee. She pointed out bond rates are very favorable now and both the City and PFD have bonds that can be refinanced. When this project came up in 2009, the estimated cost was $5.2-5.6M and now it is $6.4- 7M. She understands the equity aspect and doing projects on Highway 99, but people are drawn to the downtown core and the water. This project has been on the radar a long time and the City may lose the Creative District designation if it not started. She asked if that was true. Mr. Doherty said the City has to apply for recertification after 5-6 years and this project was an important part of the application. He did not know what would happen if the City did not pursue this project or some progress was not being made. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis said the corridor could be renamed such as Salish. She will make a motion to move forward after the Council completes its discussion. Councilmember Olson recalled during past presentations she expressed concern about supporting this project for some of the reasons Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned. She shares the priority that most Councilmembers have, to start investing and bringing some of the downtown charm to other neighborhoods including the International District. She has also expressed a desire for, and hoped it would be moved forward in the future, an arts corridor in the International District that would lead to the Ranch 99 intersection. With that said, this project was relied on for the grant and application for the designation as a Creative District and the art corridor has to happen within the Creative District. The City should and could pursue some other funding options so it is not all General Fund when it is targeted for an area that has had more than its fair share of attention. She encouraged staff to prioritize that option for funding. She will support a motion to move forward on design. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem with moving forward on design, particularly to pursue grants. It was good to hear bonding rates were low and perhaps the City should look at that to move projects on Highway 99 forward for equity purposes. She pointed out a majority of the 20% of people of color who live in Edmonds live around the Highway 99 area. Those funds should be put into parks, safe streets, sidewalks, lighting, etc. The issue is equality for what residents in that area pay for property taxes. She was not interested in just spiffing up the International District, a 3 block area of a 2'/2 mile stretch of Highway 99. The City needs to do more and better for all of Highway 99. She will support the motion because the City should start on it and determine the costs, but she will not support the City providing major funding for an arts corridor when the Highway 99 area does not have sidewalks, lighting, or parks or other things the downtown core has. It is important to treat Highway 99 in an equitable manner; Civic Field, south beach, and the marsh are all downtown and more needs to be done for the Highway 99 area. She has been involved with Highway 99 for 15 years including serving on the Highway 99 committee prior to being on the Council. She recalled the cost 15 years ago for the Highway 99 project was $60M and it is now up to nearly $200M. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated that she supports the concept, expansion of arts within Edmonds; however, hearing that this has been on the books for a long time, unfortunately an equitable representation throughout the City has not been on the books for a long time, and that needs to be balanced. There may need to be a reevaluation of projects that have been on the books for a long time using a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) lens. She said a DEI lens is more than giving a project a more diverse name. She was willing to vote tonight to go forward with the concept, but she was not willing to prioritize recertification of the Creative District over more equitable projects throughout the City. She hoped the fundraising for this project could be creative. She firmly believed a better job needs to be done representing all of Edmonds including representation in areas that have been ignored. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the Creative District, pointing out the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor is the capital project for that district. The corridor will provide an event venue for diverse members of the community through street closures. Those could include art, crafts and food from segments of the population such as a Korean or Mexican weekend. It could be an opportunity to celebrate the diversity of Edmonds. The economic power that the arts bring to Edmonds cannot be underestimated. The ECA is one of the anchors and Main Street with all its shops and restaurants is the other anchor. There have been temporary art installations on 4"' Avenue such as the lighting, but it is very dark and the proposed project will allow people to travel more easily between the anchors. This project was well identified in 2004 and it has only taken 16 years to move forward with a 30% schematic design. She will support a motion to proceed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE 30% DESIGN FOR THE 4TH AVENUE ARTS CORRIDOR FOR FUTURE SCHEMATIC DESIGN DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Doherty asked if the motion adopts or accepts the publicly preferred concept as a basis for further design development. Council President Paine clarified the publicly preferred design concept was landscaped edges and a preference for one-way with 2 parking. Mr. Doherty agreed. Council President Paine requested that be included in the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a public hearing should be held for transparency purposes. A bunch of people provided input but this is probably the first time the residents in that area are hearing about this concept. She asked if a public hearing should be held to allow residents to provide input regarding their neighborhood. Councilmember K. Johnson said the motion should be that the Council adopt the public preference concept and design preference. There has been an extensive public process over the past year that involved all of the public and the people who live in that area. She suggested Ms. Chapin describe that process. Ms. Chapin said there has been a lot of public process over years; during the last round of work, there was outreach to all the neighbors on the street, contacting them in several different ways. There was a neighborhood meeting early on with the consultant and a couple different meetings with groups of interested people leading tip to what was intended to be a large public meeting, but due to COVID was an online meeting where ethe survey was done. She assured there had been broad outreach regarding this project. A surprising number of people have been part of the conversation regarding this project for quite a few years due to the extensive public process in 2008-2009 and extensive public process with the interim art project in 2014. Councilmember Olson reminded of the March 9"' presentation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the public had been notified of the preferred design. Ms. Chapin answered that preference was the outcome of the survey of everyone who participated and was part of the reason for the public presentation to City Council in March. There has not been individual contact with everyone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there was a public process to inform the people who live in the area about the preferred design for a one way road, parking, property that would be needed for sidewalks, etc. Mr. Doherty said those preferences were expressed in the public meetings with the neighbors. The presentation to City Council was the public unveiling of the collective preference. It is possible someone who participated in those processes did not watch the Council meeting or access the packet and is not aware of the preferences. Anyone who participated in the meetings saw the preferences as it was an interactive process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized there was transparency with the process during the last Zoom public meeting. Mr. Doherty answered yes, acknowledging that did not mean that everyone paid attention. Council President Paine asked if a public hearing could be held after 30% design. Mr. Doherty answered yes. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: APPROVE UP TO 30% DESIGN ON THE PREFERRED CONCEPT.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. MASTER PERMIT AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS fSMALL CELL] FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 14 Mr. Taraday identified industry representatives who were present to answer questions: Carl Gibson, Gregg Busch and Ken Lyons. He reminded the Council this item is to discuss the proposed Master Permit, not to discuss the City's siting preferences in Chapter 20.50 which were adopted in 2019. This is a Master Permit, not a site specific permit. The Council keeping questions focused on Master Permit concerns and terms will make for a more efficient consideration and allow for Council deliberation on the relevant topics. It was his understanding the industry representatives were present to answer questions and did not intend to make a presentation. Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group, relayed this is the second of four meetings the Council has scheduled to consider the Master Permit. This presentation is in support of City staff and the City Attorney's recommendation to Council to adopt an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute a Master Permit with New Cingular Wireless to place its small wireless facilities in City's rights -of -way. Last week there were terms that had not been agreed to; since then New Cingular has agreed to the City's terns and in particular the indemnification. Ms. Tinker reviewed: • New Cingular Seeks Master Permit o New Cingular Wireless seeks permission to place small wireless facilities in Edmonds Master Permit (aka a franchise) provides general authority, subject to site specific permits of ECDC 20.50, to place its facilities in the City's right-of-way. ■ Issued under authority of RCW 35.99 ■ Master Permit vs. Site Specific Permit o Master Permit • Issued under authority of RCW 35.99 • Provides general authority to all site -specific locations • Currently under review by City Council o Site Specific Permits (Wireless Facility and/or Right -of -Way Permit) ■ Regulated by ECDC 20.50 -previously approved by Council April 2019 ■ Location preference and site specific design requirements ■ Administrative Staff Approval Master Permit Legal Framework o A combination of State and Federal Laws • RCW 35.99 - State statute allowing cities to issue "master permits" (also known as franchises) for use of the city's rights -of -way for placement of facilities for communications service. • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 - The federal law that LIMITS state and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' ABILITY TO REGULATE telecommunications. • FCC Orders - Orders promulgated under the authority of congressional statute SPELLING OUT LIMITS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO REGULATE telecommunications providers • Local Government Regulation is Limited by FCC o FCC Orders Withstand Recent Challenge in the Ninth Circuit o Competing objectives: protecting the public health and safety while ensuring the rapid development of a telecom network o Local governments can manage ROW (examples below): - Coordination of construction schedules - Determination of insurance, bonding, and indemnity requirements - Regulate time or location of excavation, preserving traffic flow - Keeping track of the various systems using the ROW • Master Permit Highlights Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 15 o General permission given to place small wireless facilities and associated equipment in the City's rights -of -way o Requires site specific permit in accordance with Chapter 20.50 ECDC. o Five-year term, subject to renewal by the city council o Other providers may obtain master permits or franchises as well. o City can require relocation of the facilities at New Cingular's expense o New Cingular shall reimburse the City for its actual administrative costs incurred. No franchise fee is charged as dictated by RCW 35.21.860. o New Cingular will indemnify the city, maintain specified insurance, and assume risk of damage to its facilities. o Inventory of facilities to be maintained with a copy to the City and provide updates. o New Cingular agrees to comply with all applicable laws, standards, and regulations relating to its facilities and at all times will maintain them in a safe condition in good order and repair. o Procedures are specified in the event of a breach o New Cingular will establish a permanent security fiend in the amount of $50,000 to guarantee the performance of its requirements under the Master Permit and payment of sums due the City. o Certain provisions survive expiration or termination of the Master Permit for the protection of the City, e.g., the indemnity and insurance provisions. Council Discretion is Limited o The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY PROHIBIT OR EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT the provision of telecommunications service. o CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS from enacting laws or ordinances that conflict with this mandate. 5G and RF Emissions o Master Permit does not: • Specify any particular generation of services or technology ■ Regulate RF Emissions — The federal government, NOT THE CITY, has authority to regulate RF Emissions o RCW 35.99.040 states the City is not to adopt ordinances related to the right-of-way that regulate the services or business operations of the service provider o Council cannot impose conditions on the placement of the wireless facilities based on RF emissions because Council is prohibited from doing so by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 o The City cannot deny permits based on health concerns such as those expressed by some about RF emissions. Congress has asserted federal control in this area and Congress has stated RF emission standards are to be regulated only by the FCC. Congress has preempted all municipal regulation of radio frequency emission to the extent the facilities comply with the FCC standards. The Federal Government is Regulating RF Emissions o The FCC is obligated to evaluate the potential impacts of human exposure to radiofrequency emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act. o Over the years the FCC has adopted radiofrequency standards which limit the amount of radiation that can be emitted from wireless transmitters and has created a framework to ensure compliance with those limits. o In December 2019, the FCC issued an order finding its existing RF exposure limits should remain unchanged. RF Emissions o What can I do if I still have concerns about RF emissions? ■ Compliance and Information Bureau (888) CALL -FCC ■ Concerns about RF emissions exposure at a particular site: Office of Engineering and Technology, RF Safety Program, phone (202) 418-2464; rfsafety@fcc.gov Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 16 * Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services, Wireless Communications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division (202) 418-0620 • You can also contact your federal elected officials. Questions raised since the last meeting (answers in italics) o I understand small wireless facilities go on poles. What if the provider wants to put its facilities in an area of the City that has underground utilities? This is a question about aesthetic regulation which is governed by ECDC Chapter 20.50 which the Council amended in April 2019. It is not part of the Master Permit. The code states where utilities are underground, small cell deployment will be limited to buildings, new or replaced streetlights, or installation of freestanding wireless facilities as opposed to attaching to a utility pole. o Do we really need to allow these small wireless facilities in Edmonds? Congress asserted federal control in this area. Via the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress has the power to preempt state and local governments under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution and they have asserted that power. o I have concerns about the waiving of liability of the wireless company. That is not happening and was never happening. Since the previous meeting, New Cingular Wireless has agreed to the City's indemnification language so that is not a concern. o I've heard other cities are charging more than the FCC allows and is charging fair market value for the use of its poles. Fees are limited by state law and by FCC regulation. RCW 35.21.860 is the state statute that prohibits cities from charging a franchises fee for use of the right-of- way on telecommunication providers as well as a few other utility providers. It prohibits charging a franchise fee or "any other fee or charge of whatever nature or description " upon these utility providers. There are exceptions; cities can recoup their administrative cost, can charge taxes and there are certain limited exceptions for wireless providers when the wireless provider is placing a support structure in the street, certain types of replacement structures or if they are attaching to a city -owned structure. Overlaying the state 's framework which already limits the ability to charge fees, the FCC has limited the city's ability even more. The FCC has interpreted the federal statute that says cities can charge fair and reasonable compensation, meaning cities can recoup their costs. Cities can charge fees that are a reasonable approximation of actual and direct costs incurred by local government. The FCC has also established what it believes are de facto, presumptively reasonable amounts that the city can charge. For example, a recurring fee is presumptively reasonable if it is $270/year. Cities can rebut that presumption, but the burden is on the city to establish that its reasonable costs exceed that amount. Master Permit before Council o Master Permit is the general authority that would allow New Cingular Wireless to place its small wireless facilities in the City's right-of-way subject to terms and conditions of the Master Permit and subject to New Cingular obtaining the site specific permits addressed in ECDC 20.50 that regulates small wireless facilities o The Master Permit will serve as a template for other providers because the City needs to be competitively neutral per federal law With the competing prohibition against having any limitations and also the municipality's responsibility to protect public health, Councilmember Olson asked whether it was beholding on the industry to have evidence that there is not a health risk. She was specifically addressing the World Health Organization (WHO) study, the first study ever done on the full range of the RF spectrum that is due to be published in 2022. She asked if it would be unreasonable for the City to say they were waiting for that evidence before approving the Master Permit and moving forward. Councilmember Olson asked why would the FCC or the federal government wanted to move forward when this big study is being conducted and more will be known about the risks in a year. She did not understand why this decision would come to a municipality when a large amount of information will soon be available to the federal government. She felt it was an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 17 unreasonable predicament and situation to put a City Council in. Ms. Tinker said she. could not speak to the federal government's motivations; they have indicated they want to rapidly deploy these facilities. With regard to whether the City could wait, RCW 35.99 has time limits for approving Master Permits. Whether it should be beholden on the industry to establish safety, the federal government has spoken with regard to that when it delegated establishing safety standards and enforces compliance with those standards to the FCC. Carl Gibson, AT&T, commented this is an important issue, deployment of broadband particularly during times when people have relied on it over the last 14-15 months to conduct city government, learn at home, work at home, and connect with friends and family. He was unsure where the public would have been 15 years ago without the infrastructure to create those connections. The discussion regarding the Master Permit is important; Ms. Tinker did a phenomenal job of laying things out from a federal and state regulatory perspective. The federal government has taken the lead on regulating the industry. There are new studies coming out all the time. The federal government has looked at this issues for years, going back to 2G and 3G, not just 4G or 5G. It is not something to be ignored but it is not something new. These discussions can occur separate from issue at hand, the Master Permit. It will take time to deploy the installations. He did not know anything about the WHO report but could look at it when comes out. Ken Lyons, Wireless Policy Group, explained during the application process, which is separate from the Master Permit, providers are required to submit an affidavit for the maximum emissions coming from the facility. A typical AT&T small wireless facility generally operates at less than 5% of the FCC maximum permissible exposure. That information is provided with the applications filed for each individual site. Council President Paine asked about the next generation, 6G, recognizing that technology is changing quickly particularly for cellular wireless. She asked if this Master Permit will grant permission for additional facilities to be placed. Observing that 5G has been around for several years, she asked what the next generation will look like in terms of land use and distribution. Mr. Lyons answered the Master Permit provides the basic umbrella for how they deploy facilities in the right-of-way. Putting facilities in the public right-of-way is one of many ways technology is deployed within the City. There are macro facilities such as cell towers or rooftop facilities that provide one layer of the network. Small wireless facilities are another layer of the network and are generally designed to provide capacity improvements because the macro sites simply cannot keep up. Mr. Lyons explained there has been a 580,000% growth in data traffic since the advent of the iPhone in 2007. People are using their phones differently including giving up landlines. Nearly 60% of state residents no longer have a home phone. The way that people use technology is growing at a rapid rate. The networks were built with towers and larger macro facilities that cover a large geographic area. These are different types of network layers, heterogeneous networks. The towers provide the umbrella of coverage and small cells provide capacity in areas where the macro sites cannot keep up with demand on the network. There are also in -building systems, distributed antennas. Concrete structures in major downtown areas have to have built in distributed antennas for the fire department so wireless carriers are connecting to them. There are a lot of different layers and there is likely to be more of the same in the future. They are not talking about 6G. Council President Paine commented the number of facilities is much higher with small cell facilities and with installation in the right-of-way and distribution every 150-200 feet/yards. That means a lot of facilities in a community that enjoys walkability and other public use of the space. She asked how many facilities should be expected. Mr. Lyons said he covers four states and does not see small cells every 200 feet. That is not how they are deployed. For example, AT&T's small cells for the City of Edmonds are actually 4G LTE and are placed in locations where the macro site is experiencing capacity problems; there are too many users (the spinning wheel of death), a user may have coverage but there is not enough capacity in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 18 network to handle all the users. Small cell are not a blanket of facilities, they are in targeted locations where there is a need to relieve the capacity demand and let the macro what it does what does best, provide coverage. When there is a lot of traffic on a macro site, the people furthest away experience dropped calls. The small cells supplement the macro sites in targeted areas to provide additional capacity. Mr. Gibson said lie is not a network engineer so he would not hazard a guess what 6G might look like. The G means generation, 2G was analog voice, 3G was rudimentary data, 4G LTE is what they are running currently as they transition to 5G. It is basically the backend computational mechanics of how many users can utilize a particular antenna, data speeds are increased due to fiber to cell towers instead of copper in 2G and 3G. He said 5G is just a new, better version of the communication standard. Ms. Tinker explained the Master Permit authorizes facilities and defines the small wireless facility; the definition in the code is largely dimensional. It is her understanding that these facilities can support various generations of wireless technology. She suggested Mr. Lyons address the question of whether these facilities will utilize 5G. Mr. Lyons answered the type of technology a facility is transmitting depends on the radio that is proposed. AT&T's initial applications are 4G radios which are not capable of providing 5G service. However, over time, 3G and 4G frequencies will be migrated to 5G so eventually those antennas will be replaced but that would require another permitting process to change those facilities to transit at 5G. Over time he expected that these facilities would support 5G or future changes in technologies. Mr. Taraday did not anticipate another Master Permit would be necessary if in two years AT&T wanted to upgrade some of its 4G small cell sites to 5G. This Master Permit authorizes small wireless facilities regardless of the generation of radio that is housed within the small cell facility. A construction permit may be required for that work, but it would be covered by the Master Permit currently before the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis found it difficult to discuss the Master Permit when it will have a tremendous impact on aesthetics. If the Council approves this as is, it is opening the gates to thousands of small cell towers potentially every 150 feet. She found it difficult to stick to approving the Master Permit and not the ramifications of the approval process. She was glad that the packet included last year's minutes; last year the Council discussed maps that are supposed to be part of the Master Permit. She did not see any maps or placement of towers in the Master Permit. Ms. Tinker explained the Master Permit requires the provider to maintain an inventory identifying the location of all the facilities in a city's right-of-way and that inventory needs to be shared with the city and updated periodically. She was not sure if that was the map Councilmember Buckshnis was referring to. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Verizon stated their maps were proprietary. She asked if an inventory and placement of all the small cells was part of the Master Permit. Ms. Tinker stated the Master Permit requires the provider to give City staff an inventory identifying the location of every facility they have in the City's right-of-way. Councilmember Buckshnis said asked if a fee could be charged for use of the public right-of-way. Ms. Tinker answered if the provider is attaching to PUD utility poles, state law does not allow the city to charge fee. If they are attaching to a city owned pole such as a streetlight, the city can charge a fee. If they place a freestanding small wireless facility in the City's right-of-way, the City can charge for that. Whether the City can charge depends on where the provider lands on the location preference hierarchy in Chapter 20.50. The amount the City is able to charge is limited by the FCC, basically recovering its costs because that is all the federal government a]lows local government to do. Councilmember Buckshnis said she sent a lengthy email today prepared by a citizen scientist. In California, former Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill about permitting small cell towers. She asked if there was any way Edmonds could stall or delay permitting until there is more data regarding the health implications of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 19 5G. Ms. Tinker said she was confused about what happened in California because Councilmember Buckshnis stated small cell and tower which are incompatible. Under the FCC, the federal government has implemented shot clocks that set time limits. Tile state law under RCW 35.99 that specifically addresses Master Permit as opposed to site specific permits sets time limits. Mr. Taraday said while they are not defending federal wireless policy, there is a lot of room to criticize federal wireless policy and they certainly understand why the Council and the public may be frustrated by the position that this puts the City in. Frankly, it puts the City in frustrating and weak position, but unfortunately there is very little that can be done about that. Basically the federal government is asking you to trust that it will keep you safe and hopefully they will. There is no reason to believe they won't but at the end of the day, the City is not able to use its police power to address the health concerns that have been raised. That is not within the City's police power due to the federal exemptions. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was on the Planning Board in 2011/2012 when ECDC 20.50 governing wireless telecommunication facilities was updated. While the Council is not talking about updating that, she suggested including that in the next Council packet to provide a broader, more comprehensive look at what the Council is doing now. Tile update was primarily related to macro towers but small wireless facilities were on the horizon so the code provided a framework for looking at small facilities. She paraphrased from the purpose section of 20.50, 1) protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts, 2) establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations regarding wireless, 3) encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent feasible, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare is minimal, 4) specifics for macro facilities, 5) the number of macro facilities, 6) encourage and require cooperation between competitors, 7) ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, 8) enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city to use city property, 9) balance the city's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy such services to the community quickly and efficiently, 10) provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned, 11) avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from falling equipment, and 12) disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as possible throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual impact. Councilmember K. Johnson said the code also includes specific steps once a small wireless permit is requested to deal with topics such as landscaping and screening. She commented the Council did not need to reinvent the wheel, it just needed a proper framework to evaluate small cells. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled in response to Councilmember Olson's questions about emerging studies and the public concern, Mr. Gibson stated concerns have been around since 2G, 3G, etc. She asked him to explain the difference in emissions from early generations to 5G and estimate the ratio of the increase of units over current needs. Mr. Gipson said they are currently rolling out 5G utilizing repurposed spectrum that has been used for decades. Cell phones are actually a fancy radio so not unlike one's home Wi-Fi router that uses 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz signal, depending on where someone is at, that is 700 - 900 MHz, less than the spectrum of sub 6 5G, sub 5 GHz 5G. The same people who had concerns in the 1990s, are concerned about the spectrum that is being repurposed, 4G LTE and 5G. With regard to the number of small cell facilities that will be needed, he could not speak to their competitors' plans, but as Mr. Lyons mentioned, they are contemplating a handful of 4G small cell nodes in the City of Edmonds to infill where the current 4G LTE signal is suffering from exhaustion due to congestion issues or at the cell edge were network connectivity isn't great as people work and learn from home. They are not planning thousands of small cell facilities in Edmonds. He did not know the exact number, but anticipated a small handful at this point. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 20 Councilmember L. Johnson said at issue is his comment "at this point." While AT&T was contemplating only a handful at this point, this is only the beginning and people can expect more as they expand in the future. Her concern is she did not feel the aesthetic side was being addressed and was being downplayed. With regard to emissions, she was unsure Mr. Gibson had answered her question. She understood this was a big difference and appreciated the concerns that have been expressed. As it relates to RF emissions, Mr. Lyons explained with every facility they apply for in Edmonds, there is a statement regarding the RF emissions emitted. That is also done for macro facilities which produce more power than a small cell. Small cells have less than 5% of the FCC emission requirements. Although emissions depend on whether it is a rooftop or tower, the emissions pattern is documented and, relative to the FCC limitation, it is generally low for individual sites. Councilmember Olson recalled last week's packet said June 15"' was the deadline for the Master Permit. And if so, she preferred to move more slowly to give time for studies to come out. She preferred to postpone approval until the June 15t" deadline. Mr. Taraday said the Master Permit has been negotiated for quite a long time. At this point AT&T has essentially accepted the City's terms. From staff's perspective, while it was expected that the schedule would proceed as proposed with the public hearing and action next month, staff was not seeking any additional terms in Master Permit. That could change if something came to light in the public hearing. The Master Permit has been thoroughly analyzed and negotiated for many months. While the City's hands are pretty much tied, he believed the strongest Master Permit that state and federal law would allow had been negotiated. The request to wait relates to waiting on a health study which is not something the City has the authority to regulate. He assured he was not unsympathetic to the concern, but it is clear where the federal government allows cities to negotiate. He did not believe waiting on a health study would be a viable course of action for the City. Councilmember Olson said she missed a portion of Mr. Taraday's explanation and repeated her question whether the Council had until June 15' to make a decision. Mr. Taraday responded staff was not asking for action before June 15". He expected the schedule to remain as originally proposed with the public hearing next month and seeking action from Council on June 15". Councilmember Distelhorst asked what prompted AT&T to accept the language proposed by the City and broaden the indemnification clause. Mr. Lyons said they always saw there was broad indemnification of the City. The question was whether it should specifically note RF or should RF be rolled into the other indemnification provisions that are already broad. It was just the specific callout of that versus all the other things that provide a broader indemnification. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was interested in waiting to get more clarification on the potential number of units that could be deployed citywide, both in total and per provider. That is not based on health but concerns about aesthetics. She did not have a complete picture of what that would look like and was concerned that the full impact on the community was vague. Before opening the door, she wanted to have a clearer picture. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Following the recess, he relayed that in consultation with Council President Paine, the next two agenda items would be postponed to a future meeting. 3. PROCESS FOR REVIEWING HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This item was postponed to a future meeting. 4. STAGE 2 TREE ISSUES This item was postponed to a future meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 21 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AID COMMITTEES REPORTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she met with a Washington state legislator today and they discussed how Zoom improves the ability for people to speak to electeds, people without childcare or who have to work at the time meetings are held or are unable to go to Council chambers. She did not understand the comments that citizens aren't able to participate unless they are able to attend meetings in person. She assured she does not give more weight to comments someone makes in person versus via Zoom, an email or a letter, they were all equal. It is interesting that there is a petition regarding in -person meetings when the City has not been released to have in -person meetings. She was hopeful in -person meetings will be allowed soon and that the Governor will reopen the state June 30"'. Until then, she was perplexed by the concern with not meeting in person and did not understanding the issue. Councilmember Olson expressed support for returning to in -person meetings with a hybrid option at the first opportunity that technology allows. The silver lining of COVID is that Zoom provides more access to some people. She also supported a Sunday only Walkable Main Street and urged the Mayor to make that change. It is a more measured approach and provides an opportunity to making Walkable Main Street work for retailers. There was a strongly worded letter provided by the retailers and restaurants outside the district. Rather than being disturbed or unhappy with the strong wording, she acknowledged how much they have at stake. Having a balance of retailers, restaurants and bars is critical to the City. She hope the Mayor will make that change on his own behest or that a Council majority [remainder of comment not captured on video]. Councilmember Olson gave a shout out for Memorial Day stating her heart is full of gratitude and appreciation for those who have paid the ultimate price for our country. She will be thinking about them on Monday and many other days as well as the families who have suffered. Councilmember K. Johnson informed the Council and the public that she has drafted a resolution that will be on next week's agenda that rejects racially based harassment and hate crimes particularly against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders due to COVID. She invited anyone who wanted to see the resolution or who wanted to provide additional information, to contact her or Council Legislative Assistant Maureen Judge. Councilmember K. Johnson honored all those who have served in military. Both her mother and father served during WWII. Memorial Day is a somber but important holiday and although the traditional event will not be held at the cemetery, there will be a drive through opportunity with poppies donated by the local VFW. She wished everyone a good weekend. Council President Paine recognized it was very frustrating to have the FCC provide health and safety regulations as well as work closely with industry; it seems like there needs to be some separation between those entities. She looked forward to the June 8t" public hearing and a decision shortly thereafter. With regard to meeting in person, she has had a few conversations with other elected officials. The PUD is not planning to return to in -person before September due to navigating workplace safety issues and developing a hybrid model. The School District will not returning before September and a professional who does contract work with cities said he has not heard of any municipalities returning to in -person earlier than August. She wanted to ensure that when the Council returned to in -person meeting, they were fully prepared. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 22 Council President Paine offered to contact Councilmember K. Johnson about scheduling the resolution she mentioned. She looked forward to the Memorial weekend and hoped to see everyone at the drive through event at the cemetery. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed it is the one year anniversary of the murder of George Floyd, a tragic reminder that there is much work to be done to address systemic racism and systemic inequities throughout society. Elected officials have an even stronger burden to take necessary steps to address it. He said thank you to all the active, veteran and others who served in the military and wished them a Happy Memorial Day. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed today is the one year anniversary of the brutal murder of George Floyd. Mr. Floyd's death had a huge impact on everyone, lasting 9 minutes 29 seconds. His death is just one of many examples of a long history of systemic racism and police brutality toward Black Americans. She thanked the citizens from many parts of the communities, groups, individuals and churches for their year- long presence on the corners of SR104 and 100t' and bringing attention to this stain on the country's history. She summarized there was a lot of work to do. Student Representative Robert encouraged everyone to get vaccinated if they can and to check in on loved ones. He honored everyone who is serving or has served in the military; they cannot be taken for granted. He was thankful for the privileges Americans have because of the members of our military. Councilmember Buckshnis honored the veterans and people in military. She knelt for 9 minutes and 29 seconds today in honor of the murder George Floyd and what he went through. She found it very disturbing and agreed there was a lot of work to do. She hoped Mayor Nelson would reach a compromise related to Walkable Main Street. The letter by the retailers was very well written. Edmonds was successful, none of its businesses closed. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson said it was important to remember what the administration has done for small businesses during COVID. Edmonds was one of the first cities in Washington to provide its own funds to provide grant funds to small business. With the cooperation of the Chamber, the City funded a wish grant program so businesses could hire other Edmonds businesses; over 60 businesses were hired, to help with marketing, ecommerce, legal challenges, etc. to adapt and continue their business during COVID. The administration found ways to provide outdoor dining in a safe way to help restaurants who were experiencing drastic cuts. They processed applications for 150 businesses and gave over $1.1M to Edmonds small businesses, about $8,000 each. The administration also processed and helped score applications for the county to distribute $271,000 to 23 Edmonds small business. Mayor Nelson said it is not a compromise to have Walkable Main Street on a day a store is closed. The City send postcards to over 22,000 residences asking what days they wanted Walkable Main Street. The most popular choice was Saturday and Sunday. Hundreds of communities throughout the country are seeing the wonderful benefits of closing their downtown streets, many are closed seven days a week, not two. It is creating more business, more community interaction and a safer way to interact with each other. This is a temporary program and he looked forward to reevaluating it in at the end of the summer. If there was a desire to make it permanent, lie was happy to bring it to Council. He encouraged everyone to give Walkable Main Street a chance, advising the administration is and has always been committed to helping downtown Edmonds small businesses. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 23 Mayor Nelson reported COVID cases are going down and are at the lowest level since January. However, to quote Dr. Spitters, people continue to suffer from COVID, hospitals still have patients on ventilators and every week people in Snohomish County are dying from COVID. Snohomish County is a long way from herd immunity and COVID is still a constant threat. He urged the public to get vaccinated. He recognized service members on Memorial Day and hoped to see everyone at the drive -through event at the cemetery 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 24 Mayor Nelson reported COVID cases are going down and are at the lowest level since January. However, to quote Dr. Spitters, people continue to suffer from COVID, hospitals still have patients on ventilators and every week people in Snohomish County are dying from COVID. Snohomish County is a long way from herd immunity and COVID is still a constant threat. He urged the public to get vaccinated. He recognized service members on Memorial Day and hoped to see everyone at the drive -through event at the cemetery 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. MI HAEL NELSON, MAYOR 4PASSEY,5 TY C RK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 24 Public Comment for 5/25/21 Council Meeting: From: Greg Brewer Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 7:11 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Time for In -Person Council Meetings I was astounded to hear the Citizen Housing Commission has proposed eliminating single family housing in Edmonds. Decisions are being made without citizen participation or awareness. Zoom and surveys are not reaching the majority of citizens. Most people when asked about current policy have no idea of what is going on. We need more public outreach, and in -person council meetings are a must! Greg Brewer From: Janelle Cass Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 6:12 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Master Permit authorizing Placement of Small Wireless (Small Cell) Facilities in the City's Rightsof-Way Dear Council I am writing concerning the Master permit authorization for small cell wireless facilities. My question is: has the council had an opportunity to review the environmental impacts review for this action? Under the National Environmental Impact Policy Act, all federal actions such as the FCC 5g implementation must follow the process of evaluating environmental impacts. As a federal agency NEPA expert, I recommend that the council request and thoroughly review the environmental analysis before making a decision about the Master Permit. Also, please take a closer look at the DC Circuit Judges 8/9/19 Ruling(https://www.federaIregister.gov/documents/2019111/05/2019- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 25 24071 acceleratin -wi reless-b road ban d-d ep to ment-b-removing-barriers-to- infrastructure -investment) that determined the FCC failed to address its rate of tower densification "without completing its investigation of. . . health effects of low - intensity radiofrequency [microwave] radiation" and that it had not "adequately address the harms of deregulation" among other issues, such as the FCC cannot justify their determination that these types of installations are "inherently unlikely" to trigger potential significant environmental impacts. Lastly, I encourage the council to wait to approve the master permit until the Supreme Court hears the case brought before them City of Portland v FCC (htt s: www.nlc.or article 2021 05 21 local- overnments-sllc-ask-su reme-court- to-hear-small-cell-case/) where the State and Local Legal Center will ask the Supreme court to review the ninth circuit decision because "local governments are being prevented from serving as stewards of public property, safety, and welfare." Please delay any decision making until more questions can be answered about this process..This will give the city of Edmonds a better feel for how to best proceed in the resident's interest. Thank you, Janelle Cass Concerned Resident & Local Business owner Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 20213:02 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michaei <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Hold on Housing Commission's Proposals until In -Person Council Meetings Hello, I request that we put the Housing Commission's proposals on hold until we resume in -person council meetings. This is too big and too important of an issue to address on Zoom. It will have a permanent and pervasive effect on our city and citizens. Many citizens are not able to participate in the meetings online. They might not have access to a computer or the ability to connect. Many people are also focused on additional responsibilities and challenges brought Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 26 on by Covid. I have talked to many friends and neighbors who are unaware of the proposals. They are shocked by the possibility of upzoning. The citizens deserve more publicity about this -- mass mailings to every household in Edmonds -- and time to be made aware and educated -- and in -person council meetings to participate so we have a voice in these decisions that will impact all of us. Please delay further discussion and decisions until we have in -person council meetings. It is only fair. It is the right thing. It is what you would want and expect as a non -council member and citizen of our beautiful city. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Judy Hardesty Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 11:49 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Resume in -person public meetings now, please Anyone concerned about COVID can elect to continue to participate via Zoom. It's time to immediately return to in -person city council meetings and start engaging again with your constituents - for the good of Edmonds. Thank you. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 10:09 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Ken Reidy Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Public Comments for the May 25, 2021 Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program Ken, Thanks for asking these questions. I agree that it is critical that these questions be answered. Staff decisions must be based on accurate information, not fly by the seat of your pants decisions, depending upon the developer and development being proposed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 27 Decisions should be consistent, clear and based on our laws and ordinances. What I have observed in Edmonds is that decisions are instead based upon who has the most money and poses the largest threat to potentially sue the city. Obviously, this is typically a developer, not an ordinary citizen protecting their property rights. These and other questions will become more critical as Council reviews the Citizen Housing Commission recommendations, especially given the egregious state that our current code is in, despite the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars allocated since 2000 to update our code. Thanks again. Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 6:18 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the May 25, 2021 Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program City Councilmembers - Prior to approving the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, please represent your constituents and ask City Staff to publicly disclose: 1. What is a planned right-of-way? 2. How does such get on the City's Official Street Map? 3. Can the City place public utilities in planned rights -of -way? 4. If a percentage of the required easement width for a street or alley has already been dedicated, why would a planned right-of-way NOT be indicated on the City's Official Street Map? For example, a 7 %' wide easement north of Daley Street exists between both 7th Ave. N Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 28 and 81h Ave. N as well as between 9th Ave. N and loth Ave. N. These 7 %' wide easements were dedicated when the City was originally platted in 1890. Despite having 50% of the required easement width for an alley, the City's Official Street Map fails to disclose a planned right-of- way at either location. Why? 5. Who maintains the Official Street Map and what steps does City Council take to make sure it is accurate and complete? 6. Why do some developers have to deal with Planned Rights -of -way whereas others do not have to? 7. Do some developers simply get lucky because the Official Street Map is incomplete? Former City Attorney W. Scott Snyder has argued in the past that Municipalities have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if they fail to do so. Snyder referenced a 1928 case Lund v. City of Seattle, as well as a 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma. Prior to approving the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, please represent your constituents and ask City Staff to publicly disclose: 8. Does the City have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if the City fails to do so? 9. Does the duty referred to by Snyder apply to unopened rights -of -way? 10. Does the duty referred to by Snyder apply to planned rights -of -way? Please make sure all attending the Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program can hear each other at the same time. The Governor's March 24, 2020 proclamation states meetings must provide the ability for all persons attending to hear each other at the same time. Should Public Comments submitted in writing be read out loud? The City Clerk can do this if Council wants to prevent the public from being confused as to who is making the comments. Please do not approve the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program until City staff provides public answers to all 10 questions asked in this Public Comment for the Public Hearing for the 2022-2027 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. Thank you. From: Kristi Urquhart Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 10:17 PM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 29 To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Yost Pool Please revisit offering the summer league swim team at Yost Pool. The citizens are due an explanation as to why are they are not being offered this important activity to our youth. There have been creative ideas and rebuffed offers to create solutions to make this happen by those with experience. Why not let the swim community and community at large help?We owe this to our kids, all of them. Kristi Urquhart From: Paust, Kirsten Sent: Monday, May 24, 20214:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Paust, Kirsten Subject: Public Comment Edmonds City Council, I am writing to ask for your support in finding a way to bring back the community swim team, Yost Penguins, for the 2021 summer and to ensure its annual operation going forward. I'm hopeful I can convince you of the power of this community swim team in the lives of our children in Edmonds and our community. I've raised two girls in Edmonds and the Yost Penguins has been an integral part of their upbringing and summer experience. For those that do not know, the Yost Penguins is a community swim team in which anyone that wants to swim is given the chance and (more importantly) the incredible encouragement and support of coaches and teammates that take an inclusive and equitable approach to making swimming and summer fun accessible to all. My daughters joined when they hit the minimum age limit and have been doing it every summer since (5 years for one, 7 for the other). Our community team teaches our kids the value of hard work (showing up to practice 4 days a week and having to jump into a cold Yost pool!) and the importance of supporting your fellow teammates. Every year, I watch our Yost Penguins cheer to the very last minute for their teammates, no matter whether they are in first or last place. There is no greater way to build self-confidence and self-worth in our kids than having them partake in activities that build them up — our Yost Penguins have done this for my kids, and so many other kids in Edmonds. I was excited to learn that the City Parks Department had worked hard to get Yost Pool open this season. I want to acknowledge that getting this pool open is a huge win for our community —thank you to all those that made this possible. Despite this good news, I was disheartened to learn that there would be no Yost Penguins community team, but that a private elite swim club Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 30 would be operating out of Yost. This team is not taking any additional kids for the summer, and even if they were, would require kids to place onto the team. This means that for the first time ever (to my knowledge), Yost Pool will have a swim team, but not one that enables any kid in Edmonds who wants to swim and be part of a team the chance to do so. This is a real tragedy and one that we should try to fix. The primary purpose of Yost Pool should be to provide benefit to the community of Edmonds. I am not against other swim teams using the pool, but we need to protect an inclusive community swim program that positively impacts the lives of our kids. I know there have been challenges getting this pool operational at all this season, but I think we can find a creative solution that keeps the community swim program alive and allows others to use the pool, including the private swim team that is using the pool. I am hopeful you can encourage all parties involved in the management and operation of Yost Pool to find a creative solution, not just for this year, but to ensure the long-term existence of the Yost Penguins, for the sake of our kids and community in Edmonds. Kirsten Paust Edmonds City Resident From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 2:41 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Preserve Single Family Zoning! Protect the "Missing Middle"! Hello, Are you aware of the high cost of lumber and building materials? This last year has seen a huge increase. Prices have tripled according to my husband, a general contractor. Along with the high cost of building, there is the high cost of real estate that everyone is familiar with, especially in Edmonds. If rezoning is approved and single family housing eliminated, homeowners will be selling to the highest bidder, even those that weren't considering selling before. They will want to cash out. The developers who purchase these properties will need to fully develop the land in order to make a profit. Housing built will not be low or middle income. It will be high -end and expensive, whether it's single family, duplexes, condos or townhouses. The homes razed will be single family moderate houses with yards. They will be replaced by large structures that cover most of the property. We will be losing the so-called "missing middle" that the Housing Commission is so concerned about. It's obvious that single family zoning should be preserved so low to middle income people can continue to live here. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 31 Don't tear down and rebuild! Preserve and protect! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Kathleen Rapp Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 1:22 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: In -Person Format I strongly believe it's past the time for the city council and the mayor to have council meetings return to an in -person format - consider using a hybrid model. The council meeting itself would be "in person" using current CDC guidelines for citizen's attendance but also streamed live via Zoom. Public comment could be in person or via Zoom. From: Christine Roberts <cmroberts00@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 12:26 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Concerns about Yost Pool Dear City Councilmembers, I am a homeowner, parent, and small business owner in Edmonds. I'm writing today because I am very concerned about the elimination of the Yost Penguins swim team program. My children have participated in the Yost Penguins for many years. Yost Penguins provided a low - barrier entry point for my and many other children to experience a swim team atmosphere and become part of a community of swimmers. The team has been an important component of the physical, social, and emotional health for so many children throughout the many years it has been in operation. It also provided a low-cost swimming solution for many families who cannot afford private swim clubs or even continued intermediate swim lessons. This year, the YMCA has decided not to continue the Yost Penguins program. They have instead leased out the pool time for a swim team to the Cascade Swim Club, a private, more competitive, and expensive swim team option. (Cascade Swim Club is also at capacity, so that members of the Penguins who are able to meet their standards may try out for the waitlist only.). I understand that the infusion of money from Cascde was crucial in opening the pool and that the YMCA has had difficulty staffing facilities due to the pandemic. However, I also know that David Orr, coach of the Cascade Swim Club, offered to organize and provide staff for a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 32 community swim team when he approached the YMCA about leasing the pool, and the YMCA declined his offer. Yost Pool is an important community resource and it is frustrating that our community swim team has not been given the opportunity to operate for the second year in a row. Personally, I know that it has been very difficult to find exercise options for my children throughout the pandemic and their health has suffered because of it. My family was really hoping that Yost Penguins would provide the athletic and social outlet my children very much need this summer. I imagine this to be the case for many other families as well. It is also frustrating that, while the decisions regarding the Yost Penguins seem to have been made some time ago, curious families had been given hope and told to "wait and see" until the press release from the city on May 11, 2021. I ask that the City Councilmembers intervene to help us ensure that Yost Pool, a valuable community resource, provides programs for the benefit and to meet the needs of our community for many years to come. Sincerely, Christine (Chrissy) Roberts Edmonds, WA 98026 From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 12:18 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Resume In -person Council Meetings It's time to resume in -person council meetings. There are many crucial issues right now, most importantly the housing proposals, and citizens need to be included and involved. Zoom is inadequate. Businesses are open and government needs to be too! If we can go to the grocery store, go to work, fly in a plane, eat inside restaurants and watch a movie at the Edmonds Theater, we should be able to attend in -person council meetings. Open council meetings now! Kathy Brewer Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 33 From: Janet Henry Sent: Sunday, May 23, 20214:20 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds, WA Survey - Resume in -person meetings? https://petitionbuilder.org/l?etition/­`edmonds-wa-survey-resume-open-me-9typ This letter was posted to My Edmonds News- ([https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/05/letter- to-the-editor-time-to-return-to-in-person-city-council-meetings/#comment- 311061](htt s: m edmondsnews.com 2021 05 letter-to-the-editor-time-to-return-to-in- erson-cit -council-meetin s #comment-3110b1)), asking the city of Edmonds to resume in - person city council meetings. **Your thoughts?** Do you agree it's time for the city of Edmonds to immediately return to in -person city council meetings? Including the planning and other city board/committee meetings? **Who cares?** If you aren't aware, there are major issues facing Edmonds right now that could change the city forever, not the least of which is the Citizens Housing Commission policy proposals being presented to Council now. Those proposals include the elimination of single-family neighborhoods throughout all of Edmonds. [https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/final- policy-recommendations](htt s: www.citizenshousincommission.org/final-policy- recommendations) These far-reaching ideas advocating extreme change, which, if passed by Council, could forever alter Edmonds' livability and character. This isn't the time to conduct government business via virtual meetings limiting citizen input to a blank -screen three minute "voice mail". **Safety regarding COVID?** We now know enough about the spread of the Coronavirus to make the meetings safe for all. There is room in council chambers for spacing of audience chairs and the number of attendees could be checked at the door. Masks could be required. The councilmember dais' chairs are sufficiently spaced to keep them safe and they could certainly wear masks. Clearly, the current room set-up could be easily made to conform to CDC guidelines. It's time to open up and more fully engage with each other. Please answer the questions below. Our elected officials who swore to serve the residents of Edmonds, need to immediately return to in -person city council meetings and start engaging again with their constituents. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 34 <span class="colour" style="color: rgb(35, 31, 32)">**What can you do?**</span> <span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">Please sign the petition.</span> <span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">Please contact city council and the mayor to voice your opinion about having council meetings return to an in -person format: email </span>[council@edmondswa.gov](ma ilto:council@edmondswa.gov)<span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> and </span>[pub liccomment@edmondswa.gov](ma ilto:publiccomment@edmondswa.gov)<span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> and </span>[carolyn.Iafave@edmondswa.gov](ma iIto :carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov)<span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)"> (to contact the mayor). Copying all these addresses will make sure that not only the mayor and council see the emails, but also that they are entered into the record as public comment.</span> <span class="colour" style="color: rgb(35, 31, 32)">**Lastly, get connected!**</span> <span class="colour" style="color:rgb(35, 31, 32)">If you would like to receive information about the critical issues Edmonds is facing and how you can participate in the discussion, please send your contact information to -[E4Edmonds@gmail.com](inaiito:E4Edmonds@gmail.com). A group of concerned citizens gathering to work for the greater good of Edmonds. </span> <span class="colour" style="color: rgb(35, 31, 32)">Thank you.</span> From: N Middleton Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 9:47 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Housing Commission Recommendations First, kudos to Kristiana Johnson for asking the reasonable question of whether low income housing in the pipeline now will be adequate, and whether or not any Housing Commission recommendations should be implemented. The Council, not any commission, is responsible for City policy. I urge you to apply critical thinking and approach the issue rationally and factually, based on what is best for the City and people who live here. I am opposed to any zoning changes and any actions that would result in increased taxes. Second, We have less land and more population density than many neighboring communities. There is a huge development going up on Highway 99 and smaller developments throughout the city. Edmonds meets or exceeds the housing requirements set forth in the Growth Management Act. I don't understand why Edmonds is expected to take on more of a burden than neighboring cities. Many of the Housing Commission recommendations seem to be a solution in search of a problem. Perhaps that is why only 8 of the 20+ Housing Commissioners signed the editorial that was published in the Everett Herald. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 35 Third, I'd like to challenge the idea that everyone who works here or would like to live here should. This is a faulty premise. Commuting is a fact of life in our region. Many millions of tax dollars are poured into public transportation. I've worked in Everett with people who commuted from Seattle, Snohomish, Arlington, Camano Island, Bothell and Oak Harbor. I worked in downtown Seattle with people who commuted from Kent, Fife, Bremerton, Everett, Tacoma, Edmonds, Shoreline, etc; and in Shoreline with people from Everett, Mountlake Terrace, Seattle, & Bellevue. My friend telecommutes & is moving near Olympia - to get more house for less money. The pandemic expanded telecommuting. Many employers are moving to a work from home model to save on overhead costs and create a better work/life balance for employees. This will ease the commute for those who can't work from home. With so many people working from home, the "have to live here to work here" idea does not really hold water. Fourth, I'd like you to consider your fiscal responsibility to the City of Edmonds. Cramming as many people in as possible will increase consumer pressure on old water and sewer systems, police & fire services, require additional funding for a school system that is already struggling financially, and increase pressure on inadequately staffed City services. There is already talk of a tax increase to pay for some of the Housing Commission recommendations. I'd really like to understand why some Council members seem to be hell bent on turning Edmonds into "Little Seattle". We have seen what rampant development has done to Ballard, and, closer to home, North City. Cool, interesting neighorhoods with character turn into cookie cutter urban canyons. I like Edmonds because it has a friendly, welcoming, low key vibe; it's quiet and uncrowded; traffic is minimal; it has an accessible, thriving art scene; and plenty of green space. Basically, because it's not Seattle. Let's not Californicate Edmonds! Sincerely, Norma Middleton From: Bette Bell Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 12:43 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Council Meetings Council meetings should return to an in -person format as well as a Zoom format. More citizens will be able to participate and will give the Council a much clearer idea of where the citizens of this community stand, on the many difficult decisions that must be made; and must be made with citizen input a most important factor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 36 Bette Bell From: margaret victor Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 11:42 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: In Person City Council Meetings I am an Edmonds resident and I would like it on record that I request that the City Council begin to hold their meetings in person vs the Zoom meetings that have been taking place for the past year. It seems that policies are being instituted without much in the way of citizen input. We deserve as residents to have a say into what is happening in our city - and not fear having policies ramrodded into place without sufficient words from us. The Council chambers can set up spacing that would follow Covid safety guidelines according to the CDC. That should not be an excuse any longer. Margaret Victor From: Jenny Anttila Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20219:16 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Council Meetings with the Citizens present To all concerned, We need the City of Edmonds opened now, and the citizens should be back in the weekly council meetings, wherever you chose them to be. Jenny Anttila & Greg Toy From: Rebecca Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 7:46 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Resume public meetings now, please Dear Mayor and Council, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 37 To echo and borrow from the letter submitted to MEN (htt s: m edmondsnews.com 2021 05 letter -to -the -editor -time -to -return -to -in -person -city_ council-meetin s #comment-311061), it is time to immediately return to in -person city council meetings. This call for open and in -person meetings extends to the planning and other city board meetings as well. As you know, there are issues facing Edmonds that could change our city forever, not the least of which is the Citizens Housing Commission policy proposals being presented to you now. Those proposals include the elimination of single-family neighborhoods throughout all of Edmonds. These far-reaching ideas advocating extreme change, which, if passed by you, could forever alter Edmonds' livability and character. This is not the time to conduct government business via virtual meetings limiting citizen input to a blank -screen three minute "voice mail". We now know enough about the spread of the Coronavirus to make the meetings safe for all. There is room in council chambers for spacing of audience chairs and the number of attendees could be checked at the door. Masks could be required. The councilmember dais' chairs are sufficiently spaced to keep them safe and they could certainly wear masks. Clearly, the current room set-up could be easily made to conform to CDC guidelines. It's time to open up and more fully engage with each other. As elected officials who swore to serve the residents of Edmonds, it's time to immediately return to in -person city council meetings and start engaging again with your constituents - for the good of Edmonds. Thank you. Yours, Rebecca Anderson From: sellersabroad Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 5:54 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Council meetings I absolutely agree to get back to in person council meetings so many important issues at hand that local people have to give input, and council and Mayor must listen. C Sellers Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 25, 2021 Page 38