Loading...
Cmd031522 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 15, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 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 Tibbott 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 Deputy Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REPLACE ITEM 8.4 WITH A NEW ITEM TO FORMALIZE THE TRANSITION TO HYBRID FORMAT FOR REGULAR MEETINGS. Council President Olson explained Item 8.4, Ordinance Amending Chapter 1.04 ECC related to Regular Committee Meetings Times and Provisions for Recesses, Adjournments, and Continuances, will be altered as a result of the transition to hybrid meetings, due to adding an in-person element to meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 2 Assuming that passes, revisions to the ordinance in Item 8.4 will be returned to council and the transition to hybrid format could be included. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments, advising that Audience Comments were for any subject other than the public hearings. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, speaking for the 40th time on the tree ordinance passed last year, said City Attorney Jeff Taraday has yet to publicly answer her questions whether the tree ordinance complies with the U.S. Constitution. At the March 1st meeting, Edmonds paid SaveATree Consulting $7,000 for a canopy report which reported a tree canopy increase of 17.6 acres to 1961.7 acres, up 19% from 2015 to 2020. Using the Edmonds 2017 urban tree canopy assessment in the agenda packet, there is in fact a 117 acre increase in the tree canopy from 2015 to 2020. Edmonds assessment shows 2015 tree canopy at 30.3%, 1844.1 acres. SaveATree reported 34.3%, 1944 acres, a 100 acre discrepancy. She questioned whether this was a typo or were numbers changed and if so, why and when. On June 15, 2021 then- Council President Susan Paine claimed the tree canopy was disappearing to justify an emergency passage of the tree ordinance. She said the tree canopy goal should be about 30%, the canopy has increased to 34.6% showing a 6.4% increase in 5 years before the tree code. With the canopy increasing, a 2021 tree ordinance that charges owners $3,000 - $12,000 for the rights to each tree on their property and restricts light and safety from homes is no longer justified. Eighty-three percent of the tree canopy is maintained on residential properties, but new restrictions on tree maintenance and removal have caused resistance to tree planting and owners now plan to remove trees before they reach the size that allows the City to take ownership of them. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the tree ordinance is having the opposite effect on the climate and tree canopy than the council intended. The whole concept is lacking in common sense, legality and equality and is wrong. The City is using the tree ordinance to control private property, limit the building of single family homes and take money from property owners, increasing the cost of new homes. It is an owner’s right to divide property as allowed by zoning and to make a profit from their land without encumbrances. The City is not entitled to a portion of the owner’s investment, risk and hard work over City taxes and fees that are multiplied from divided lots and new homes. Edmonds government disregards property owners’ rights and the laws of the land. You want it, you take it; you have taken our trees. Putin is doing the same thing to Ukraine. We live in the USA. The only difference is that you charge us for its return. Please obey the U.S. Constitution, Washington Growth Management Act and Edmonds comprehensive plan and rescind the illegal tree ordinance. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, referred to the ethics of the council president who hired her inexperienced campaign manager to do a communication section of the retreat; quid pro quo and a payback for free volunteer work provided by her campaign manager. She was also able to get a friend to facilitate the retreat and they spoke inappropriately about the city administration and Councilmember Chen. This is very unethical behavior from a president and vice chair. The council president should resign and ask to be provided extra training. She read from the ethics policy, seek no favor, do not personally benefit or profit from confidential information or misuse of public resources. Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair but in fact is appropriate, which Ms. Fraley-Monillas said was not happening. She cited unethical behavior from Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Olson, and recommended they resign from their leadership roles and be removed from leading the city council as the city council deserves better. She suggested if Councilmember Paine or she done this, it would have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 3 gone over like a ton of lead bricks. Next, she said the salary commission was disbanded because the council believed they were fairly paid compared to other cities Edmonds’ size. Bringing the salary commission back is clearly greed and unethical as the council is required to approve whatever the salary commission recommends. She summarized this is the most unethical council leadership she has seen in 40 years of politics and more should be demanded of city councilmembers. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, urged the council to pull consent agenda item 12 regarding dedication of right-of- way for discussion. He suggested asking what a planned right-of-way is, how a planned right-of-way gets added to the City’s official street map, how city stormwater utilities were installed on private property rather than within the 20-foot right-of-way already dedicated for 203rd Street SW, why the amendment to the City’s official street map authorized under Ordinance 3690 was never reflected on the City’s official street map, who maintains the official street map, what happens when it is incomplete or contains an error, if there ever any accountability when City staff does not do what city council has voted they do. On packet page 380, the planned right-of-way curves through an existing house at 8002 203rd Street SW and he asked how that happened and whether City government was capable of doing better than that. Next, he asked why the March 1st meeting minutes did not include comments submitted to the public comments email address and why the council was approving the March 1st meeting minutes prior to approving the February 22nd regular meeting minutes. Mr. Reidy continued, street vacation laws allow a street vacation to be conditioned upon a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the easement vacated. He requested council address all illegal street vacations from the past including street vacations where the City acted as if it could condition a street vacation upon a grant of an easement to third parties which the law does not allow. He requested the council apologize for the City’s past conduct and do what is right and be ethical. He referred to packet pages 1104-1108 and asked why an ordinance has been drafted prior to council voting to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance. He contrasted this with council’s vote on October 2, 2012 to direct the city attorney to modify Resolution 853; despite council’s vote to direct the city attorney, a modification of Resolution 853 was never brought back to council. He requested council inform citizens what is supposed to happen if the city attorney and/or city staff do not do what council votes they do. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she absolutely does not want Council President Olson or Councilmember Buckshnis removed from the council, stating that was one of the most ridiculous things she had ever heard. She watched the retreat and thought it was fun, it taught her a lot and it did not make any difference that someone’s campaign manager conducted the training. The public was able to watch it at a public meeting and it did not appear on Twitter like other campaign managers. She commended Ms. Fraley-Monillas for her devotion to Highway 99, noting she was also interested in Highway 99. She was proud of the council, commenting it was a pretty cool council considering its makeup. She has watched council meetings for years and acknowledged councilmembers and citizens have acted inappropriately. She urged councilmembers to start fresh and use what they learned at the retreat. Laurie Sorenson, Edmonds, a member of the Pilchuck Audubon Society and part of a 10-year habitat survey of the Edmonds Marsh, thanked City staff for helping establish special trails and observation areas in the marsh for the study which shows the City is concerned about dwindling bird populations as she is. No one knows how long it will take for the Department of Ecology to give a green light on the sale of the Unocal property to WSDOT. She wanted the City to be ready to act when the option to buy the property arises. She asked how citizens could help, whether it would be possible to have a resolution to indicate the council’s support for acquiring the property. She relayed there is huge public interest in acquiring the property for a park or nearshore wildlife sanctuary; more than 3,000 people signed a petition to the governor to get WSDOT to give the property to the Department of Fish and Wildlife to make it into wildlife habitat and park. With regard to the PROS Plan, she said nearly half of the over 100 public Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 4 hearing comments expressed concern about the marsh, wetland, natural spaces, watershed, climate issues, and environmental stewardship. Ms. Sorenson continued, one of the first steps should be to update the comprehensive plan to remove the Pt. Edwards ferry terminal. There is a lack detail regarding environmental stewardship. There is reference to the City’s climate action plan, but on the City’s webpage, it isn’t finished and addresses emissions and energy issues, not protecting fish and wildlife. The environmental crisis includes extinction issues in this region and she wanted to see more specific action items in the plan. The plan is flawed in that environmental stakeholders and young people were left out and the survey questions were biased and did not weigh the importance of irreplaceable environmental spaces like the marsh. The survey asked respondents to compare the marsh to a park where kids play; they are not the same. She hoped the council would carefully review the PROS Plan with regard to environmental stewardship. Although she appreciated the monumental effort of staff, the plan isn’t quite ready. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Council President Olson referred to Consent Agenda Item 12 and questions Mr. Reidy had emailed council that she had not had an opportunity to look into. She asked how time critical that issue was and whether it could be moved to next week’s consent agenda to give her time to follow up on his questions. Acting Public Works Director Rob English said he was not aware of a time issue. Council President Olson requested Item 6.12, Dedication of 15 Feet for 203rd St SW Right-of-Way adjacent to 20323 81st Ave W, be removed from the consent agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2022 2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM PETER GICHOHI 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. SEEK GRANT CONTRACT - 2022 SUMMER DAY CAMP 7. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPT OF COMMERCE GRANT CONTRACT – CIVIC PARK 8. MARKET, EDMONDS SPRINGFEST AND EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL EVENT CONTRACTS 9. JANUARY 20222 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. 2021 DISPOSED ASSETS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 5 11. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON THE PH 10 SEWER PROJECT 13. 2021 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT 14. ASH THICKENER DRIVE REBUILD PROJECT 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC ART PROJECT Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) is charged with advising and making recommendations to the mayor and council on issues pertaining to public art including gifts. The City’s gift policy outlines the process for public art donations; any donation over $5000 in value goes through the EAC process and is brought to city council with a public hearing followed by opportunity for approval. The Floretum Garden Club has a long and rich history of working with the City to create floral beauty in Edmonds. In 2021 the Floretum Garden Club approached the City about the possibility of making a significant donation of art in commemoration of the Club’s 100th anniversary in 2022. The Floretum Garden Club signed a MOU with the City in September 2021 regarding creation of an artwork on the Public Safety Complex site, and the MOU was modified in December 2021 to establish the final site for the artwork on the Public Safety Complex at the corner of Bell & 6th Avenue North, an area with low level landscaping. The EAC went through a publicly advertised call for artist and selected an artist to create a mosaic piece. The Floretum Garden Club and the artist have been working with staff for past eight months on the proposal. The garden club brought the proposed artwork to the EAC in February and the EAC recommended it move forward to city council for public hearing and consideration of approval of the artwork donation valued at $20,000. There are no other 3-D mosaic sculptures in the City. The EAC is excited about the project and feels it will be a great addition to Public Safety site. The EAC appreciates the Floretum Garden Club’s generosity and their willingness to work closely with City staff to ensure that this is a successful artwork for the City. Ms. Chapin introduced Jennifer Kuhns, a talented mosaic artist, who will present her proposal for the artwork on the corner of Bell & 6th Avenue North. Ms. Kuhns said because the artwork celebrates the centennial of the Floretum Garden Club, the proposal is a celebration of gardens, gardening, nature and the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature. The concept is three floral shapes; the council packet includes a rendering of the proposed piece. She displayed a mock-up of the shapes, explaining as someone walks around them, each petal will have different surface areas with different garden element and colors, a little like a treasure hunt. There will be three structures; she originally wanted to do one large structure, however, due to the 36” height limit, they designed three smaller structures which will be located to the left of the bench on the corner, a great spot for pedestrian, especially with the new park under construction. The artwork will also be visible from vehicles, appropriate for this area that has a fair amount of slow moving traffic. Ms. Kuhns continued, the artwork will have a lot of sparkle and color visible from vehicles as well as viewing the elements up close. It will be constructed from a marriage of mosaic and metal. She is collaborating with Abe Singer, a fabulous metal sculptor, who will create the structure and shape and she will apply the mosaic. The mosaic and metal are very durable. She mainly works in stained glass, a very weather resistant material, easy to clean and touchable with vibrant colors that won’t fade or peel. Any damage that occurs can be fixed. The piece will be located in an area of mondo grass which will remain Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 6 and accommodates people walking on it. She showed a sample of a petal to illustrate what the stained glass surface might look like, explaining it will reflect light including headlights at night. The piece will not be lit but will be bright on its own. She was very excited to be a part of the Edmonds art community and to put the artwork in the City. She displayed a mockup of the artwork, noting the exact location will be determined once the structures are made. The petals will vary in height to give it variety and represent a cluster of flowers popping out of the ground. Council President Olson thanked the artist, commenting these are very inspired and beautiful, commemorating such an exciting thing for the Floretum Garden Club and exciting for the City to have a monument like this. She was aware of the Floretum Garden Club disappointment regarding the size and had not wanted any of the pieces to be less than 36”, but she agreed with artist’s request for the size differentiation. She thanked the artist for their creativity and for making a difference in Edmonds through their artistry. She thanked the members of the Floretum Garden Club for everything they have done for the City over the last 100 years. Councilmember L. Johnson said, as a fellow gardener and someone who appreciated bright colors, she was excited about this artwork, particularly the treasure hunt aspect. She liked the idea of people noticing something new and different each time they looked at the pieces. Councilmember Buckshnis, a Floretum Garden Club member for over a decade, said she loves the club, recalling they did a great job working with the City on the Hazel Miller Plaza. She liked the three flowers and was excited and hopeful there would not be any vandalism and the artwork will remain shiny, exciting and wonderful to look at. Councilmember Chen thanked the artist Jennifer Kuhns for the 3-D aspect and the colors, and Abe Singer for the design, finding it a wonderful piece of artwork. He pointed out Edmonds is a large city, extending from Highway 99 to the water and from SR-104 to the north with many good locations for artwork. He asked how the decision was made regarding the location. Ms. Chapin answered the Floretum Garden Club has worked primarily in the downtown area and they specifically requested a site close to the downtown core. Councilmember Chen recognized the Floretum Garden Club had the right to request a location. He encouraged the art community to look to the Highway 99 area as well because as the population grows and development increases, their artwork could be even more visible in future. Ms. Chapin responded this is a concern of the EAC and they have had a lot of discussion about it. The lanterns elements on Highway 99 was a major project. She commented it was challenging to find appropriate sites. The Floretum Garden Club is considering about what they could do in other parts of the City. Councilmember Paine commented this glorious work was not just three flowers, it was more like nine due to the dimensions, colors and shapes. She was glad that it would be low because it would be visible to everyone and would have a sense of scale. She thanked the Floretum Garden Club for their gift, commenting it would look great in that location. She thanked the artists for their gift of time and talent and she looked forward to seeing more of their art in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the Floretum Garden Club for this generous donation that will add to the fabric of Edmonds as an arts community. She thanked the artist and fabricator and she looked forward to the installation, anticipating it will be a great piece for all seasons. Councilmember Tibbott said he also loved the design, noting when he looked at it in committee last week, he did not realize it was 3-D which will an exciting addition to the City. He thanked the Floretum Garden Club for all their work in the City, not just this art project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 7 Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said the artwork was beautiful, noting she was a mosaic artist herself. She asked if the piece would be assembled on site. She has sold many mosaic stained glass pieces over the years and described an experience where her custom design was mass produced without her approval. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, said she adores this piece of art, and thanked Jennifer Kuhns and Abe Singer. She looked forward to seeing the art, finding it a wonderful way honor the Floretum Garden Club’s 100th anniversary. She thanked Ms. Chapin for everything she does for the City and the council for their overwhelming support for this artwork. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the response to Councilmember Chen’s comment that there are no spaces in Highway 99 area, and expressed the hope that the City realizes that is a decision that is made, not to create space for art in the Highway 99 area. Hearing that as a reason why artwork cannot be placed on the Highway 99 corridor compounds previous inequitable land use decisions. As the City grabbles with inequity, the lack of spaces should be examined as a reason not to cite resources in an area. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE DONATION OF THE ARTWORK BY JENNIFER KUHNS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX SITE AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FROM THE FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC ART COLLECTION FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. Council President Olson said although this was the first time this has come to full council, it was presented to council committee last week. Councilmember Paine recalled the council has discussed not moving things forward the same night they are presented to council. As the council may receive additional comments, she suggested delaying a week and have approval scheduled on next week’s consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO PUT THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CIVIC PARK PUBLIC ART PROJECT Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) also works on public art projects and is charged with advising and making recommendations to the mayor and city council. In February 2020 a call to artists for Civic Park with a total artist budget of $90,000 was approved by city council for an integrated design project that included two contracts, 1) design work, and 2) final design specifications and fabrication. Tonight is an opportunity to look at the concept proposal developed by the artist, Clark Wiegman, who was selected for this project. The history of the selection process is included in the agenda memo. The artist will present the design proposal he developed during the design phase of the contract. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 8 Ms. Chapin continued, Mr. Wiegman has extensive public art experience and has worked in many communities on artwork that connects a unique site to the broader vision of the community. In the case of Civic Park, the site for art was specified by the landscape architect team. The main entry off 6th Avenue where there is a small plaza, restrooms and a large shade structure was designated as the focus for the artist in developing a conceptual design. Under the design contract, the artist participated in meetings with the park design team (Walker Macy and staff), a variety of citizens and community groups including meeting twice with the EAC and presenting to the Diversity Commission and Youth Commission. Two well-advertised Zoom meetings were held to look at designs and provide comments. Key takeaways from the meeting included positive comments about making a broader level connection to the local environment and the inclusion of a broader community, the use of vibrant color, and the eye-catching nature of the interplay between a suspended element and the wall graphics. In addition to meeting with community members, the artists also researched the site and its history in developing the conceptual design. Ms. Chapin continued, Mr. Wiegman presented his concept at the March EAC meeting where it was recommended to city council for approval. Under the public art process, the EAC recommends the conceptual design to council for approval with a public hearing; following the public hearing, council consideration of approval of the proposed design concept and authorization for the mayor to sign the fabrication contract with the artist for the remaining $72,000k. The next phase of the project is the design detail specification fabrication and installation of the artwork. This is an opportunity to hear from the artist about his concept proposal for the site at Civic Park. Clark Wiegman commented it has been an interesting process over the last four months, talking to people at various community groups, spending time in Edmonds and checking out the green infrastructure. He was impressive to find so many areas of natural preservation, something that deserves celebration and highlighting. He described the process of developing the proposed concept, Cascadia – a conceptual design for public artwork at Edmonds Civic Park. The past four months have included sorting through scope of work and defining artwork opportunities, establishing infrastructure needs, managing budgetary constraints, delineating a background research framework, figuring out community outreach strategies and developing a deeper understanding of the overall context. It was decided early on that the opportunity for greatest impact involved using the shade structure as an armature for a suspension and the restroom wall as a canvas for a super graphic artwork. Luminous iconic form, vibrant color and organic patterning within a larger architectural frame will harmonize these elements as a bold, cohesive aesthetic statement. Plaza entry ramp plantings that feature spring and summer blooming, fall color and winter interest varieties could reinforce a palette established by nearby art and architecture. Background research and community outreach informs an initial conceptual approach. This work draws on a range of online resources, books on local history, conversations with residents and business owners, several public meetings with stakeholder groups and numerous walks through Edmonds downtown cultural district, waterfront and parks. It has also involved introspection and culling of memories about the area gathered over the past 40 years when he first encountered Edmonds via the ferry after an extended Olympic Peninsula backcountry camping expedition. Given pandemic restrictions surrounding in-person, large group meetings, the ability to elicit early feedback has been somewhat limited. Since community outreach is a significant aspect of this project, he is trying to incorporate into the design development process a means for ongoing engagement. Several options exist for continuing community dialogue while collaboratively developing the artwork. One, simply a continuation of meeting with various individuals and groups, both in-person and online to elicit further input. Another involves the creation of a survey that could provide responses to project- specific questions. A third approach might be a community-based blog, podcast and/or website that could track progress, share photos, videos and field recordings and solicit suggestions for further investigation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 9 The overall intent is to create a sense of anticipation and excitement for the community to be able to assemble publicly and celebrate the end of a rather dark chapter of civic life. The answer to the riddle at this new park became apparent as he visited Edmonds numerous other parks, green spaces, streams, ponds and shoreline areas, revealing a deep green infrastructure that knits together the City’s biologic fabric. Of course, the other looming natural presence is Puget Sound. This relationship between land and water is an ongoing theme in his work and one he wants to explore further here. As a strategic promontory and large marsh land framed by dense conifer forest, the area was a favorite fishing and foraging area for various tribes. The fact that indigenous people inhabited the region for millennia before the arrival of white settlers should be cause for some introspection, particularly given the current imperiled stated of human civilization and the web of life upon which it rests. Reflecting on this deep sense of environmental stewardship is the root inspiration for his approach to this project, one that reflects not only a nostalgic past but a challenging present and a more hopeful future. What he initially described as a love letter to the Salish Sea is envisioned as a means to draw viewers into a material dialogue between form and shape, color and pattern, light and shadow, sound and silence, biota and habitat. In this multi-sensory discussion he is trying to strike a balance between iconic universality and locational uniqueness, particularly as it relates to Edmonds green infrastructure and vibrant downtown cultural district. The core lifeboat and seawall concept is reflective of these concerns as it invites viewers to contemplate their place within the natural world. Through the special relationship between an iconic boat and a luminous wall, he hoped to create a feeling of belonging to a larger bio region and to extend the gesture through ongoing community engagement to install a sense of caring for each other and our environs. He sees lifeboat as an archetypal form, an illustrious sculpture, multi-media suspension, an assemblage, a pattern container, a bright vessel, a luminescent shell, a floating totem, a beacon boat, an incandescent canoe, a vibrant kayak, a proverbial ark, a cedar dream, an urn, vase, envelope, stylus, quill, pen, brush, scribe, writing, rowing, flickering, flying, floating, drawing. A beautiful seawall that is a topographical map, a landscape painting, a meaningful mural, an expressionist canvas, a fantastic fresco, a scroll, terrain, an aerial view, a birds eye scan of watersheds, mountains, forests and a wonderous primordial natural world, writ as a luminous line in a letter, read around glowing embers of a warming hearth. Seawall serves as a luminous iconic way finder, a projection of a cognitive landscape, a satellite view of our bioregion, a mythical map of Cascadia, a meditation on a watery corner of the continent signifying a gathering place for families, friends and neighbors. Lifeboat can be seen as a cross-cultural universal symbol of human-powered water transport, a boat used recreationally or to carry cargo, a work research vessel, Brackett’s canoe, a Salish skiff, a Nordic clinker, a Polynesian pontoon, an Uro totora, a Neolithic dugout, an elegant sculptural form offering an optimally expansive surface for patterning. It is an invitation to the community to collaborate, to look around and find signs of life that surround them. Log and record what you see and love, flora and fauna, plants and animals, outside our windows, beneath or feet, in gardens and trees, shared sea and common sky. Using the shade structure and restroom as mounting surface, suspension armature and shelter from the elements, he will be able to protect the artwork and expand the materials palette a bit. Final graphics, resin coated fiberglass and wood, stainless steel, aluminum, special effects RGB LED lighting and sound work are all well within reach under these conditions. The advantages of using vinyl graphs include the potential for bright color and complex digital patterning, offering easy replication and replacement with vector files in cases of vandalism or other damage. This also applies to all other materials used in the project as everything will be replaceable, qualities that may be appreciated in the future at a busy recreation park. Lighting will play a crucial role in the realization of the artwork as it will create an overall site presence day and night. Preliminary lighting studies for spotlighting the artwork have been done. In addition to spotlights, on both lifeboat and seawall, there will be some sort of internal illumination providing structural highlights and ceiling protection as well as the potential for sound. He is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 10 currently looking at options involving programmable RGB LED gobos, LED image projectors and industrial MP3 players. The exact approach will be sorted out during design development along with vinyl graphics imagery for suspended and wall artwork. Other items requiring attention include finalizing color choices for shade structure and restroom and updates on planning suggestions, extending impact throughout the plaza with warm colored fall, winter interest and spring and summer flowering blooms in the entry planter. Further information about his work is available at Artifacture.org. Councilmember L. Johnson commented there was a lot to take in and she was still processing everything he said. She especially appreciated the use of light in the artwork and how it was tied into the Salish Sea. The thought put into this and tying it into the waterfront and Edmonds speaks volumes to his dedication. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for his work. She commented what some people do not recognize is that Edmonds is a coastal town. What Mr. Wiegman has done is phenomenal, will look great and she could hardly wait to see it come to fruition. She appreciated his realization that we are on tribal lands and that needs to be recognized and rejoiced in art. She thanked Ms. Chapin for her diligent work on this. Council President Olson said it was beautiful, noting the lighting makes a big difference. She loved that he used the side of the restroom for art, a space that otherwise would have been blank. Councilmember Paine thanked Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin, commenting this is gorgeous art that will be well loved by the community. She recognized the opportunity to work closely with community members, commenting it was great to see it come together including the recognition that we are on tribal land. She looked forward to seeing the art installation and having him involved in art elsewhere in the City. She commented art is like the air we breathe, we really need it. Mr. Wiegman commented a big part of the project going forward will be to elicit more response from the community. He wanted people to share what plants and animals they see in their daily life and that surrounds them in the community which will be woven into the piece. There will be a big mapping and collecting of imagery throughout the process, a fun opportunity to engage the community at deeper level. Councilmember Paine commented that will be important, recognizing this art will impact more than just Edmonds; it is an attractive park that will draw people from throughout the region. Councilmember Chen thanked Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin, commenting the presentation was very deep. He has heard several comments acknowledging we reside on indigenous land and that the artwork takes that into consideration. He asked if there had been any outreach to the indigenous community seeking their input. Mr. Wiegman said there has not been any formal outreach to the local indigenous community, but there have been concerns raised in the arts community, including by himself, about appropriation. He specifically created a piece that has more universal appeal in that regard; it is not utilizing any local Native American imagery. It is driven by what he sees as an appreciation for the natural world and respect for the land, water, air and environment. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Wiegman for participating in the 2-year artist selection process and thanked Ms. Chapin for orchestrating the process. She represented the council on the committee and appreciated the dedication of all the artists, particularly during the pandemic years. This site, the former junior high school athletic fields, is very special to her and many in the community. She recognized that he had not taken a literal representation of the site, but hoped his graphics would incorporate some of the nature elements such as the sphagnum moss, Pleistocene fossil record as this was an ancient lake bed, and Canadian geese who visited the site in more recent years. She appreciated the incorporation of a 3-D element and lighting as well as color and coordination with local plantings. She looked forward to the ongoing record of shared experiences. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PUT APPROVAL OF PROPOSED DESIGN CONCEPT CASCADIA BY CLARK WIEGMAN FOR CIVIC PARK PUBLIC ART PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FINAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND FABRICATION CONTRACT FOR $72,000 ON THE MARCH 22ND CONSENT AGENDA. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Al Snap expressed appreciation to Councilmember Chen for raising the question about whether there had been consultation with the people who invoked the land acknowledgement statement made at the beginning of the meeting to get a sense from them about some of the choices. He liked the overall design such as the bio-imaging and found the wall terrific. He was unclear whether the image would remain the same or if it will change with projection as different images were shown in the presentation. He liked the image that was more bold. He liked the patterning on the canoe to add a graphic element to the sculpture and it connected well with the picture of a starfish. When he first saw the design, the canoe reminded him of an canoe that an enthusiast today might paddle in the sound. He liked that the paddles were similar to a traditional canoe, recognizing the artists thoughts about not appropriating it to something, a good basis for thinking further about the actual shape. He suggested getting input on the size of the canoe, noting non- recreational canoes are a lot bigger. The presentation showed many canoes that are right-sized for the design. He wished the artist great success, commenting it was a great art piece to put at the entrance to the new Civic Park. Lesly Kaplan, Edmonds, EAC member, was thrilled Mr. Wiegman was selected and found his plan wonderful and inclusive. She liked his reference to the deep green infrastructure and that it takes into account millennia of indigenous people in the area before white settlers came which is all emmeshed in this broad environmental world. The art balances large, universal ideas with the Edmonds green infrastructure and vibrant culture. It is called lifeboat and seawall; she saw the boat as a thin barrier between the person and the water, riding the currents of life and the oars working together as the community, an incredible metaphor. The artist has engaged the community with this multisensory vision, allowing them to think about the land and environment. She recognized the many layers in the artwork and the patterning that invites one to look deeper. She was thrilled the artist has tried to reflect the amazing place of Edmonds and the community. The artwork is vibrant and deep and invited collaboration which he intends to continue. This will long be remembered as a wonderful piece of art that others will be jealous the City has. She hoped the council appreciated it as much as she did. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, thanked the artist, commenting people make beautiful objects and objects to make people think; he has definitely strived to make a piece of art that starts a broader conversation. She echoed Councilmember Chen’s comment that no formal outreach was made to indigenous groups and a previous commenter who stated it was an indigenous artwork, but it is not. She commented on the importance of indigenous people’s ability to tell their own story. She was concerned with the strength of imagery around the Salish Sea and the boat itself and the telling the story being one of the Edmonds community and not indigenous people and recommended seeking indigenous collaboration as the development of the artwork moves forward. With regard to the comments about deep green infrastructure and being guided by the plants and animals we see in our daily lives, she pointed out south Edmonds and the SR-99 corridor have zero acres of open space. With regard to his comments about visiting parks, she pointed out they are primarily concentrated in one area of the City. With no open space in south Edmonds or SR-99 corridor representing over 12,000 people, she questioned whether the artwork represented them. She questioned whether the artwork represented the City when most residents do not live with a waterfront. She suggested having a larger conversation about what it means to be the civic center and place for all. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 12 Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, commented the proposed art was gorgeous. She agreed with the point made about speaking with the Tulalip Tribe, recalling her years working with them as an outreach worker. She found them to be very nice people and suggested speaking with the chief. Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Chen said based on public comments and his own concerns, he wondered if Mr. Wiegman and Ms. Chapin would be willing to do more outreach to the indigenous people as well as get input from citizens in eastern Edmonds. Mr. Wiegman said outreach is built into the project, but did not anticipate further outreach changing the design or the approach. There has been a great deal of community outreach to get to this point. The framework is broad enough and he steered away from doing something specific to the central core. This is a universal theme that stretches well beyond Edmonds and speaks to the region. He welcomed more input and community engagement, but hoped that would not hold up a decision to move forward to meet the schedule for design, fabrication and installation. He summarized there is definitely opportunity for additional community input. Ms. Chapin said what is interesting about Mr. Wiegman’s approach is in going to final design specifications, he has built in a process for a lot more community outreach. The timing is good as it will be possible to meet and engage with people in person. There is a lot of opportunity for input in the next phase of the final design work, working within the framework presented tonight. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER CHEN ABSTAINING. 3. 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ONE HOUR AND CONTINUE IT TO MARCH 22ND IF IT EXTENDS OVER AN HOUR. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser, provided an introduction. Steve Duh, Conservation Techniques, provided an overview: • Planning Forward o The PROS Plan is a 6-year guide for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails, and recreation opportunities for the Edmonds community. o Plan adoption required to retain eligibility for state & federal grants • Relating to Citywide Plans Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 13 • RCO Plan Requirements o Inventory o Public involvement o Needs analysis o Levels of service analysis o Goals & objectives o Capital improvement program o Plan approval (6-year cycles) • Community Engagement o Community Survey ▪ Total responses: 1,958 - Random-sample mail: 501 (20%) - Online community-wide: 1,457 o 2 Virtual Public Meetings ▪ ~ 60 Attendees participated o Website / Social Media ▪ Ongoing ▪ Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish o Events & Tabling ▪ Uptown Market Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 14 o 8 Planning Board sessions ▪ Scope of work review: Jan 27th ▪ Work session: May 26th ▪ Update and Goals: Nov 10th ▪ Plan overview: Jan 12th ▪ Public hearing: Jan 26th ▪ Subcommittee session: Feb 3rd ▪ Recommendation Review: Feb 9th ▪ Public hearing: Feb 23rd o City Council sessions ▪ Study session: Feb 1st ▪ Capital List (Parks & PW Committee): Mar 8th ▪ Public Hearing • Community Engagement • Community Feedback o ~2,000 engaged respondents o 99% feel parks and recreation is essential or important o 81% visit Edmonds parks at least a couple times per month o Priority improvements to park system ▪ Connect gaps in the trail system & expand trail connections ▪ Improve or upgrade existing parks and amenities ▪ Buy more conservation & open space lands ▪ Renovate or replace the pool ▪ Community events, such as outdoor movies and summer concerts • Draft Plan Revisions o Inserted new goal and set of objectives related to climate change/environment o Expanded and clarified goal and objectives related to diversity, equity & inclusion o Inserted content to emphasize community partners and stewards o Expanded content about Underwater Dive Park, Sno-Isle Edmonds Library, Cascadia Art Museum and Edmonds Marsh • Key Recommendations o Acquisitions to fill gaps and for conservation ▪ Secure additional parkland in south and southeast Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 15 ▪ Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors) o Parks Development and Upgrades ▪ Playground replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park &Yost Memorial Park ▪ Add amenities to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park & Pine Street Park o Trail and Bikeway Connections ▪ Acquire easements & rights-of-way for trail connections o Yost Pool Replacement ▪ Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool o ADA and Accessibility Enhancements ▪ Remove barriers and improve universal access to and within parks, natural areas and trails o User Convenience Improvements ▪ Upgrade or replace restrooms; improve signage & wayfinding • Next Steps o City council review & approval (March 22, tentative) Ms. Feser reviewed the 2022 PROS Plan Planning Board and Staff Revisions Table (Attachment 4) organized by item and subject matter, revision number, info/current content/proposed revision, and PROS Plan Revision. The table reflects notable revisions which are incorporated into the PROS Plan version #6 as provided to council for their review and consideration for approval. The matrix identified revisions (in red) considered and suggested by Planning Board as part of their review and approved with their recommendation to council, and items (in blue) that are staff/consultant revision recommendations to the council. She highlighted substantial changes including the addition of Goal 6 to address environmental stewardship, sustainability and climate change; recognizing the Underwater Dive Park; language added regarding community stewardship, recognition of the marsh restoration plan, recognition of community partnerships; additions of tidelands to the inventory; and the possibility of bringing Southwest County Park into the City’s system. She summarized the table demonstrates how public comment has been addressed in the current version of the PROS Plan. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the hard work and long hours on the PROS Plan and the efforts to revise and improve it via public input. Although he was pleased about plans to acquire land to fill gaps in the southeast part of the City, he asked if there was a specific timeline. Ms. Feser answered the CIP listed in the first draft of the PROS Plan identified projects and a timeline for the three proposed acquisitions. Property acquisition can be challenging and is often opportunity-based. When she took the capital program to the PPW Committee last week, the members preferred including a project list with a dollar amount for each project and not identifying expenditures over the six years which is acceptable to RCO. The list included in the PROS Plan is in alphabetical order by category and is not prioritized. Every year during the budget process, that lists informs the capital program. Staff is constantly looking and talking to property owners about potential purchases. To remedy the current gap, the priority is researching the south and southeast areas. If donations come up or partnerships arise outside of those areas, they will also be considered as well as waiting for the Unocal property to go on the market. Councilmember Chen recalled comments that ADA was also a priority. He has toured a few parks including Yost, Seaview and Mathay Ballinger where he noticed some small projects. A person with disabilities cannot wait for 6 years for the City to fix problem. He provided examples in Yost Park where a ADA portable restroom cannot be accessed by a wheelchair due to a step as well as another portable restroom by the racquetball court that was not ADA accessible and suggested swapping those facilities. Ms. Feser answered small ADA projects can be completed within the Parks maintenance budget and also within the citywide annual allocation of renovations. More than 20 projects have been identified from the PROS Plan and she was pleased to announce the issues with the portable restrooms at Yost Park were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 16 addressed two weeks ago. Councilmember Chen pointed out the ADA access at Mathay Ballinger Park could be solved by removing the ramp. Council President Olson thanked everyone involved, recognizing it has been a monumental undertaking by the Parks director, staff, Mr. Duh, the Planning Board, and an unbelievable number of citizens who aided in the process. She referred to the survey in the presentation and the statistical significance of the feedback from the random generated surveys as well as that the surveys from at-will contributors mirrored those results. She was glad to see the addition of Goal 6 in the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding environmental stewardship. She recalled a staff member said you don’t crowdsource safety; likewise, you don’t crowdsource interest in environmental stewardship; it has to be a given and something that happens alongside other things the City is pursuing. She appreciated that recognition and hoped there would be a similar evaluation process of the input at the public hearing including any additional changes. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had never had a packet this complete in 12 years. She still had a lot of issues with the plan and recommended sharpening our pencils. There is no action plan like the 2016 format. Goals and objectives are great but without an action plan, councilmembers have no way of assessing what has been done. For example, she would like to see what has been accomplished between 2016 and now. She asked if the survey was scientific, recalling it was done via Survey Monkey. Mr. Duh explained the 2500 surveys mailed to a random sample of the community, including multifamily and single family residents, was a statistically valid sample and there was a 20% response rate which was a substantial response. As Council President Olson mentioned, the responses from that were the baseline that the broader online version added to and provided a wider sample that was consistent with the statistically valid random sample. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Survey Money was not a scientific study, someone with 12 devices could put in 12 different comments. Mr. Duh said it was tracked for IP addresses. Councilmember Buckshnis said there are a lot of older people and scientists who do not fill out surveys. She noted some people were upset because they did not fill out the survey. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not understand why nearby regional parks were not included and why the City did not have more ILAs such as with Mountlake Terrace for Lake Ballinger Park, Lynnwood for Gold Park, or Snohomish County for Esperance Park or Southwest County Park. She agreed with purchasing open space in other areas of the City. Ms. Feser answered the City has ILAs with Lynnwood for Lyndale and Meadowdale Parks and can explore options with Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County. There is an objective that encourages relationships for shared facilities with neighboring jurisdictions and shared resources is definitely something to explore. She noted people do not stop at an arbitrary line if a park is in another city; people use parks that are convenient to them as evidenced by people who come from throughout the region to the City’s waterfront parks. Mountlake Terrace has a master plan for the Lake Ballinger Park and are making improvements on the east side. The west side that abuts Edmonds and the interurban Trail is early in the design phase and there is opportunity for conversations about partnership opportunities. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did a white paper for the Planning Board about goals, objectives and action plan that somehow got lost but has since been found that she will share with Ms. Feser. Councilmember Tibbott said he has asked if there was a way to identify parks where the City has ILAs such as Meadowdale playfields; many people are interested in playfields and fields are a huge part of equity and an inclusive resource for families. He observed Lake Ballinger was not listed as open space, but the map shows a line going through the lake and around the island that includes the shoreline. He wondered if it would be appropriate to include that as open space because a portion of the lake is in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 17 Edmonds. With regard to Southwest County Park, he said it would be worthwhile to find out what a transfer of ownership or acquisition would involve. Some citizen volunteer groups are eager to be involved in improving the park. That park would instantly increase the open space in the City. Ms. Feser asked Mr. Duh to address how open water would be included in the PROS Plan, noting Mr. Duh also did Mountlake Terrace’s PROS Plan so he is aware of their facilities. Mr. Duh agreed the Edmonds city limits includes about 1/3 of Lake Ballinger. If the council wanted to incorporate that water area, he recommended noting it as aquatic open space and not terrestrial space that could be developed so it is clear it is additional water acreage versus land that could potentially be developed as playgrounds or fields. Councilmember Paine asked if having aquatic open space would dilute the amount of acreage for park land. Mr. Duh suggested non-terrestrial acreage not be counted as open space for the purpose of calculating levels of service, advising that another line item could be created. Councilmember Paine asked if that would apply to other areas where there could not be a built environment or active recreation such as the Edmonds Marsh where a lot of it would not be available for public use. Mr. Duh said the Edmonds Marsh is counted as open space because the public can walk or view a portion of it and experience its wild nature. The marsh does include wetlands but it is currently counted as terrestrial upland. Council President Olson recalled that was an issue with the Dive Park and asked if that would be annotated in a similar manner. Mr. Duh said the Underwater Dive Park is not currently included in the calculation of level of service for open space. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Al Snap expressed a great deal of appreciation to Ms. Feser and Mr. Duh and others who worked on this amazing plan. It covers a great deal and is evolving toward a final draft. He thanked them for the maps which he found very helpful in understanding the different elements. He like seeing what had been added since the version he previous looked at and was glad there was more than a line item mention of the marsh. He was glad about the ADA and equity and inclusion elements, and was surprised there was nothing about environmental stewardship and climate change. The goals and objectives are fairly general. He would like the council to incorporate comments received and include either an action plan or priorities. A good criteria to use in prioritization would be to focus on what is widely used by the community such as Yost Park, Yost Pool, and City Park. He was glad the momentum created by those passionate about supporting and developing the Edmonds Marsh would be more fully represented in the plan. That is a huge unique resource, a habitat unlike any other, as well as a resource as a teaching tool. He was also glad to see the acquisition of Unocal in the plan. He hoped trails would be expanded, but also respect natural habitat. More important that Southwest County Park, would be the acquisition of Perrinville Woods. Greg Ferguson said each council meeting begins with a statement acknowledging the original inhabitants of Edmonds; that statement should have real world meaning. Federal courts have forced very reluctant state and local governments to honor tribal treaty fishing rights as well as upheld the concept that without fish, those rights are meaningless. Three of the four streams that should be accessible to salmon in Edmonds are blocked; the flows of Perrinville, Willow and Shellabarger Creeks are diverted into pipes. One of the ways to live up to legal and moral obligations to original inhabitants is to bring salmon back to those streams and restore watershed and convert the Edmonds Marsh back into a functioning saltwater estuary. Parks can play an important role in doing that. Next, losing the Unocal property to development will be tragedy for generations to come. Mayor Nelson, many councilmembers and Parks agree with this, but there needs to be a plan for the property. The first step in acquiring funds to buy it is to have a plan. There is a lot of money available throughout the region, for example the recent Save Our Sounds bill Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 18 allocates $50 million/year for Puget Sound recovery. He did not want the City to lose that property for lack of preparedness, noting it could become available at any time. The original PROS Plan did not address multiple environmental issues such as greenhouse gas reduction, halting streambank failures, complete marsh restoration and tree planting were not included. To Ms. Feser’s credit, many are now referenced in PROS Plan goal statements. However, this should not happen again; there need to be mechanisms in place to ensure City government planning documents and City operations themselves include the environment as an important goal. The community’s strong environmental ethic needs to be reflected by City government. Bill Derry, Edmonds, representing Pilchuck Audubon Society, spoke in support of the PROS Plan with requests for revisions. He commended Ms. Feser, staff and the consultant for their efforts. First the Edmonds Marsh is a regional asset and important to birds, salmon and people. It should have a higher priority within the City. The master plan for the marsh and estuary restoration should be accelerated in the 6-year CIP. The Unocal property should be acquired when available with appropriate precautions for contaminated property. Substantial funding from state and federal sources is available for this project. He characterized the PROS Plan as a modest or cautious plan; even if full implemented, Edmonds will still be far below the national average for acreage of city-owned parks for comparable sized cities, particularly for areas outside the bowl. The plan does not address the shortage of parks in the northern end of Edmonds. The recommendations in the plan are largely based on a survey of city residents; the language of the survey was biased in favor of active recreation projects and created unnecessary conflicts between active recreation projects and environmental or open space projects. This conflict is unnecessary because projects can be funded with different sources of money. There are many funding sources for salmon recovery and estuary restoration. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said we are not one Edmonds; one Edmonds cannot be bought with signs or words in a plan espousing equity but without actions of equity in the CFP. The revised CFP includes almost $40 million of investments in downtown and less than $10 million in unserved areas in south Edmonds and SR-99. These areas have a greater population than downtown and include the commercial center of the City and have less than 1/3-1/12 of the resources of other areas of the City. We cannot be one Edmonds when our tax dollars predominantly go to one neighborhood. When will the City realize that drawing red lines around areas of investment is the same as drawing red lines around areas that are not being invested in. Whatever the intent, the function of the Creative District is a legacy that the City and council should question. We cannot be one Edmonds when the entrenched interest of a single group is valued above meeting the needs of all residents. There is a clear service gap in south Edmonds and SR- 99; when buying and expanding the marsh towards Woodway was ranked with other park investments, it was identified as the lowest and second lowest priority by the online and mail-in surveys respectively. Buying additional parks for conservation and open space was ranked above by both surveys and when participants at the second community meeting were asked what communities should be prioritized for open space, 81% prioritized Highway 99 and southeast Edmonds and 15% prioritized downtown. Ms. Seitz continued, over 2,000 people participated in the PROS Plan outreach that was designed to be inclusive. The lobbying councilmembers are hearing tonight is not inclusive and not representative. The people speaking now are those who understand power and are served by it. The City is prioritizing fish above the healthy outcomes of its residents. Lake Ballinger is the only fresh water body in the city that is gradient accessible to chinook, exceeding the fish resources of any other streams on the western side of the city. There is no reason that comprehensive plan and environmental goals could not be achieved there. She asked the council a fundamental question, what is worse, the 2016 PROS Plan that targeted feedback opportunities to the bowl at the expense of all other areas of the city, or the 2022 PROS Plan that sought and received feedback from across the City but did not value it when making line item funding decisions. She has done the research and given the numbers; the disparities across the City are evident. To become Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 19 one Edmonds, the City needs to turn the words of equity into action. Only by valuing all residents of the City with resources where they live can the City ever become one Edmonds. Liz Morris, Friends of Edmonds Library, an independent non-profit that has promoted the critical role of the Edmonds library in the community for over 40 years, advocated for explicit inclusion of the Edmonds Library and Plaza in the final PROS Plan. Members of the Friends have advocated for several years to Parks staff to remove the obsolete book drop at the north entry of the Edmonds library facing Main Street. It has been out of commission for over a decade with visible rust and shabby siding. It does not convey the level of care the library deserves as an inclusive and prominent space of community development. They partnered with the Edmonds Arts Commission several years ago to articulate a vision for redesigning the library entrance with public art and have held a line item in their budget to contribute to this project for over five years. The City’s 2020 adopted budget included $62,000 for public art installation at the library. This allocation supported a stated council priority to expand the arts for economic development. In early 2020 the EAC drafted a request for proposals to identify an artist to create the site specific commission for the library which was approved by council. The RFP stated, “The removal of the obsolete book drop structure is opening up possibilities to commission this artwork.” Ms. Morris continued, at the time they were encouraged that the RFP and artist selection would provide an enforcement function for removal of the book drop but COVID hit and priorities necessarily shifted. They are fully aware of and sympathetic to the many constraints and competing priorities that City staff and councilmembers have faced during COVID-19 and are deeply grateful for the time, dedication and leadership of City staff who have kept the community moving forward in a very difficult time. They understand there are over 40 parks maintenance projects to be done with limited labor and resource capacity. They also believe what is made visible is valuable which is why they would like to have the work at the library explicitly addressed in the PROS Plan, particularly given the City’s articulated commitments for this. She respectful requested that the removal of the obsolete book drop be incorporated in the final PROS Plan as a maintenance consideration for the Edmonds library and plaza and also requested the final plan include the installation of site-specific artwork as a capital improvement and planning opportunity. Filo Calvin spoke in support of Edmonds securing Southwest County Park for historical, environmental and safety reasons. Southwest County Park in the largest park in Edmonds at 117 acres, over twice the size of Yost Park. It was originally used as a hunting and fishing ground for the Southern Salish Indians and has archeologic artifacts within a few hundred yards of the park border. It was purchased by the University of Washington in 1861 who owned it for over a century and used for teaching medicinal plants. While owned by the UW, it was one of the oldest logging camps in the entire United States. In 1862 for instance, 1/3 of the population of Snohomish County worked harvesting timber from that park. The railway line was put through the park and was used from 1906 to 1916 and one of the first teams of donkeys was brought to the park in the early 1900s. When the county bought the land from the UW in 1971, they promised to maintain trails, remove litter and make the park friendly and safe for visitors. At the park entrance, the only sign shows trails on the south side of Olympic View which account for less than 20% of the five miles of trails throughout the park. Mr. Calvin continued, Snohomish County’s website has a map that omits all historical trails and only includes the trail immediately adjacent to Olympic View Drive despite extensive trails throughout the park which appears on All Trails, Google Maps and other social networking sites. Trash is not collected and the only historical documentation of the park was put up by Eagle Scouts and has photos of logging camps actually located in Michigan. Snohomish County has been aware of the inaccuracy of the trail maps for over two years and has no plans to update them or to document the history of the park. With regard to the environment, the park has remnants of old growth forest and is home to owls, coyotes and the occasional bear. Perrinville Creek crosses through the park and extensive erosion in the park has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 20 contributed to flooding of houses on Talbot Road. The construction of concrete structures and pollution from runoff have removed salmon from Perrinville Creek. The City set aside funds to restore salmon to Perrinville Creek, but it is unlikely to be able to do so without fixing some of the issues affecting the creek itself as it crosses through the park. Snohomish County has done nothing to fix the problems, removing invasive species has been done by volunteers, and there is litter throughout the park. With regard to crime and safety, visitors regularly get lost in the park and several times a week he sees people who need to be directed back to the parking. Neither the EMTs nor police know the trails in the park. Sometimes the park is used for drug deals, graffiti and vandalism and the county has done nothing regarding these issues. At 9:36 p.m., Mayor Nelson observed this item began at 8:36 p.m. and based on that time, he suggested taking one more comment before continuing the hearing to the next meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the vote was on the length of the public hearing which opened at 9:17 p.m. or if it was on the item itself. She understood it to be the public hearing. Council President Olson suggested the council revote; her intent was the agenda item which was set for 60 minutes but she did not use those words in her motion to provide that clarification. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TAKE ONE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 22ND. Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, commenting councilmembers are here and prepared and there are people ready to comment, many of whom probably understood it the same way she did, that there would be an hour worth of comments. She supported honoring that and continuing to hear from the public. Councilmember Paine observed there were 10 additional people waiting to comment and it would be helpful to hear from them tonight. She did not support the motion. WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AMENDED THE MOTION TO TAKE 10 MORE COMMENTS. Council President Olson noted there are items on the agenda under Council Business that are time critical so unless the council wanted to be here until midnight, the public hearing will need to be continued unless there are just ten more comments. Councilmember L. Johnson spoke against the motion, pointing out people are here and prepared; the fact that there is a lot on the agenda is on the council. The public showed up to speak and deserve an opportunity to speak. If the council needs to do its business on another day that could be considered, but the council needs to finish the public hearing regardless of whether there were only ten more people to speak. Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson, noting as the council has been talking, other members of the public have raised their hands to speak. It would be most helpful and advantageous to have the public hearing all done at once. Councilmember Chen said although he understand the importance of the public hearing, he also understood there were some very critical items on the agenda, including revising the meeting format. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 21 COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO MOVE UP THE ITEM REGARDING MEETING FORMAT AND THEN CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis said she also interpreted that the public hearing aspect would be an hour which would have ended at 10:17 p.m. She supported allowing an hour, noting the council has already wasted five minutes talking about it. Council President Olson relayed although she was not able to reach all members of the public, she email key players who have made comments about the PROS Plan about her plans to limit comments tonight because she knew he would be a very long public hearing. Councilmember Paine commented now that this meeting belong to the entire council, sending out an email seemed very inappropriate. Council President Olson said she did not send it during the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO STICK TO ORIGINAL TIMELINE OF ONE HOUR, AND THE CUT OFF TIME WOULD BE 10:17. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON NO. A roll call vote began on the motion but was interrupted. Council President Olson requested clarification, advising the 10:17 time did not reflect the original one hour. The motion was one hour total. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the public hearing began at 9:17 p.m. which means it would have ended at 10:17 p.m. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested the motion be restated and the council vote again because that was not clear. Council President Olson raised a point of order, suggesting the motion be restated and councilmembers have an opportunity to change their vote. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Mayor Nelson restated the motion, to extend for one hour for public hearing testimony. Council President Olson raised a point of clarification, asking if that would be until 10:17 p.m. Mayor Nelson clarified it would be one hour of public testimony, starting when public testimony began. Council President Olson added that was 9:17 p.m. Councilmember L. Johnson offered to amend the motion, for the public hearing portion to be a full hour and to subtract the council’s discussion from that time. Councilmember Chen said his original proposal was to extend the public hearing until 10:17 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Marjorie Ziff, Edmonds, thanked the City for the hard work putting together this plan. She attended a symposium today with over 600 people from around the world who came together with an urgent, deep Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 22 desire to halt or significant slow the degradation of the planet’s natural world. Tears were shed; parents told stories of how they went back to their hometowns where they made life-changing memories exploring the woods or watershed, only to find these wild areas completely gone, replaced by roads and buildings. One father was quite emotional when he shared there is nothing left to show his son about how he thrived in the woods. These hometown stories struck her deeply as she thought about Edmonds, this meeting and what hangs in the balance. She thanked the City for keeping protection of open spaces a high priority, spaces she refers to as wild spaces. Edmonds is so fortunate to have the Edmonds Marsh Estuary, a gem and vital habitat for wildlife and the exciting potential she assumed would happen when Edmonds acquires and makes use of the Unocal property. After reading the draft PROS Plan, she respectfully suggested there were details about the marsh and other wild spaces that needed to be spelled out. For example, there is nothing written about the salmon habitat restoration as a high priority; it would be wonderful to see detailed plans about creating daylight conditions for salmon spawning and that would be true about all other endangered watershed areas including Southwest County Park. She wanted her children’s children to come back to Edmonds with pride and joy in the way the wild spaces have been valued and protected. She hoped the City could move forward with urgency due to the high priority. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Chen that it was beginning to look like a park at Lake Ballinger but there was not even close to enough equipment to satisfy the number of children that would be in that area when large complexes were built on Highway 99. Annexing Esperance is an opportunity and will provide tax dollars to Edmonds. With regard to Yost Park, she read that maintenance on the trails would not be addressed for 4-5 years. If the City wanted to build a pool, she suggested it be indoor so it could be used year round. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, said she has been speaking to the council for nearly 40 years about the Edmonds Marsh. She wanted children to experience trees, marshes, bushes, garter snakes and native plants and open space although she felt the term open space was meaningless. She has spent the last 10 years getting the demonstration garden going and it was replanted last weekend. She commented on the importance of Skunk Cabbage. The natural world is important for all children and adults and not based on where they live. She wanted to ensure the language was written properly, the marsh is not being developed, it is being restored to repair the damage done over the years when the oil tanks were constructed and polluted the area and stuff was dumped in the creeks during the 1950s. Constructing more buildings will not correct that and will not provide places for children to play. She summarized the importance of the natural environment. Selena Bolotin, Edmonds, thanked the Planning Board for formally recommending the city council consider the acquisition of Southwest County Park with additional research of impacts. Although mentioned only briefly in the review of the revision table, this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Planning Board and was a separate recommendation from the Planning Board’s recommendations on the PROS Plan. City acquisition of the park is also in full alignment with the PROS Plan key recommendation #2, open space and conservation acquisitions. It was her understanding Snohomish County stands ready to transfer the park to Edmonds so there was no purchase price. Acquiring the 120 acre forest would increase Edmonds’ overall park acreage of 230 acres by 50%. Within the open space category, land would increase from 76 to almost 200 acres. County records for 2019-2021 show park expenses average $9700/year with specific line items for staffing. Although the county’s budget has resulted in the current level of neglect, this data also shows that maintenance of this undeveloped park would be minimal compared to other developed parks in the Edmonds system. Ms. Bolotin was in favor of additional parks in southeast Edmonds as well as saw no difference in the argument about cost and liability that has been applied to Southwest County Park acquisition in comparison to new park areas which would also require maintenance expenses, liability considerations and general park staffing increases. A stepped plan over several years to improve useability of Southwest Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 23 County Park can be budgeted reasonably. She referred to her previous comments about how park acquisition meets many of the goals outlined in the PROS Plan under the open space category; she is now convinced that the true transformational value of owning Southwest County Park would be a City park administration attention shift. The PROS Plan lists under community stewardship current locations that have volunteer and stewardship activities; Southwest County Park is not included because it is not in the portfolio. She asked that the City give Southwest County Park legitimacy as an asset and make it visible. Bernie Bush said he was encouraged about the extensive dialogue and community involvement around conservation and restoration needs, recognizing it would take years before Edmonds had the opportunity to reclaim and restore the marsh estuary adjoining Edmonds park and marina beach. The City has the time to be well prepared when the opportunity presents itself to restore and develop the Edmonds Marsh into a functional wetland and estuary instead of a marsh. The estuary and marsh are hugely important for conservation, they absorb more carbon dioxide than forests and of course there are the salmon, etc. To configure the adjoining marina beach, dog park and add restrooms and other facilities. The Edmonds Marsh and marina beach restoration and redevelopment will offer many more recreational and educational opportunities for the community and the county. He urged the City to include specific action items and timeframes in the PROS Plan when appropriate. Obviously it is an overarching plan but there must be ways to be more specific rather than TBD. Mr. Bush continued, the City must not waste the time we have; the extensive planning to design and fund this restoration and development is essential. The City will not be able to convince federal or state governments, private industry or non-profits to provide funds in support of this project without a viable, well-documented. There are many Edmonds volunteers including scientists and ecologists, ready to offer their expertise. The City needs to utilize their energy and knowledge now to help put a convincing design package together and engage potential funders. Now is the time to act; while time is still on our side. He urged the council to be proactive and utilize the skills of knowledgeable residents. Staff can create project work groups to sort through the multitude of issues that need to be addressed. It is the right thing for the community, the salmon and a variety of wildlife and will help save Puget Sound from the ravages of stormwater, wastewater and surface water runoff. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, thanked Ms. Feser and the parks department for their continued work on the PROS Plan, noting the summary of changes was very helpful. She also thanked councilmembers for their work wading through the huge amount of public comment. She was relieved the council extended the hearing time because she was concerned about people going to the trouble of preparing their comments and attending the meeting and not being able to speak. As the final version of the PROS Plan is being prepared, she was hopeful protection of the natural environment would be highlighted. Protecting the environment benefits all citizens wherever they live and should not be considered a neighborhood project competing with other neighborhoods. The City needs additional park land and she was glad to see land acquisition in the plan, but the council needs to support efforts to purchase environmentally significant property such as the Perrinville Woods. Purchasing land that protects watersheds and that will sequester carbon in the few remaining wooded areas has much broader impact than project such as an arts corridor. The City’s finances are in good health and she supported using resources to benefit the health of the planet and citizens. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said when she first looked at the 232 page PROS Plan, she wondered how Ms. Feser was getting any time to sleep. She gave kudos to Ms. Feser and everyone who worked on getting the plan to the point it is now and to councilmembers as they begin determining how it needs to be tweaked. She was pleased to see the land conservation part [connection lost]. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 24 Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the addition of goal 6 and the language that went with it as well as the focus on environmental stewardship. He recommended developing a restoration plan for Edmonds Marsh and explicit statements about enhancing natural amenities at playfields such as adding native plants and vegetation and labeling them to enhance people’s thinking about environmental stewardship. He wondered if the plan could acknowledge sponsoring a Highway 99 corridor green space panel to get citizens who live in that area together to help advise on greening that part of the City. He questioned how the plan would include recommendations from the ongoing salmon safe city review as they may develop recommendations that would impact how the City thinks about its parks, particularly the more natural areas. How will the plan reduce runoff and damage? How much carbon reduction will the plan produce? How can the plan help maintain residential community green spaces such as the Emerald Hill Natural Area and Trail that the citizens of Emerald Hills maintain? Those green spaces need to be recognized and helped. Kathleen Sears continued her comment, relaying her major concern was with the open spaces section. The open space area with the greatest future potential is the Edmonds Marsh. She urged the council and everyone to think bigger and not just think of it as a neighborhood park or just dumping money into downtown Edmonds. Last fall she visited Carkeek Park in north Seattle to see the wonderous spectacle of salmon returning up Pipers Creek to spawn. She urged those who had not seen that to make it a high priority this fall and take their children, grandchildren, friends, etc. Edmonds has the potential to have that. As the PROS Plan outlines the parks department’s goals and objectives she eagerly scanned to see how restoration of the Edmonds Marsh estuary was described and prioritized. Although the wetland section briefly mentions the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek continues to be a high priority for protection and restoration efforts, she was disappointed there was no mention of returning salmon or improving the health of Puget Sound. Ms. Sears continued, the wetland section also mentions that acquisition of the Unocal property should be considered; however, it does not mention anything about supporting the return of salmon. She requested that be added to revised goals #11 and 12 and when council is deliberating, they focus on that as the reason to move forward with the marsh. The marsh is the only wildlife preserve in Edmonds and one of the few remaining pocket estuaries in Puget Sound and has unique needs and possibilities. When the wildlife sanctuary if restored and connected to the recreation area, it can contain nature trails, pedestrian bridges and boardwalks as well as stations for bird and nature viewing including migrating salmon. She imagined every child in the Edmonds School District having the ability to go to a place in Edmonds to see salmon returning to spawn, a truly remarkable sight. When visitors come from anywhere in the world to visit her in Edmonds, she takes them to the Ballard Locks which has something for everyone. Mikael Ohman, Edmonds, referred to Filo Calvin’s comments about the history and historical importance of Southwest County Park and Serena Bolotin’s comments about how the park fits into the PROS Plan priorities. This park was deeded by UW to Snohomish County in 1972 so the county has been managing the park for 50 years and they have done little with it in that time. The park is overgrown with invasive plants, Perrinville Creek is eroding, and there is no longer a salmon run. He referred to the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If Edmonds does not take over the park and own its destiny, the county will just do more of the same and not spend any money on it. Snohomish County has 120 other parks, 12,000 acres where they put their money and will not put it into an affluent area like Edmonds when other areas need it more. If Edmonds wants to take responsibility for the park, maintain and improve it, the City needs to take ownership of it. He suggested changing the name of Southwest County Park to something related to the Tulalip Tribe. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing would be continued to next week’s meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 25 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF COUNCIL BUSINESS AGENDA ITEMS AND START WITH ITEM 8.4, POSTPONE 8.3 TO A FUTURE DATE AND DO ITEMS 8.2 AND 8.1. Councilmember Paine supported leaving the agenda as is as there is City business first followed by council business which she felt was more appropriate. She did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 4. FORMALIZE THE TRANSITION TO HYBRID FORMAT FOR REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD AN IN-PERSON ELEMENT TO THE VIRTUAL MEETINGS WHICH THE GOVERNOR’S ORDINANCE ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN AT THE DISCRETION AND VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE THAT A PERMANENT ADDITION FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROCEED WITH A HYBRID MODEL FOR MEETINGS, ADDING AN IN-PERSON ELEMENT NEXT WEEK. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled a number things needed to occur in order to do this so it seemed appropriate to hear from City staff whether they were prepared to do this in way that would be successful. Council President Olson said this was coordinated earlier today via email. She asked Administrative Services Director Dave Turley or City Attorney Jeff Taraday to comment. Mr. Taraday said having read those emails, he was under the impression that staff was ready to have hybrid meetings beginning next week. Mr. Turley referred to the question whether staff was ready to support hybrid meetings from a technology standpoint, relaying everything related to technology would be in place next Tuesday. Councilmember Paine asked for an update regarding what the practice will be for executive sessions. Councilmember L. Johnson said the technology aspect was her biggest concern, but she echoed Councilmember Paine’s questions about executive session. She wanted to ensure that things would run as smoothly as possible and had real concerns with Zoom bombing that had been experienced in the past and ensuring that was avoided. Council President Olson said based on comments she summarized and emailed for council information, it was unanimous that the council would not be able to see the faces of people calling in on Zoom or phones due to the danger of Zoom bombing and that wasn’t a tradeoff people were willing to make. Council will be able to see people making in-person comments, but those utilizing the virtual option will not have their cameras enabled. GIS Analyst Dave Rohde has a plan for how executive sessions will handled. They will either be virtual or in person and instructions will be provided prior to the meeting, but that is not something that affects the public. The additional staff necessary is available to handle hybrid meetings. The HR Director sent out an email today regarding how mask mandates, public spacing and the other four questions that were raised at the last meeting would be addressed. The City will adhere to the state and Snohomish County guidelines, which will provide flexibility if things change. The council may want to take an official vote on that tonight. Councilmember Paine offered a suggestion proposed by Mr. Turley that executive sessions could be held on Tuesdays but they did not have to be immediately preceding a council meeting, it could be in the late Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 26 afternoon. That would require starting a meeting to announce the council was going into and then exiting the executive session but it provided an option to do executive sessions virtually. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Council President Olson for her emails addressing this. She recommended committee night be excluded from the hybrid format. Council President Olson said she will excluded committee night and have that handled separately. Mr. Taraday had some illuminating facts regarding committee nights that were not part of the discussion at the retreat. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AMENDED THE MOTION HAVE IT BE JUST FOR THE THREE REGULAR MEETINGS, THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH MEETINGS. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she had been having technology difficulties and asked if there had been an update provided by staff that they were ready for hybrid meetings. Councilmembers indicated that update had been provided. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FOLLOW THE STATE AND COUNTY GUIDELINES REGARDING MASKING, SOCIAL DISTANCING, AND VACCINE MANDATES. Councilmember Paine asked about specifics for distancing. Council President Olson said according to HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson’s email today, there is no mandate regarding distancing. Councilmember Paine commented the entire City did not get that email. Councilmember L. Johnson understood those are the guidelines, but wanted it to be clear that everyone would have their own comfort level and wanted that to be respected even if there were no guidelines regarding distancing. She was hopeful if certain councilmembers and audience members wanted to observe distancing, everything would be done to accommodate it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak about the OPMA as it pertains to committee nights, recalling there was consensus at the retreat to do those virtual only. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, advising the council had already voted and asked how Council President Olson’s request fit into this agenda item. Council President Olson said the original item 8.4 in the packet included the issue of committee nights. It would not take very long and she suggested using a broad definition of what she proposed. If the council was unwilling, she was fine with moving on. Councilmember L. Johnson said the agenda is set and has been voted on and one individual does not decide to interject and change it. Council President Olson said she had not realized that was no longer included with the change to the agenda. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. 2. ASSISTANT CHIEF LEAVE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 27 Police Chief Michelle Bennett said when she left the Sheriff’s Office, she had 500 hours vacation and numerous hours of sick leave. These two individuals are leaving their previous agencies where they had a great deal of sick leave and vacation. When they are hired by the City, there is nothing set up to provide additional sick leave and vacation. Similar to when she was hired, the request is to front load them with 80 hours of vacation and 40 hours of sick leave. In addition, as described in an email earlier today, as the contracts were reviewed, it was noticed officers, corporals, sergeants and chief all have 4% deferred comp as a benefit, but the assistant chiefs have only 2.5%. In order to provide parity, she requested the assistant chiefs have the same deferred comp benefit. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO FRONT LOAD 80 HOURS OF VACATION LEAVE AND CHANGE THE DEFERRED COMP FROM 2.5% TO 4% TO PROVIDE PARITY WITH THEIR PEERS. Councilmember Buckshnis was unsure she saw the chief’s memo but understood what she was saying. She assumed this had gone through the PSPP Committee, noting these were non-represented positions. Chief Bennett said she discussed this with HR Analyst Emily Wagener, HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson and the mayor and it was very similar to her contract. The positions are not represented by a union and HR is on board with her proposal. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the main motion did not include front loading 40 hours of sick leave. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO FRONTLOAD 40 HOURS OF SICK LEAVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CARRYFORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained all the items were included in last year’s budget and for the most part represented items staff was unable to get to during 2021 so the proposal is to carry the budget authority forward to 2022, a standard practice done every year. All the decision packages were reviewed in detail at the Finance Committee and detailed information is contained in the packet. The amendments will increase budgeted revenue by $9,615,438 and increase budgeted expenditures by $22,164,032. He could either review the amendments, council could ask questions or council could approve the ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson said one carryforward budget amendment was not included in the packet. She asked if it could be added via a motion from the floor or would there be another opportunity with the second quarter amendments. Mr. Turley said he planned to have another budget amendment at the April 12th Finance Committee and April 19th full council. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would save it for that amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Finance Committee reviewed each amendment, asked questions and recommended forwarding the amendments to council. She suggested if council wanted to save time, they could just ask questions. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON. TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4250, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4249 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 28 TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. SALARY COMMISSION REINSTATEMENT This item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Tibbott encouraged the community to support Edmonds schools by supporting the Edmonds School District Foundation fundraiser this week. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation to citizens for reaching out to her to provide information on the PROS Plan. It was a very labor intensive document, but it was very helpful to hear everyone’s comments. She was sorry the council was unable to hear comments from everyone, but next week the council meeting will be in person which may be a fun opportunity to provide comment during the continued public hearing. She wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day and suggested saying hi to your loved ones. Council President Olson commented there have been times in the past where feedback has not always been as kind as it was tonight. She expressed appreciation to the public for the lovely job they did providing comment which made it possible to use that input to make a difference in the product. She hoped staff would take citizens up on their offer to form a task force if they need help sorting through any of the input, especially the citizen task force regarding greening Highway 99. Councilmember Paine thanked the artists for bringing joy and color into the community and hoped that could continue in all parts of the City. She recognize Susie Schaefer, a resident and activist, who was featured in the Everett Herald on Sunday as a preeminent birder. Her legacy is well documented in the Everett Herald where she is often featured. Councilmember Paine suggested the public hearing be the first item on the agenda next week so the remaining 6-7 people had an opportunity to speak and allow the public hearing to be concluded fairly quickly and move on to getting the PROS Plan approved. She wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND 5 MINUTES TO 10:50. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to her leaving the last council meeting and, in response to questions about why, she explained the fluctuation in the barometric pressure caused her a migraine making it difficult to read the screen or her notes. As she has said before, she believed councilmembers should excuse themselves when they are incapacitated either by sickness or pain; she stood by those words and left the meeting to attend to her health. As the council returns in person, she hoped everyone would continue to keep their health in mind and if they were not at their best and able to participate, and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 29 especially if there was any question someone might have COVID, she urged them to stay home and use the virtual option, not risk exposure and to take care of themselves. Councilmember Chen wished everyone a Happy St. Patrick’s Day. His heart continues to be heavy due to the Ukraine situation; up to 2 million refugees are fleeing the country and the situation will not improve any time soon. He asked the public to keep the Ukrainians in their thoughts and prayers and hoped there soon would be peace. He reported on the new artwork installed at Esperance Park that has lights and seats of hope. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the people who spoke at the public hearing regarding the PROS Plan. It was an opportunity to hear from many environmental activities and leaders. She assured she heard their support for open spaces and maintaining existing open space, for acquiring Southwest County Park to make it an Edmonds park, and for the Edmonds Marsh. She agreed the City needed to start planning for the eventual acquisition of that property and put together a game plan. There are many people interested and knowledgeable about that opportunity. The City also needs to update the right of first refusal which she did not know was time limited and is an essential element in the City’s ability to acquire the land. She expressed her appreciation for the arts in Edmonds and looked forward to the new art installations, noting it was wonderful to hear from the artists tonight. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 30 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 01/18/22 From: Chris Koser Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:57 PM To: Council Subject:Please Put Our Email on Record! We are very opposed to approval of the application for the 24 unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main Street, ESPECIALLY with only one parking stall per unit. As life long citizens of Edmonds, it is a very high priority to maintain the charming, quaint, quiet downtown area of Edmonds. Chris and Arnt Koser 9509 Forest Dell Dr Edmonds From: Gayla Shoemake Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Parks and Recs Plan- Postpone Ratification Dear Edmonds City Council, I am concerned that the proposed plan for Edmonds Parks and Recs does not include sufficient action regarding climate change and its impact on our city environment, including the parks. While there is slight mention of climate change on 3 pages (84,85,91), carbon is mentioned only once and there is no mention of greenhouse gases, which includes methane, and other serious gases. There is no plan for how they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their own department (such as using only battery powered leaf blowers, electric powered trucks, etc.). Such a reduction would be easy to implement. Nor is there any mention of how they will prepare for sea level rising and how they will adjust to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 31 increasing heavy storms in their plans. Again, some of these adjustments can be fairly simple and easy to add to the plan. After discussion at the public meeting about trees, there was only a reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan, but no implementation actually included for trees. How will the Parks and Recs Dept address the serious reduction of our tree canopy? Will additional trees be planted in the parks; if so, which parks, who will decide which kinds of trees, and when they are planted. These trees can form excellent sequestration for the carbon and other greenhouse gases emitted in the future, and a fairly simple addition to the plan. I hope you will postpone acceptance of this plan until more of the comments (similar to mine above) from the public have been included in the plan. Thank you, Gayla Shoemake From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:38 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 240-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit. This building in no way reflects the desires of Edmonds’ population or its comprehensive plan. Its proposed location does NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and we have seen the desecration the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see that happen here! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 32 You are the decision maker on this issue. Keep it away from us----and please entertain no more similar proposals. Robert and Judith Cook 17122 72 Avenue West From: jane simspon Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:15 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street Dear Mayor Nelson, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development at the above addresses. The displacement of eight businesses will be a significant loss to the community. In addition, the proposed design, as I understand it, will be yet another soulless box so prevelent in urban areas recently. My husband and I are relative newcommers to Edmonds and one of the things that drew us to the community was the character of the downtown business district. We appreciate the variety of architecture and the repurposing of existing buildings for commercial use. Please do not let Edmonds go the way of Greenwood, Ballard and Columbia City. Keep the character of our downtown and support local businesses! Sincerely, Jane Simpson From: N MIddleton Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 33 Subject:Trash, Recycling and Yard Waste Hi, Please address these questions in your Tuesday, 1/18 meeting: 1. Why does the City have 3 different service providers for waste pickup? 2. When does Republic Services contract come up for review? 3. Can Republic contract be re-evaluated earlier, given the lack of service? 4. Will homeowners who are not getting pickups get refunds? 5. What temporary solution can the city come up with? Thank you. Norma Middleton lelajamesjoseph@gmail.com 425-775-3953 From: Will Magnuson Date: January 16, 2022 at 11:05:49 AM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "LaFave, Carolyn" <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to fix it later? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 34 My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it’s primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980’s, the Seattle area was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable regional city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990’s was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was slowly evolving to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the established way things were in Edmonds. I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like “we don’t want to be like Kirkland” or the extreme “don’t let Edmonds become like Manhattan”. Building heights became the battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public or open spaces, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would support responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus leaving behind lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99 or anywhere else in Edmonds. As the Puget sound region continues to grow, pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet new opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they “just want to keep Edmonds the way it is” even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities for lifestyle, employment, recreation and entertainment as Edmonds remains a desirable location. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We must not shut the door on growth for fear of change nor should we expect that we can. The city of Edmonds will need to strive to continue to be competitive for sustained viability. Edmonds has a unique opportunity to witness the recent growth and evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore and elsewhere to find the successes, failures and challenges to manage growth. We’re all in this together including the developers, city and community of Edmonds. Growth is going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 35 Now we have a block style building of 24 apartment units proposed near 6th Ave on Main Street and located on a major gateway with an opportunity to set the tone for Edmonds. Will that be a welcome message to inclusivity, diversity and community? The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment based on existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it’s financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances should responsibly balance opportunities and benefits for the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It’s not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago’s GBH Holdings LLC is moving expeditiously to procure permits and proceed with work for this project as well as other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a municipal commitment to make that happen. Much should be done inclusive of reevaluating some governing departments and committees which at times appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for a developer. It’s important for a comprehensive review of the options available now for reworking development guidelines as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway for a very long time. I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago’s GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It’s the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA From: Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 4:23 PM To: Council; LaFave, Carolyn; Nelson, Michael; Clugston, Michael; Planning; robchave@edmondswa.gov; Lien, Kernen Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Proposed development 605/611 Main Street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 36 Hello Architectural Board members, Building Department officials, Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers, I’m writing in response to the recent Architectural Board meeting on January 5th concerning the application for construction on the 600 block of Main Street. I have grave concerns about the look and function of this building and how it fits into the landscape. It was helpful for me to hear Kernan Lien's explanation of the codes as related to the proposed design. Unfortunately, the plan is to maximize dwellings while providing minimal parking, minimal amenities to the occupants and minimal aesthetics. Not only does the design go sidewalk to alley straight up to the max 30’ height creating a giant and imposing box, the developer wants to reduce the buffer on the east side so a minimal parking ramp and garage can be squeezed in. Adding insult to injury, the developer wants a concession to add a 5' parapet wall to the front of the building to hide HVAC to the street side. Further increasing the bulk, sun and view blocking of the adjacent properties. One parking space per dwelling unit for a mixed use project is the code. The problem is this isn’t mixed use. It more closely mimics the RM-1.5 buildings a few lots up the hill. It’s 100% residential! We all know the parking needs of a true mixed use building can be less than 100% residential. Thus the difference to parking code requirements. This seems to be a loophole in the code. Moving forward if a proposed building is truly not mixed use and 100% residential the parking requirements should be increased accordingly. The project has other problems and design flaws. The garage doesn't have adequate size for two spaces to turn inside the garage to head up the ramp. This looks insurmountable and likely will require a two unit reduction. NO concessions should be given when a developer is providing the absolute bare minimum for parking and other amenities. There is no outdoor space for the tenants, and I mean zero. No balconies, no courtyard, or anything close to 5% green space. Although Kernan has explained 5% green space is not required it should be. Without space it resembles some communist bloc housing I’ve seen. The developer has an opportunity to correct these mistakes. He should be encouraged to pull back from the street and give his tenants and pedestrians a little bit of breathing room. If the developer needs that one foot reduction in the buffer the entire length of the property to make the parking ramp work then the city should get something in return. How about a lid over part of the ramp thus providing some sorely needed open space at the ground level. A lid over the southeast corner of the parking ramp could provide ample outdoor space for tenants and eliminate the need for a fence around two sides of what would be a 9-10’ deep ramp pit right on the sidewalk. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 37 The site in question is in the BD2 zone which is also deemed a transition zone. Look at the renderings. This building does not appear to be transitional at all. It's a massive apartment building with no business or commercial space. In fact I’m hard pressed to find anything like it in any of the BD2 zones. The scale and use are totally out of place. So it appears the developer is trying to set a precedent. Is this really what we want our town to look like? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. We need to revisit the comprehensive plan and get everyone on the same page or this is going to get ugly real quick. Change is coming. Let's not fall into the trap of writing code one building at a time with concessions and variances granted along the way. The time has come to rewrite the comprehensive code. Who will lead us through the changes that are at our doorstep? How can concerned citizens be a part of the process? How long will the process take? How much irreversible damage will be sustained while we wait? Sincerely, Greg Brewer From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:41 PM To: Nelson, Michael; LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen; Clugston, Michael; Planning Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Proposed apartment complex on Main Street and 6th Ave To Architectural Board Members, Planning Staff, Council Members, and Mayor Nelson, Please do not allow Safadago's proposed apartment complex as designed on Main Street! Sixth and Main is the gateway to our quaint, historic, one-of-a-kind downtown. It has been the primary location for citizens and visitors for over a century to enter our downtown and it should be protected from inappropriate development. Yes, there have been changes and development over the years but for the most part the scene that we are greeted with has remained relatively the same, and the buildings have stayed small-scale and harmonious. This oversized building would drastically change that and set a precedent for things to come! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 38 As we walk or drive down Main Street and approach downtown, our eyes naturally gravitate towards the beautiful, charming, special scene -- historic one to two floor buildings and homes, pretty gazebo fountain roundabout in the center, leafy green trees and colorful gardens and flower baskets that line the streets, the glow of the vintage-style street lamps, beautiful views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains off in the distance, and the cheerful green and white ferries coming and going. If this apartment complex gets built, this will no longer be the case. Our eyes will be assaulted by this large- scale, out of place blight. No one will be able to ignore an oversized, ugly, square box with three story straight up walls and flat roof, no style, detail, setbacks, open or green space, patios, balconies or courtyard. It will abut the sidewalk and street so will be in every pedestrian and driver's line of vision. What a loss this will be to the beauty, charm and historic nature of our city! Future generations will ask why was this allowed to be built? What were the city planners and officials thinking? How could Edmonds not stop a developer from marring our gateway? People say we need more housing and that development is unavoidable and necessary. This may be true but housing and development should not be allowed anywhere and everywhere and without regard to aesthetics. It should be thoughtful and appropriate. Long-term ramifications must be considered. This location is crucial to our downtown. This building is not worthy. A few blocks away may be acceptable, other locations in the Bowl or elsewhere in Edmonds may be acceptable, but not at Edmonds' main entryway on Main Street! Please reject this development! Don't allow it just because it meets code (and it barely does!) That's not good enough! Edmonds is better than that. It deserves buildings with attractive designs that enhance our downtown, not detract from it. Our building codes need to be rewritten and updated to require developers to build according to our vision for our city, to keep its small town look and feel, at least in the downtown core. The developer with the assistance of city planners should be encouraged and expected to build in consideration of the setting, environment, neighbors and community. He or she should offer more than the bare minimum! Look at the condominium complex behind this site, just north of it across the alley on 6th Avenue -- a beautiful building with setbacks, green and open spaces, patios and decks, and attractive details and roof lines. It fits in very well. Why can't something like this be built there instead? Once built, this cheap and ugly complex will set a precedent for more of the same throughout our downtown. Don't let that happen! Our special, historic downtown, our citizens and visitors and the future occupants of any building built there deserve better. Don't allow this to be built and become a permanent, ruinous feature of Edmonds -- one that we will all regret except for the developer! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: GARY PYFER Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 39 Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:42 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Public Comment You have done the city of Edmond a great disservice by making the restaurants remove their outdoor seating or pay a Hugh fee. This will cause a loss of business and that will hurt Edmonds. This Covid is serious and most people will not eat in. BAD IGNORANT MOVE. Sent from my iPhone From: Dawn Malkowski Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. January 15, 2022 Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor, I implore you not to approve the proposed apartment building on 6th and Main St. as it appears now. The building is positively hideous, there are no setbacks, thus little room for attractive landscaping, plus it absolutely does not fit in with the flavor and style of this town. Slight changes to the elevation would make a world of difference. As it stands now, it looks like it belongs in MIAMI BEACH, no different than the awful building they built on 3rd Ave. several years ago. A different color, darker pacific NW colors, i.e., greens, browns, golds would be better, along with wood trim accents. It would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Developers seem to have a tendency to build and design whatever is cheapest, with little regard to fitting in with the existing community. What they design, doesn’t mean it’s the best for the community they are entering into. I addition to that, there are not enough parking spaces. Why is it that the developers are accommodated at the expense of the citizens? Each unit should have, at no cost to the tenants, two (2) on-site parking spaces. I know of 3 people of all the 50+ friends that I have in town here, that have 1 car. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 40 All are widowed, and two (2) are in their 80’s. Other than that, the majority of people have 2 or more vehicles. I realize after watching the recent planning meeting that our city code allows the 1 parking space per unit. It is an outdated and unrealistic code which should be addressed. This developer is entering our town. Let’s request that he or she build what fits into this area and what will realistically work for the betterment of our community. For example, he or she could add additional underground parking via another level, or purchase another lot next to his proposed building. I sincerely hope that you will have the courage to stand up these developers and hold them accountable for keeping our town the lovely, livable place that it is. Allowing them to do what they want because they meet code, doesn’t mean it’s right for our town. We do not want to be Kirkland or Bellevue. Kirkland made a huge effort to become a walking town only, with large apartment buildings with little parking available. It was a smashing failure. I lived there for ten (10) years and saw the congested disaster the massive apartment buildings caused. The same thing occurred in Bellevue. Please don’t do that to us. Respectfully, Dawn Malkowski dmmalkowksi@gmail.com <mailto:dmmalkowksi@gmail.com> From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM To: Nelson, Michael; LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Chave, Rob; Clugston, Michael; Lien, Kernen; Planning Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject:Code Rewrite! To Mayor Nelson, Council Members and Planning Staff, It is past time for an overhaul of our City Code! We need to update, clarify and rewrite, especially our development codes, so Council, staff, citizens and developers know, understand and work together towards a clear vision for our city. Currently and for a long time developers have been exploiting loopholes, errors and inconsistencies for their gain and citizens' loss. This must change ASAP! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 41 I and many of my fellow citizens strongly request adequate funds be budgeted immediately to start this process. Once started, we want ongoing status updates as to progress made. As concerned citizens we want to be involved, to give input and help affect change so our city will evolve and develop as we wish. Please put this at the top of your priority list, just as the citizens are at the top of the City's Organizational Chart -- this should be #1 and so should we! It is crucial to our city and citizens. Please do not delay any longer. Let's get this in motion. Please confirm that you hear this and understand the urgency. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer Sun 1/16/2022 12:11 PM Will Magnuson Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street We're all in this together including the developer, city, and citizens of Edmonds. My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it's primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow, and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980's, Metropolitan Seattle was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990's was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was evolving slowly to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the way things were already established in Edmonds. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like "we don't want to be like Kirkland" or the extreme "don't let Edmonds become like Manhattan". I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Building heights became the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 42 battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public spaces or open areas, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would require responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus creating lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99, or anywhere else in Edmonds. The Puget sound region will continue to grow and with that pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet these opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they "just want to keep Edmonds the way it is" even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities to live, work, recreate, and entertain as Edmonds remains a desirable place. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We can't shut the door on growth or change and we can't expect to keep it out. The city of Edmonds will continue to need to be competitive to be viable. Witness the recent evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore, Ballard and elsewhere to find the successes, failures, and challenges to manage growth. It's all going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Now we have a block style building of 24 units of apartment proposed on just above 6th on Main Street. This proposed project is located on a major gateway to our downtown and would set the tone at this entrance. The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment due to existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it's financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances are required to balance opportunities and benefits to the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It's not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago's are moving expeditiously to proceed with permits and work for this and other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a public financial commitment to make that happen. Much will need to be done inclusive of reevaluating some municipal personnel and departments which appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for developers. It's Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 43 important to review the options available in detail as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway feature for a very long time. Why is there always time (and money) to fix things later, but never enough now? I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It's the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 44 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 01/25/22 From: Luke Distelhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:40 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Item 8.7 - Jan. 18, 2022 Dear Councilmembers, Looking at tonight's agenda item 8.7, I felt like it was important to share some information as a Councilmember who was present and participated in the 2022 budget process. The false and error-filled agenda memo unfortunately creates a narrative that is not supported by the facts contained in the numerous public meetings, budget retreat, public hearings, and documents listed on the City’s Administrative Services page, which was updated weekly, at a minimum, during the Fall 2021 budget process (https://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/administrative_services). As a Councilmember in this process, which started in May 2021, staff were always available to answer questions by email, phone, or during our public meetings. Similarly, the majority of Councilmembers showed up and participated in this budget process and were available for conversations with other councilmembers. At this point I do not feel it is even worth going through many of the erroneous statements linked to certain approved budget items. Answers to those “questions”, or personal opinions, are publicly available from documents listed on the link above, or from Council-approved minutes/videos of Council meetings. City residents and city staff need certainty in their day-to-day lives and professional status when Council approves policy and budgetary direction. I sincerely hope Councilmembers will speak with city staff or other Councilmembers who actually participated in the 6-month-long budgeting process. The 2022 budget is a significant step forward for our city and residents, especially many who have been excluded from city policy and budget considerations in years and decades past. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you, Luke Distelhorst From: Will Magnuson Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:02 AM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 45 To: LaFave, Carolyn; Council; Public Comment (Council); Planning; Chave, Rob; Lien, Kernen Subject: Mayor's comments Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night . This new initiative will: * identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction * create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions * prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding “We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather,” Nelson concluded. “Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together.” This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 24-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit as well as one now wending its way through the system that would appear on Dayton near the Frances Anderson Center. These buildings in no way reflect the desires of Edmonds’ population or its comprehensive plan. Their proposed locations do NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and my husband and I have seen the desecration that the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see it happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Make us proud. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 46 Robert and Judith Cook 17122 72 Avenue West Edmonds 98026 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM To: Council; Nelson, Michael Cc: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Budget Amendments agenda item Categories: Green category Council, First, thank you to Council President Olson, Council President pro-tem Buckshnis and Council member Kristiana Johnson for persevering and getting these 93 budget amendments on the Council agenda for this evening. I appreciate your diligence in paying careful attention to the financial health of the City of Edmonds. My prepared comments will be in order of their placement on your agenda: # 1 - REDI Manager – there is not sufficient information to support a full-time FTE. Suggest data being accumulated along with reasons as to why the current consultant that is used is not sufficient. * I support this budget amendment. A consultant should be sufficient. Adding a full-time FTE, without justification, also adds the ongoing costs associated with a new position. This is not the time to create MORE staff positions. #16 – Public Information Officer – support for full time not provided. * Same as above. Why increase to a full time position, at this time? #21 – $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed. * I agree. The COE is already negotiating a contract with Compass Health to provide a staff person on site in Edmonds. I was opposed to expansion of the Human Services department with such a position (although relieved that Council decided to contract with Compass Health) because City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. State government oversees DSHS (Dept of Social and Health Services). Federal government mandates Senior Services in all communities. Edmonds is served by Homage Senior Services. In addition to Compass Health, many non- profit agencies exist to provide support to the needy. These many agencies have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, liability insurance, etc to better serve these populations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 47 #22 – New FTE position to manage existing capital projects – there is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE or how this position will manage what projects. the Council Personnel Committee should look at this to determine what exactly projects are part of this request and why contractors cannot handle this process and the interaction with Public Works and their capital projects. * Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. #38 – New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. * Agree. And I would add that, given the newly created police/court offices on Hwy 99, and discussions re: moving city hall, any expenditures for the fence should take those planning issues into account. #48 – 3-year Rate Study Consultant – The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any review by a consulting firm. * Agree #55 – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements – there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council and what are the costs and plans for this project as these restoration plans are not clear and this will impact stormwater utility rates. * What will the money be used to do? Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be very expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. #60 – Perrinville Creek Projects – The Administration promised an entire Perrinville Watershed review in 2020 when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City placed debris was placed by the Administration to cause the creek to flow into two vaults. There is no support for funding $3.5MM of ARPA money for this rehabilitation. * The COE received the $3.5 ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) infrastructure funds in 2021, to the best of my knowledge. So there is time to develop a plan for a complete restoration of the Perrinville Creek. * The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed of Perrinville Creek, which includes Lynnwood. * Since complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than the 3.5 million ARPA funds, it is critical that we not spend any of the ARPA funds until a complete restoration plan of the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 48 * This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. #61 Green Street and Rain Gardens – opposed to this ARPA funding and continue to be opposed as there is not sufficient information in any City documents to support what a green street is and Rain Gardens have granting opportunities through Snohomish County. There is not sufficient information to support where green street are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? This should be done before funds are programmed. * Agree completely. The allocation of the ARPA funds should be carefully clarified. Without a definition of what a Green Street is, how can the city proceed with allocation of the funds for them? * Rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Careful planning is required. #93. Elm Way Walkway – not enough information. If this project will be done by the city’s sidewalk crew, then why is the cost $$859,600? * The $ amount of the allocation certainly raises questions for me as well. Thank you, Council members who have gotten this far for reading my comments. Again, I applaud your serious deliberations on how you spend taxpayer dollars. Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Natalie Seitz Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:32 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: 1/25 Public Comment Hello, Good Evening. I will be unable to virtually attend the council meeting tonight. Would you please accept my written comments below? Thank you, Natalie Seitz 1/25 Public Comment to Council * Good Evening. I would like to comment tonight about marina beach and the proposed budget amendments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 49 * With regard to Marina Beach: I would like to thank the Council for the courage to pause the Marina Beach project as pre-decisional to the Marsh and to support the equitable distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the Council for this tough decision. I also want to thank the City staff who worked on the grant and project, getting a project to 30% and grants for 20% of costs is a lot of effort. While I advocated against this project, I want to express my appreciation of the staff effort to get grant funding. * With regard to the proposed budget amendments: * #1 A REDI manager is needed: I want to point out the need for this position by highlighting two decisions the Council made at the last meeting: * Acceptance of the Francis Anderson Lease agreement which provides tax-payer maintained space at below market value and at a lower tax burden to recreation service providers including a daycare. In contrast there are no community center facilities in the two most diverse and densely populated areas of the City (north east of five corners and the east side of SR99) and none are proposed in the Draft PROS plan. Private daycares in these areas have to pay fair market rate for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes, which is passed on to families in the form of tuition. I think the REDI program manager would help the City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity to make sure that appropriate investments are made in all areas of the City, AND * The Council has just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more equitable investments, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time and cost. The REDI program manager is needed and would likely pay for itself if you look at it through the lens of preventing the waste of staff resources and project planning costs. * #16 Public Information Officer is needed: I think I am as engaged a citizen as possible, yet I am still amazed at the amount of opportunities I miss and that I have every advantage in knowing (e.g. language). 83% of the City's population is not located in the Downtown area. The City needs a better capability to inform all Edmonds residents. * #22 New FTE is needed: It is my understanding that the Director, in addition to that role, is project managing Civic Center, the PROS plan, and other capital investments. This is not a realistic workload, and will not allow for the Director to focus on the provision of human services or on park-system wide initiatives (ADA, equity, maintenance) and the potential to implement asset management that would both save the City money and provide better service. Similar to the budget, there are so many errors in the PROS plan that I have decided not to provide direct text related comments - this is a matter of staff resources. * Motion to reflect expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2011 budget numbers - I support any needed expenses to provide this service. * Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design - This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the Draft PROS plan for all three of the new neighborhood parks in underserved areas combined. It is inconsistent with the intent of the proposed level of service for the PROS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 50 plan and the planning board recommendation for the priority of this project. Please note that for the resources counted by the PROS plan, Downtown already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the city combined (8.22 acres). * Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. Government should be accessible to the public. Moving City Hall and Police Station to a location more central to the city population and commercial center is needed (i.e. Five Corners or the SR99 corridor). * Motion to add $150K for streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area - this is a much needed improvement for safety and to reduce crime in this area. It is far less than the $1.5M identified in the 6-year CFP for street lights Downtown. * Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 51 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 02/01/22 From: Pam Brisse Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:16 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Comments on the proposed 2022 Budget Amendments Dear Edmonds City Council, I’m writing to you to express my displeasure with your attempts to dismantle the 2022 City Budget. This budget was passed after many discussions and public comments, was passed legally, and in the normal order of things. Just because some of you were not on the council during that time does not mean you get to revise it - you can have your chance when it comes time for the 2023 budget. This is how politics work. You know better. I’m also disgusted to learn that you wish to eliminate the programs and services that help our most vulnerable citizens, the ones we most see people in the neighborhood groups complaining about - the homeless that wander our streets or park their families in their cars and huddle waiting for a new day. These are not the only people in our town who benefit from the social programs you wish to cut, it’s also our elderly neighbors on fixed incomes with a house repair crisis or someone with food insecurity - you wish to dismantle the Human Services department that is here to help these people? Our neighbors? Programs that keep people from desperation? Not only does this help them, it helps keep our neighborhoods safe from desperate crimes and thefts which helps the rest of us. And then you want to use the money for your pet art project in the bowl? Do you even hear yourself? Do you see how that looks? I am an artist myself and of course support the arts - but over hungry children and suffering residents? No. We have plenty of people in this city who support the arts and contribute to projects, the arts will not suffer if your personal project isn’t funded this year by the city. Not only are you trying to kill jobs - jobs held by our residents and friends, but you are also trying to eliminate public safety, eliminate public communications and transparency, to “defund the police” as it were. Really? Anti-jobs, anti-police? Come on. Do you see how that looks? We are watching. And then you want to defund environmental protections for the Marsh, allow pollution into the Sound, to harm our salmon and orca? Nice look. Have an Edmonds Kind of Day, right? Leave the budget alone, we want progress and solutions, environmental and social. We want a satellite police station in an area where police are needed. Where actual crime is UP. Why would you try to remove that? These programs were installed to protect the city and it’s residents. Please do better. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 52 Pam Brisse Edmonds Residen From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:46 AM To: Council Cc: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council); Taraday, Jeff Subject: Public Hearing on 2022 Budget Amendments Please include the following public comment in your public hearing and DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT in your deliberations on the amendments to the 2022 budget. - - - - - - - - - - - - - I am pleased to see the “new” Council is reconsidering the 2022 budget. The “prior” Council majority not only ignored and prevented public input, which should have been the essence of the Councils’ budget deliberations, but they manipulated the budget approval process to exclude Council members who intended to ‘insert’ public input into the budget deliberations. Any and all spending of taxpayer money should be well justified with public support. When pre-planning is required, such plans must be made available and vetted with the public well before budgets are proposed. This is especially the case with the 2022 budget items for restoring Perrinville Creek. In March of 2021, the Mayor issued a Press Release on developing a Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan, with costs involved, for public review and Council approval. But instead, the “prior” Council majority approved spending of 3.5 million dollars with no detail on what the money would be spent on, how much a ‘fully successful’ restoration would cost, nor how much money the City of Lynnwood taxpayers would be contributing since, according to City staff, the majority of the stormwater impacting the watershed comes from Lynnwood. This is extremely bad budget planning and very poor environmental stewardship. The 2022 budget items that lack detail and adequate justification, including why prior year funds or staffing were insufficient, should be reconsidered and deleted from the 2022 budget, or delayed until adequate detail or justification is provided and approved by the “new” Council. This would include so-called green infrastructure and stormwater treatment budget items which “sound” environmentally responsible, but lack sufficient detail for an informed person to agree that it is a wise investment in protecting our environment. The bottom-line is that the reconsideration of the 2022 budget represents a great start for a “new” Council that hopefully is committed to actually listening to and considering public input in all of its deliberations and decisions, and following accepted public meeting and decision-making procedures (which is critical for good government). I urge Council members to not only look at your agenda packet information, but on this agenda item, please go back and look at all the written and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 53 oral public comments made about the 2022 budget from October through December of 2021, which as I noted before, were totally ignored by the "prior" Council majority in adopting the 2022 budget. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 1:18 PM To: Council; Nelson, Michael; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget Council, Mayor Nelson’s inflammatory statement in his myedmondsnews commentary, “These council cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and make our residents uninformed” is unsubstantiated by fact or by the proposed amendments. I’ll demonstrate with amendments that I support. Mayor Nelson’s statement: “Additionally, they wish to cut funding to our new Human Services Department.” Proposed amendment: #21 – $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed.” My comment: Based on my five decades of work as a social worker, in and with non- profit agencies, I contend that City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. Many non-profit agencies exist that have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, outreach, and HIPPA compliance procedures (not to mention liability insurance) to better serve needy populations. Adding an additional $200,000 to the Human Services Department is an unwise use of taxpayer dollars. Mayor Nelson’s statement: “Removing green streets and rain garden programs will create more flooding of our roadways and pollution of our streams.” Proposed amendment: “#61 Green Street and Rain Gardens – excerpt- “There is not sufficient information to support where green streets are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding?” My comment: Without a definition of “Green Street”, how can the city proceed with allocation of the American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) funds? Also, rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Mayor Nelson’s statement: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 54 “They want to cut a new pedestrian safety barrier at the police parking lot designed to protect our residents from being struck by police cars responding to emergency calls.” Proposed amendment: #38 – New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. My comment: I support Council reviewing the expense of this perimeter fence. Mayor Nelson’s statement: “For the first time ever, this year our city has a full time public information officer (PIO).” And “some councilmembers wish us to go backwards and cut the position from full-time to half-time.” Proposed amendment: #16 – Public Information Officer – support for full time not provided. My comment: Mayor Nelson references “the recent tsunami advisory” as rationale for a full time PIO, despite that a PIO has nothing to do with emergency management. Mayor Nelson’s misrepresentation of the role of the PIO is just one reason I don’t support a full time PIO being at his disposal. Side note: An updated CEMP (Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan), and related staffing, as Ken Reidy has been emailing Council about for many months, would assure residents that the administration has a “comprehensive plan” in the event of a catastrophic event in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson’s statement: “Their removal of the filtration system used to clean polluted water entering the Edmonds Marsh will allow toxic chemicals to harm salmon and wildlife in our city and Puget Sound.” Proposed amendment: #55 – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements – excerpt: “there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council” My comment: Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be extremely expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. Additional amendments I support: #60 – Perrinville Creek Projects * The COE received the $3.5 ARPA funds in 2021. The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed, which includes Lynnwood. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 55 * Complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than 3.5 million, so ARPA funds should not be spent until a restoration plan for the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. * This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. This would, obviously, be fiscally prudent. # 1 - REDI Manager Adding a full-time REDI Manager, without justification, also adds significant ongoing costs associated with a new position, and new department. I support a REDI consultant. #22 – New FTE position to manage existing capital projects Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember __ Joan Bloom Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 56 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 02/15/22 From: Michael Murdock Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:34 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: PIO > ?Good Afternoon, > > I don’t know why this position is even there and needs to be a paid position. > > If the article in MEN from the Mayor is an example of factual literature we expect to receive I don’t want to pay for it. Who edited this piece for facts? I really did not understand the reason for writing such a piece and then actually printing it. > > Perhaps, another option would be to enlist the services of the independent student representative on council. It would be great experience with little cost. > > Thanks for listening. > > Mike Murdock > Sent from my iPhone From: Jan Wohlers Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 6:25 PM To: council@edomdswa.gov; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Request for Caspers Street Revision Attachments: Casper Street Revisions.docx Dear City Council, There is a high number of cumulative issues with traffic and congestion on Caspers Street between 2nd Ave and Sunset. These issues are ripe and long overdue for change and need further investigating and resolution. ISSUES * Excessively high trafficked vehicle and pedestrian street. Excessive for a residentially zoned area * Cars drive the wrong way down Caspers onto Sunset’s one way street on average 2-3 daily * There are 25 streets signs beginning at 3rd Ave. It is very confusing in this 1 block section. * 5 to 10 vehicles turn around in our driveway daily. Does not account for turnarounds occurring in other driveways * People walk ‘in the street’ Casper to Sunset 50+ on an average day. Summer months/ sunny days this doubles/triples * High number of speeding vehicles Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 57 * Many vehicles make a high acceleration ‘gun it’ around the corner Sunset onto Casper * Curbs are deteriorating (mostly due to high speeds and oversized vehicles hitting them) * Large RV’s and semi trucks cannot maneuver corner Sunset to Caspers and become stuck. Especially when the truck goes down the wrong way. Backing up causes major congestion’s and safety issues * Many unfriendly and upset tourists direct profanities and hand gestures at home owners * High number of recurring vehicle accidents in the yards of three separate homes. Majority are hit and run. Increases homeowners problems and expenses * Vehicles block access to driveways RECOMMENDATIONS * Remove all current street signage and replace with limited necessary signage * Remove parking on north side of Caspers. Special permit for local residents and guests only * Install speed bumps before and after the corner Sunset to Caspers * Limit vehicle size and prohibit large semi trucks on Sunset and Caspers * Make Caspers a one way street * Change directions on Google Maps and Waze redirecting tourists, ferry and beach access visitors I feel very privileged and love living in Edmond’s, however the aforementioned issues makes it very challenging at times. Thank you for looking into this matter. Respectfully, Richard Blacklow and Janel Wohlers 114 Caspers Street Edmonds WA 98020 #425-582-7880 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:58 PM To: Council; Nelson, Michael; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Budget amendments, agenda for 2-8-22 Council meeting Council, My input on budget amendments on your agenda 2-8-22 is as follows: #1 REDI manager I support option 1, continuing with the REDI consultant, at this time. The following LTE by Elizabeth Miakinin is excellent: https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/letter-to-the-editor-proposed-redi- manager-not-the-answer-for-achieving-citys-diversity-goals/ Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 58 #16 Public Information Officer I agree with Ken Reidy that the POI position should be removed entirely to ensure “the position is used properly, in a non-biased, nonpartisan fashion.” However, given that is not part of this discussion, I support the “Motion: Remove this decision packet” A half-time PIO should be sufficient for Mayor Nelson to continue to promote his personal agenda for Edmonds. Since I don’t see my email comments to Council attached to the February 8 agenda, here is a link to my LTE on all of the budget amendments that I support: https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/01/letter-to-the-editor-mayors-statement- on-budget-amendments-not-supported-by-facts/ Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Edmonds is a gift. Let’s show our appreciation. From: Jim Fairchild Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:41 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Public Comment Tomorrow you will be asked to alter city code? To adopt language from the state 7.94.120 my concern is this language is set to expire I think 7-1- 2022. Why would the city adopt language set to expire? Of course the city can use this language but without knowing what the new language the state puts in place it could create a conflict. Maybe no big deal but in my mind it would give the city the opportunity to write its own language. To me this is concerning. The mayor/city has already at least once tried to make criminals of legal gun owners. I would encourage council to wait and see what the new language from the state is before adopting expiring language. Thank you Jim Fairchild. From: joe scordino Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:30 PM To: Feser, Angie Cc: Citizens Planning Board; Nelson, Michael; Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: Will PROS Plan (as drafted) preclude Edmonds from federal grants to protect coastal wetlands? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 59 Director Feser - if you put the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary and protection/restoration of our natural environment into proper context in the PROS Plan relaying the actual importance of the environment to Edmonds citizens - - then wouldn't the City be in better position to apply for and receive multiple grants that RCO and DOE administer such as the one described below? Isn't that one of the purposes of the PROS Plan? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Washington Department of Ecology <waecy@public.govdelivery.com> To: "joe.scordino@yahoo.com" <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022, 01:37:55 PM PST Subject: Ecology acquires federal grants to protect 237 acres of coastal wetlands <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/WAECY/2021/10/50 93602/color-bar_original.png> <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/WAECY/2021/11/51 51852/ecylogo-horiz-color-allmargins_original.png> NEWS BLOG Jan. 6, 2022 <https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/fancy_images/WAECY/2022/01/53 74163/livingstonbayphoto-dawnpucci2-news-crop_original.jpg> Livingston Bay shoreline. Image courtesy Dawn Pucci. Ecology acquires federal grants to protect 237 acres of coastal wetlands We are happy to announce we've helped secure nearly $3.4 million in National Coastal Wetlands Conservation grants <https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsIn VyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMjAxMDYuNTEzNzU4ODEiLCJ1cmwi OiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5md3MuZ292L25ld3MvU2hvd05ld3MuY2ZtP19JRD0zNzA3MSZyZWY9dS 5zLi1maXNoLWFuZC13aWxkbGlmZS1zZXJ2aWNlLWF3YXJkcy1tb3JlLXRoYW4tJTI0MjAtbWls bGlvbi10by1oZWxwLSZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9Z292ZGVsaXZlcnkifQ .m3a4GrKhZxQRplGblzzRdJb1jtXdhRUEjsM6Zls-3LQ/s/2126022721/br/124299911709- l> to protect 237 acres of coastal wetland habitat in Island, Jefferson, and Mason counties. This year, Washington received the second-highest number of federal wetland conservation grants under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program. Since 1992, we've been successful in helping projects totaling approximately $132 million conserve nearly 15,000 acres of coastal wetlands in the state. Coastal wetlands often rival tropical rain forests and coral reefs as some of the most diverse, productive ecosystems on the planet. They include Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 60 estuarine salt marshes as well as freshwater wetlands that extend inland within a watershed. While only U.S. states and territories can apply for the federal conservation grants, we work closely with our partners in local and Tribal governments and conservation organizations to identify projects and develop wetland restoration and protection proposals for the federal government to consider. Funded in part through taxes paid on fuel and equipment purchases by recreational anglers and boaters, the federal National Coastal Wetland Conservation grant federal program provides up to $1 million for individual wetland projects. Here are the Washington projects receiving funding in 2022. From: Will Magnuson Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:19 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn; Public Comment (Council); Planning; Lien, Kernen; McLaughlin, Susan Subject: Re: Mayor's comments I have a few questions regarding the gbh holdings proposed development on Main Street. These questions may have already been addressed but I have not seen any correspondence accordingly. 1) Parking - The site appears to require a pass through drive isle from Main to the rear alley to accommodate parking 24 vehicles. If this is the case, has a traffic study been conducted to evaluate impact to the traffic and congestion on Main Street? 2) Parking - What impact will this parking inclusive of more than 24 resident vehicles have on the existing limitations of parking on Main Street and surrounds? 3) Parking - Will this project be required to accommodate ADA vehicle(s) parking and ADA van access? 3) Loading - Where will moving vans be located to accommodate residents? 4) Trash/Recycling - Where will trash and recycling be staged for disposal service? 5) Emergency Power - I assume this project will require elevator access. Will emergency power be required and if so, how will this be provided? 6) Pet Area - This project may have a no pet policy at opening but this prohibitive policy seldom survives very long with a project of this number of units. A pet prohibitive policy is too restrictive for the number of household pets in our region. How will residential pet waste be managed? Thank you, Will Magnuson 423 2nd Ave N Edmonds, WA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 61 On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:01 AM Will Magnuson > wrote: Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night This new initiative will: * identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction * create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions * prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding “We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather,” Nelson concluded. “Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together.” This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson From: Pam Brisse Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:40 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Subject: City Budget Amendments Dear City Council, I was disappointed to see you vote against hiring a full-time REDI manager last week. Not only did you disregard the HR staff-person’s advice that it would be harder to attract, hire and retain a contractor for this vital position, but you also seem to think it’s just about race. NO, it’s about fairness and equity for all of us - no matter the color of our skin, the gender and physical abilities of our bodies, our religion, and so on. This isn’t just something that can be dictated by the mayor or something we can rely on a person’s change of heart for - this is a legal protection for the city and it’s employees. This is to avoid future problems by biased and unfeeling hiring practices - like insisting on a contractor for a low price. How short-sighted. I’m also really disgusted to see how you are all talking about various employees of the city - not only is it rude and distasteful, it’s an ethics violation. Value our city staff or we will lose them! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 62 I’m sure the Human Services department is up on the chopping block today - please don’t. The way many of you have been framing this and continue to do so is causing services to question working with our city - why would you push out the people who want to help keep at-risk families in their homes and get homeless into safe places? This department helps not only the homeless but our elderly, our young families, students, vets, all of us. Support it! Thank you, Pam Brisse Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 63 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 03/01/22 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 5:36 AM To: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council) Cc: Nelson, Michael; McLaughlin, Susan; Clugston, Michael; McConnell, Jeanie; Taraday, Jeff; sharonrice@hearing-examiner.com Subject: Public Comments for the March 1, 2022 Council Meeting. Please see Dave Gebert email to Jeanie McConnell dated June 8, 2007 plus notes dated November 17, 2009 attached. Attachments: Gebert Email - Thuesen Civils.pdf; November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting.pdf The Hearing Examiner Annual Report is scheduled for March 1, 2022. Please ask ALL the following questions during this Presentation: 1. What should a former Hearing Examiner do if the City of Edmonds contacts a former Hearing Examiner months after the Hearing Examiner contract has expired and asks the former Hearing Examiner to conduct a Hearing? The City of Edmonds has done this in the past, even when the City had a new Hearing Examiner under contract. On June 6, 2007, City employee Diane Cunningham contacted and informed former Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell that the City Attorney would like him to conduct a Hearing. 2. Does the City Attorney have the authority to determine who will conduct a Hearing? When can a mayor appoint a temporary hearing examiner? 3. What should happen if City Staff ACT in front of a Hearing Examiner decision? Please see the attached Dave Gebert email dated June 8, 2007 (two days after Diane Cunningham’s June 6, 2007 email to Ron McConnell) which proves City Staff acted in front of a Hearing Examiner decision that would not be decided upon until June 11, 2007. Gebert actually said: "Per Duane's e-mail below, please complete review of Thueson's civils by next Friday, June 15. So, that means move it to the top of the list. Before you review, please talk to Duane about the impact of the judges decisions and settlement, since that may effect our review comments and result if different comments than Lyle's previous comments." 4. Can a Hearing Examiner violate a Court Order by accepting a Court required letter from somebody other than the party specifically identified in the Court Order? 5. What should happen if City Staff violate a Hearing Examiner’s Order, such as 2006 Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell's clear decision that "Complete relocation of driveways, etc. was not approved."? 6. Can the City and its Insurance Pool (WCIA) go “well beyond” a Hearing Examiner’s Order? 7. Can a Hearing Examiner speculate about what would have happened had a citizen applied for a permit in a Hearing Examiner decision? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 64 8. What should happen if City Staff and City Attorney knowingly choose to not provide a Hearing Examiner all relevant code sections in front of a Hearing? 9. What should happen if a City Attorney represents to the Hearing Examiner that a code section does not apply when City Staff knows that the specific code section does apply and had discussed applying it in the attached November 17, 2009 notes? City Staff and City Attorney both knew that Setbacks will be grandfathered, but that was not shared with the Hearing Examiner. They also did not provide the Hearing Examiner with the attached notes. Thanks. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 6:58 AM To: Public Comment (Council); Public Comment (Council) Cc: Council; Nelson, Michael; Taraday, Jeff Subject: Public Comment for the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting PLEASE review how Edmonds City Government obtains its legal advice! Please appreciate that I am talking about how Edmonds City Government obtains its legal advice. History argues that the way we have obtained legal counsel has not worked well for citizens of Edmonds. The poor shape of our City Code for over 20 years provides evidence supporting this argument. Per ECC 2.05.010: Legal counsel services for the city of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.12.020 shall be provided through a professional services contract. The professional services contract shall be let on such basis as a majority of the Edmonds city council shall determine. The city council shall utilize the consultant selection process established by Chapter 2.80 ECC provided that the mayor shall participate with the city council consultant selection committee in the selection of up to three candidates for presentation to the city council for its final approval. Chapter 2.80 ECC was repealed in the year 2000. Shouldn't we have looked at this, studied this and fixed this many years ago? What former City Councilmember D.J. Wilson stated in his February 23, 2011 Article titled "Why I voted for a new Edmonds City Attorney" provides food for thought. The article can be found on the internet. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 65 Please note his statement – “But Council passed it upon staff and City Attorney advice”. Why do we pay huge amounts for legal services and allow City Attorneys to play such a major role in City government? Has allowing that served our citizens and property owners well? My strong opinion is that it has not. The Westgate Chapel Street vacation and the effort to change the City's street vacation laws afterwards provides great insight into these matters. I am very happy to walk any and all of you through that situation. All you have to do is ask me. RCW 35A.12.020 states that provision shall be made for obtaining legal counsel for the city, either by appointment of a city attorney on a full- time or part-time basis, or by any reasonable contractual arrangement for such professional services. State law provides for much flexibility in how the City obtains legal counsel. Why have City Attorneys been allowed to intervene into City Council Meetings and make legislative recommendations? Please see the September 16, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes and the December 15, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes for two examples. Why do we allow City Attorneys to play such a major role in Edmonds City Government? Thank you. Ken Reidy From: joe scordino Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 1:35 PM To: Citizens Planning Board Cc: Council Subject: Planning Board Agenda for draft PROS Plan Approval Tonight The Planning Board's PROS Plan agenda item includes a staff recommendation for the Planning Board at the end of the Public Hearing to: "recommend to the City Council for consideration of approval the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan with their collective suggestions for revisions". There are several problems with that: 1. Is there time for the Planning Board to discuss and deliberate on the Public Hearing input if the Board is supposed to finalize all of its recommendations by the end of the agenda item? Does anyone know in advance how many citizens will be commenting? Will there be new comments raised that the Board hasn't considered or discussed? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 66 Has the Board discussed and deliberated on all the written comments it has received? Why rush the Planning Board approval - is it an attempt to just have "rubber stamp" approval? 2. The action by the Planning Board needs to be clarified. There is an obvious distinction between the staff's recommendation for the Board to "recommend approval with suggestions for revisions" VERSUS "recommend approval with revisions". The latter makes it clear the Planning Board is recommending approval ONLY IF the revisions are made. The former ("with suggestions") is the "rubber stamp" approach that City staff seem to always try and force the Planning Board to accept - AND THAT IS WRONG! 3. The agenda packet confuses PROS Plan approval with Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) approval. The Council has always dealt with CFP/CIP approvals as a totally separate budget discussions and approvals. It is a separate element in the City's Comprehensive Plan and should not be confused into the PROS Plan content and approval. 4. Is the Board going to speak for itself (i.e., the Board Chair presents the Board deliberations and recommendations to the Council), or is it going to defer to City staff who may or MAY NOT present the Boards' concerns or what the Board actually heard from the public). The Planning Board should listen to (and read the written) public comments tonight and then discuss and deliberate on BOTH. Then the NEXT Planning Board meeting should be the action item to 1) Approve, 2) Approve with "suggestions", 3) Approve with revisions, or 4) NOT Approve with request that City staff bring back a revised draft for consideration of Board approval. This is what good governance is all about! This PROS Plan needs to be taken seriously as it sets the stage for "Its an Edmonds Kind of Day" and why citizens enjoy living in Edmonds and why visitors come here. The Plan should highlight the "gems" in this City and what needs to be done to preserve and improve them for future generations. The Plan should identify and propose solutions to the problems that prevent our Parks and Open Spaces from achieving their intended use (i.e., what the citizens of this City want and pay taxes for). So far, it doesn't! Please read my commentary at: Reader view: Is Edmonds losing its livability and charm? - My Edmonds News <https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/02/reader-view-is-edmonds-losing-its- livability-and-charm/?mc_cid=d8da1ca965&mc_eid=e6f3145861> <https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/02/reader-view-is-edmonds-losing-its- livability-and-charm/?mc_cid=d8da1ca965&mc_eid=e6f3145861> Reader view: Is Edmonds losing its livability and charm? - My Edmonds News Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 67 I used to be proud to say that I’ve lived in Edmonds for over 40 years; but it’s becoming embarrassing to admit ... Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 68 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 03/15/22 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 10:52 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Feser, Angie; Nelson, Michael Subject: Public hearing, Draft PROS plan Council, Please take your time in reviewing the draft PROS plan. One public hearing is not sufficient to address the complexity of this document, and to include input from the many residents and stakeholders who have engaged with the Parks department, the Planning Board and Council, for over a year, regarding this plan. The Planning Board had eight meetings from January 2021 to February 2022 to discuss and deliberate this draft plan. Council should allot sufficient time to finalize this critically important document. In the year that this work has been going on, many issues have been brought to light, as reflected in the public comments in the packet, and comments received by Council. The work done by Director Feser and by our Planning Board is greatly appreciated. Deliberations by the Planning Board were thoughtful and inclusive of points expressed in the surveys, meetings, and public comments. The Planning Board was able to discuss these issues, over a long period of time. Your packet includes 569 pages, 240 pages of which were public comments to the Planning Board (Jan 7-22 through March-10-22). Council has received many more emails regarding the draft PROS plan than are represented in the packet. It takes several hours to review the materials. Fully understanding and deciding upon its adoption will take much longer because of the breadth and complexity of the PROS plan. Concerns brought by the public should be discussed. For example: * Pilchuck Audubon members. * Underwater Park users. * Requests that Edmonds take over management of SW County Park. * Poor condition of Edmonds’ part of the Interurban Trail and of its access to Lake Ballinger Park. * Improvements and access to Mathay-Ballinger Park * Detailed recommendations by Save Our Marsh members. * Development of a park on the Edmonds side of Lake Ballinger Park. * The planned addition of a play area to the (open space) Pine Ridge Park, currently used extensively by bird watchers. * Degradation of our environmental assets and wildlife habitat in our parks, including forests, streams, wetlands, steep slopes and our Marsh- estuary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 69 * A planning board member’s comment about acquisition of Perrinville Woods property, recognizing residents who for years have opposed its development. * Creation of an action plan regarding global warming throughout the entire PROS plan that would reflect the city of Edmonds’ commitments to reduce our carbon footprint. * Restoration of Edmonds’ watersheds, specifically those in our parks. * Clarity about the city’s plan to acquire the Unocal property to expand and support the Edmonds Marsh estuary. * Restoration of the Marsh estuary, and of salmon bearing creeks and streams flowing through our parks to Puget Sound through Edmonds. It would also be prudent for Council to carefully assess whether allocating over 8 million dollars in the Capitol Facilities Program (p.579 of packet) for the acquisition, master plan, and development of three new parks (two in SE Edmonds, one on 99) is realistic to implement within six years. There’s still a lot of work to be done on this draft PROS plan. Since grant applications for this year were due on March 1, 2022, Council now has the time to properly vet this document. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds city council member From: Inae Piercy Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: Edmonds Floretum Garden Club art piece Hi, My name is Inae Piercy, a member of Edmonds Floretum Garden Club and a long-time Edmonds resident. As I walk around the town in the spring and summer times Edmonds is full of beautiful flowers, plants, and trees all over the City and people’s yards. This is not just a coincidence. Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, from its inception in 1922, this club has encouraged the growing of gardens and flowers throughout the city, in public and private spaces. Last 100 years, the Floretum Garden club has been working with the city's parks department to beautify Edmonds by planting hanging baskets, corners, and weeding beds and parks around the city. To commemorate this club’s long history of working together with the City parks department to beautify Edmonds, Floretum Garden Club is donating these beautiful mosaic art pieces that represent the Edmonds Floretum garden club to the city. We want our current and future members, and the Edmonds residents to enjoy the art pieces, be proud of the club, and honor and remember the club’s long history and legacy. Please accept our donation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 70 Thank you. Inae From: votepetso (null) Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:31 PM To: Council Cc: Buckshnis, Diane; Johnson, Kristiana; Johnson, Laura; Paine, Susan; Tibbott, Neil; Olson, Vivian; Chen, Will Subject: PROS Plan - Public hearing Please include these comments in the record of the public hearing. Please prioritize land acquisitions in the PROS plan. Whether the land is used for active recreation, open space, or environmental benefits, or some combination, it needs to be in the plan to access funding assistance. If not specifically, at least in general: "waterfront access", "environmental restoration", "climate resiliance", "equity", and the old standby "miscellaneous land acquisition" for example. Have we included specifically the waterfront parcels adjacent to the one we were able to purchase about 10 years ago? Did we also include a "misc" waterfront provision? Did we include Perrinville Woods, and a "misc" provision for other remaining wooded areas? Did we include the Unocal and other properties near the Marsh? Did we include properties near lakes and streams, or in areas underserved by parks? Properties in areas needing improved tree canopy? Previously, park acquisition had excellent funding assistance through the State grants. I believe funding opportunities are even better now, with new State and Federal programs. If the plan doesn't need adopted immediately, Council might ask staff for a review of all recently created State and Federal funding opportunities regarding parks, recreation, salmon recovery and passage, equity, climate resiliance, habitat restoration, etc. Language could be deliberately tailored for the PROS plan to include these new funding opportunities, and appropriate partnerships could be initiated. Finally, please don't look at this as parks v. growth. If you add only people, you achieve only parks that are standing room only (and environmental degradation). If you add people, you also need to add parks. Lora Petso, Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 15, 2022 Page 71 Submitted by hand-delivered letter March 4, 2022 For public record and to each council member Dear Respected Representatives: I am profoundly grateful for the wisdom this assembly has shown in slowing down approvals when further study is warranted. I urge you to do so again for the PROS plan. Citizens are begging for a rewrite with their priorities addressed and I am one of them. This plan will have serious implications for the future beauty, livability and resilience to climate change and it is lacking in some important respects. CO2 reduction and sequestration are opportunities only the Parks Department has. I maintain that goals for each park and open space need to be specifically addressed in this regard, including retention and protection as well as aforrestation plans. Likewise, the negative impact of sea level rise and the positive impacts of marsh valuation have not been prioritized. (Their neglect may exact a price long before a new pros plan is written years from now.) This one is where they must be specifically addressed, preferably with target timelines. By heeding the outcry of informed stakeholders, this important document can be a gem; a watershed moment. In all sincerity, Dawna Lahti