Loading...
Cmd032222 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HYBRID MEETING APPROVED MINUTES March 22, 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 ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council hybrid meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge 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 Mayor Nelson advised Items 9, 10, and 13 were erroneously included on the original agenda and had been removed. City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. JOINT MEETING 1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, thank the council for the opportunity to present again following their presentation last month on the RFA’s 2021 annual report and compliance report. This second annual meeting is required by the interlocal agreement between SCF and the City and provides an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 2 opportunity for the RFA’s seven member elected board of commissioners to meet with the mayor and city council. He introduced SCF staff: Assistant Chiefs Jason Isotalo and Michael Fitzgerald, Deputy Chiefs Bob Eastman and David Wells, and Public information Officer Leslie Hynes. He introduced the SCF governance board members: Chair Greg Urban, Vice Chair Chris Teofilak, and Commissioners Jim Kenny, Mark Laurence, Derek Daniels and Micah Rowland, and Executive Assistant to the Board Melissa Blankenship. (Commissioner David Chan arrived during the presentation.) Chief Hovis advised the presentation would highlight updates that have occurred since their presentation last month. Further information is available in the council packet. He reviewed: • Additional 24-hour EMS Transport unit, located at fire station, went into service on March 1, 22 o The addition of RFA firefighters to serve the City was approved by council and increased daily staffing within the City from 9 to 11 firefighters 24 hours/day • The board of fire commissioners accepted a generous Community Resource Paramedic Grant from the Verdant Health Commission for quarters 2-4, 2022. o Grant is renewable by mutual agreement of SCF board and Verdant commission for years 2023 and 2024 o Increases staffing from 3 to 5 employees in the innovative Community Resource Paramedic Program which started in 2013 via a partnership with Verdant, three years after Fire District 1 and the City entered into a contract for service o Program has proven to be a valuable resource to assist many of the most vulnerable members of the community and reduce repeated calls to 911 from residents across the RFA • City of Mill Creek will place on the April 26, 2022 special election ballot a measure for voter consideration within the city to annex to SCF so the RFA would provide fire and EMS services to the city beginning in 2023 • The RFA has begun initial exploratory discussion with staff from Brier and Mountlake Terrace as both cities’ contracts for service will reach their initial 20 year benchmark in January 2025 o The RFA’s desire is for both cities to annex into the RFA by January 2025 or earlier o Although Edmonds’ initial contract term ends in 2030, the RFA is certainly interested in having similar discussions with the City of Edmonds about annexing to the RFA before or at the initial 20 years of the contract for service. Chief Hovis thanked the mayor and council for the valued partnership between the two organizations for the past 12 years and thank the city for virtually hosting SCF tonight. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation to SCF staff and commissioners for their hard work and dedication to helping the community. He was happy to see the additional SCF team that went into service on March 1st at station 20, commenting that was good news for the community to provide adequate coverage for residents and businesses. He referred to packet page 44, Council-Adopted Standards Not Met, commenting there were a few metrics that were not met, for example the established response time was 6:30 and the actual was 6:38. In reviewing the list, he noted most of the actuals are not meeting the established standards. He asked whether any analysis had been done and what steps could be taken to meet those standards. Chief Hovis recalled the previous presentation touched on this; the City of Edmonds has never been able to meet those standards adopted in the RCW and by the city council. It is difficult to do, especially with the City’s demographics, Woodway to the south that does not have a fire department, and Puget Sound to the west. He recalled Councilmember Buckshnis has had questions about this in the past. He anticipated the actuals can get closer to the standards but it will require additional staffing beyond the 2-person unit that was added on March 1st. Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that it was a historical problem that had never been solved. Chief Hovis answered yes, all the way back to Chiefs Springer and Tomberg who was the chief before Edmonds merged with Fire District 1. It is a reporting standard or goal to meet; getting closer to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 3 meeting those standards will take personnel. The majority of calls are EMS and when stations go out of service to transport and a subsequent call comes in, it is difficult to respond using remedial measures and assistance from Mountlake Terrace or Lynnwood. It is a long term pictures and is related to placement of fire stations as well as additional personnel. He was pleased council approved the additional two personnel to return to the 2010 staffing levels and anticipated conversations will continue regarding the needs of the City and response times. He looked forward to seeing in the annual report in 2023 what impact the additional 2-person unit had within the City. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she owes Chief Hovis a couple emailed questions from the last presentation. She suggested revisiting the performance standards that were done in 2006 as well as the NUUF. She recognized that took time and a joint effort between SCF, the City, and SCF commission. She recalled Chief Tomberg looking at this back then and it was approved in 2009, commenting she was unsure why it said 2006 when the contract with Fire District 1 was approved in 2009. She supported looking at the standards again to get a better understanding and to have a joint relationship that is less formal and more roll up our sleeves and go through items together. Chief Hovis said although he does not want to speak on behalf of the board, he knew they are as interested as Councilmember Buckshnis and other members of the council in making sure the community is well served. The City adopted the standards in 2006, the City’s contract for service with FD1 started in 2010. FD1 changed their standards in 2011 to add the marine unit to its reportable standards. It is always a good time to think about how to better serve the community. Now that the governor has lowered the restrictions, he offered to have coffee with Councilmember Buckshnis instead of communicating by email. Councilmember Paine thanked Assistant Chief Fitzgerald for his emailed response to her questions from the previous presentation. For the audience, she relayed her question was related to when building inspections would return and the response was those were anticipated to return at some point but that had not had any impact on the fires that occurred in Edmonds over the past year. She was excited to see the Verdant grant and asked what could be expected regarding the metrics from those additional resources as well as the new staff at fire station 20. She expressed appreciation for SCF’s service and everything they have done. With regard to what could be expected, Chief Hovis said they want to look at the data; it has only been 22 days since the increase in staffing. He looked forward to reporting that data next year and the improvements it will provide. The majority of calls are EMS and the majority of those are BLS; the City is fortunate to have a great partner in Swedish Edmonds and to be able to transport patients there. He anticipated that unit will be very busy and they are trying their best to keep that unit as busy as possible to transport people efficiently and effectively to local area hospitals. With regard to Councilmember Paine’s first question, Chief Hovis said the Community Resource Paramedic is a great program and will reduce 911 calls across the RFA. The ILA between the RFA and Verdant still has to be signed and that program implemented. Verdant requested SCF try covering nights, weekends and holidays, the times outside of business hours where people have needs. Data analysis showed two-thirds of the referrals to the Community Resource Paramedic Program came in the nighttime hours, the inverse of call volume, generally two-thirds of calls happen between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. and one third at night. SCF will try that and see how it works and pivot if necessary. He anticipated it would be a great asset to the entire RFA, all 53 square miles. To have five people working on that plus two embedded social workers from Compass Health and an admin assistant across 270,00 people may sound light, but this program is doing something that other agencies are now trying to catch up with. For example, the City of Seattle is just starting this program now; SCF has been doing it since 2013 and will be the first department in the State of Washington to offer this 24 hours/day. He thanked the commission for approving it and thanked Verdant Health Commission for their support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 4 Councilmember K. Johnson congratulated SCF on the Community Resource Paramedic program, finding it an excellent program that the grant from Verdant will help make more comprehensive. Chief Hovis recognized Councilmember K. Johnson for valuing this additional resource. He noted with Councilmember K. Johnson’s participation in the Sno911 board, she understood there are emergency and non-emergency needs in the community. Commissioner Chan said hello to all his friends on the city council, commenting he was enjoying the meeting and looked forward to continuing the SCF’s relationship with the City. Commissioner Kenny said one of the long term issues at SCF is renovating and building fire stations. They likely will be kicking off a construction program in the coming years as a result of a large capital facilities plan study. This includes the stations owned by the City of Edmonds; station 20 in Esperance and station 17 downtown have a combined $16 million in needed renovations and reconstruction. That is something the City should put on their longer term agenda because those capital facilities will not improve over time. SCF is looking at their facilities, many of which are old and need updates. It is a large challenge due to SCF’s numerous facilities, but it needs to be done and planned for and the City needs to do the same for its fire stations. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments, reminding this item is for any topic other than the public hearings later on the agenda. Jay Grant, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, relayed the Port was formed in 1948; there are five commissioners and the Port is served day-to-day by an executive director. The Port has several interagency agreements with the City and have responsibility for the waterfront and the environment. Upcoming issues include the additional railroad tracks. He has been appointed the liaison to the city council and he expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Tibbott for attending Port of Edmonds meetings. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, reported he walks 3-6 miles/day throughout Edmonds. A lot of people were out today and he was getting hoarse communicating with everyone. Communication is very important, showing respecting, nodding, smiling, etc. On the topic of communication, he pointed out tonight’s agenda said nothing about the ability to providing oral comments in council chambers. Communication means letting the public know how they can access the council and how to submit comments. The agenda only included instructions for participating via Zoom, and nothing about speaking in person. He pointed out a lot of people in council chambers were not wearing masks, but there is a sign outside the door stating masks required. He asked whether masks were actually required, emphasizing the need to communicate so people know what is going on. It would also be helpful if the council provided direction regarding what happens to written comments; sometimes they are attached to the meeting minutes, sometimes they are not. A lot of people say they just go into a black hole which he felt was very unfortunate. He urged the council to put something in the agenda memo about how the public can provide written comments, where they should be emailed, where they will go, whether the council reads them, etc. Lindsey Kuntz, Edmonds, referred to her experience with the police department today, reporting she felt very judged and dismissed by the dispatcher when asking for context regarding her call. Ms. Kuntz described her background as context for her concern: she grew up in poverty, but due to the safety net Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 5 provided by extended family, she was not homeless but could have been because her father routinely lost his job. She moved out when she was 17 and worked in apartment management so she could afford the rent while going to college from 2001-2003. It was a privately owned building and in spite of the owner’s resistance to rent assistance vouchers, she advocated for them and had a significant number of tenants using rent assistance vouchers. She has also worked with Centerstone, Use Care and Stolen Youth in Seattle. She is compassionate and is passionate about helping marginalized and needy people. She called the police today after seeing a tent under the Highway 99 overpass on Edmonds Way and inquiring about the City’s laws about camping on public land. For her, it was not so much the tent but the amount of trash around the tent. There is another encampment in a nearby ravine close to a water source with a lot of trash. She was told all that can be done is to approach them, do a wellness check and offer them housing and if they do not want it, they do not have to leave. She acknowledged it was a complicated thing due to inflation but she wanted to know how the City would deal with the trash and the environmental impact. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said chapter 20.70 of the city code allows city council to adopt a resolution stating the city council will grant a street vacation if specific conditions are met within 90 days. The council may require the following as conditions to a street vacation, either compensation or a grant of an easement to the city in exchange for the easement vacated. Edmonds is a home rule broad power code city. Long ago the city council voted that was a good thing to add the either or law to the code for street vacations. He pointed out the word “or” is in all caps in the code. The words “to the city” are plain language and simple to understand. Incredibly Resolution 1375 required the fee owner of the property to provide easements to Olympic View Water & Sewer District and other dry utilities. He questioned what happened to the word, “to the city” as Olympic View and other dry utilities are certainly not the City. He read from page 564 of the November 15, 2016 city council agenda packet, “The city may require monetary compensation or require a grant of an easement to the city. While Olympic View has requested easements for utilities within 92nd Avenue West, the city is not requiring an easement, thus the city should be monetarily compensated for the vacation.” He requested the council address this conduct at once and referred to an email he sent council this morning and stated trust should be rebuilt. Mr. Reidy continued, sometime prior to May 3, 2018, an effort was initiated to change the street vacation laws; this massive, time consuming effort which included multiple planning board meetings failed. When the massive effort finally reached council, the council voted on October 15, 2019 that staff come back at a later date with a clear presentation; staff never did so. That street vacation code update has been listed as a future unscheduled item on city council extended agenda for well over two years. He asked whether staff will ever be held accountable for not bringing a clear presentation back to city council as council directed. Several of the current councilmembers were on that 2019 council. He urged the council to ensure their votes matter. David Johnston, Edmonds, said Southwest County Park is a remarkable park with 120 acres of beautiful open space and wild space right in the middle of a densely populated area. A passionate group of community volunteers, in particular the Edmonds Ivy League, tirelessly battle invasive species every Saturday morning. However, the park is essentially unmanaged by the county. As mentioned last week, most of the park improvements are Eagle Scout projects. There is a map of maintained trails for the portion of the park south of Olympic View Drive, only about 1/7th of the park. The much larger northern part of the park has no trail map. That matters because, 1) casual hikers don’t use the park much because it is intimidating and easy to get very lost, and 2) without a trail map, there is no distinction between authorized and unauthorized trails. Some of the unauthorized trails are exceedingly steep which is dangerous and leads to excessive erosion in the wet season. The county has an unpublished 30-year old map that does not reflect the current trail system, but that doesn’t matter because no one can see it. From his conversations with the county, his impression is they plan to transfer the park to Edmonds free of charge and given that plan, have moved on to other priorities and disengaged from active management. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 6 He believed Edmonds could do a much better job managing the park; however, if Edmonds has no intent in accepting the transfer, the City needs to send a clear signal to the county. Mr. Johnston continued, he said he was not an expert in the role of the PROS Plan, but his impression was that it was far more focused on managing existing assets rather than acquiring assets and that may be entirely appropriate. However, given the current inflection point on the 120 acres of beautiful wild space in the middle of Edmonds, the only discussion in the PROS Plan is a couple of sentences on page 454, language inserted only after passionate commentary. He summarized, 1) Southwest County Park is a beautiful, huge park with a passionate group of volunteers, 2) the community deserves better management of the park, 3) Edmonds would do a much better job than the county, and 4) Edmonds should actively pursue acquisition of the park in the very near future because the county has moved on. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, asked whether commentors could continue to watch the council meeting via Zoom, recalling comments that people would be removed from Zoom after their comments. She was removed last week and was not able to get back on to comment during the public hearing. She noted the sound is much better on Zoom and it is easier to hear. Regarding the tree canopy, she asked if anyone had looked into the 100 acre discrepancy in the SaveATree’s March 1st report. She pleaded for the council to rescind the illegal tree ordinance that charges property owners for their own trees. The ordinance will have the opposite effect on the tree canopy as owners will cut trees before the City takes ownership and charges them $3,000-$12,000 for each tree on their property that need to be removed before allowing to do as they wish. She questioned what emergency was used to pass this ordinance, what authority the City was given to take possession of private property, breaking the laws of the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution. They gave away the portion of their property that Edmonds planning department told them was critical area, leaving 1.2 acres free to divide and build three homes. Now, they’ve received a drawing from Edmonds showing that 50% of their property is critical area and a note saying critical area is not included in open space so they would need to find an additional 30% open space on their property, leaving only 20% of their property to put three homes on. She asked the council to please rescind the tree ordinance that is making it difficult for them to have a home for themselves and her parents. If the council stops hearing from her, they need to worry because that’s when she is getting a lawyer with the others. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said she had not planned to comment at the public hearing regarding the garden club’s art donation and missed a big point that she wanted to draw the council’s attention to. One of the reasons cited for why art could not be sited in an underserved area was that the garden club had specifically requested downtown as the area they had worked in for many years. The council and city should critically think about the reasons when it considers the $20,000 spent annually on the beautification program and the role tax dollars play in fostering community organizations downtown that then result in further investments in that well served area. Next, she commented environmental quality goals are set forward in the comprehensive plan to protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state and national environmental standards, promote the improvement of environmental quality within the Edmonds community by designing and implementing programs based a system of incentives and public education, develop, monitor and enforce critical area regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with best available science and develop, and implement and monitor a shoreline master program consistent with state law to enhance and protect quality of shoreline environment consistent with best available science. Ms. Seitz continued, while she would love to get her hands on these from both an environmental and equity perspective, these goals and associated policies as well as those in the climate action plan and urban forest management plan are the measuring sticks that have been adopted by public process to measure environmental priorities. The question of environmental priorities is one of the comprehensive plan. Whatever anybody else establishes for the relative environmental quality, this is what has been Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 7 adopted. With regard to her experience moving to Edmonds, when her family purchased the house they live in today, they were excited to have a larger yard, be near Lake Ballinger and the interurban trail as well as near the international district where they had previously frequented many great restaurants. The listing for the house they purchased said it was in Shoreline; the real estate market preferred to consider her home being in Shoreline versus being in Edmonds. She assured she lives in Edmonds, but brings this up to show that her family and likely many others did not purchase their homes due to any association with downtown Edmonds. She wanted the council and all those listening to understand that for her there is no reason her tax dollars and the tax dollars from the SR-99 commercial center of the city that are so frequently diverted downtown should not be invested in this area to address pollution, urban flooding, restore environmental degradation, build sidewalks and benefit their children. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Seitz, commenting what she says is right on and residents in the area are starting to stand up because they need things like sidewalks, lighting, stop signs and other things that happen in the downtown core. She anticipated Highway 99 residents would be gathering as a large group soon. She agreed with Mr. Scordino, communication between council and citizens is horrible and the fact that there is nothing on the agenda about where or what the council was doing was the fault of the council leadership. She hoped instead of hurrying to make decisions that are perhaps rash, a better way was to look at the items and wait a week if necessary. In this case he who gets there the quickest is not the winner. She recalled citizens demanding that the council return to in-person meetings, the most important thing to them was to see the council in person and for councilmembers to see citizens face-to-face. Tonight, six councilmembers are present; she thanked them for attending to show they were unanimous in moving forward. However, one councilmember, Councilmember K. Johnson is not at the meeting [Councilmember K. Johnson participated virtually]. Citizens have demanded that councilmembers attend in person; Ms. Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember K. Johnson resign if she was unwilling to come to the meeting. She questioned whether it was appropriate for her to participate in a council meeting when she was unwilling to come or was in a nursing home or hospital and unable to take care of herself. If Councilmember K. Johnson cannot show up at a council meeting, a simple thing a mile down the road from her house, she questioned her ability to govern the City. Denise Shaw Cooper, Edmonds, said she lives behind PCC south of the school where the sidewalks end. Children walking to school, the elderly and moms pushing strollers have to walk in the street because there are no sidewalks. Cars are parked on easements, there are ditches and there is little area to walk by the church. She was surprised Edmonds was concerned with bike paths or bike parking before ensuring that citizens have sidewalks. She anticipated there were many more walkers than bicyclist in Edmonds. She acknowledged there may be a time to worry about bicycle parking and asked if there was a committee for the areas of Edmonds without sidewalks. She referred to the amount of graffiti in Edmonds and asked if there was a committee related to taking care of graffiti or a way to report it so it could be removed in a timely manner. She expressed concern with the disparaging remarks about wonderful Councilmember K. Johnson, commenting she was sorry Councilmember K. Johnson had to put up with that from citizens as she is a wonderful person, does not deserve those comments, and the citizens appreciate her. She thanked councilmembers for representing the citizens. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, agreed she did not like Councilmember K. Johnson being spoken to like that, stating it has bothered her from the time of her injury. She could see Councilmember K. Johnson great but could not see the rest of the council well and if she did not know who they were, would have no idea, but she was okay with however the council wanted to hold their meetings. She expressed concern with tents in the city, recalling that would not be allowed and that there would be places where homeless people could park in vehicles. She said everyone knows what is going on in tent cities and why people won’t come out or accept help and that they needed money to support it. She commented on thefts that occurred yesterday and people looking for a red truck that was involved. She was unsure how to fix the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 8 problem of homelessness but was very concerned about it for citizens and children as well as the problem with discarded needles. She referred to an assault of a hospital employee which is evidence of the crime in that area. She feels sorry for people who are experiencing homelessness but a way will need to be figured out to move them somewhere where a better eye can be kept on them. She hoped Edmonds would not become Ballard or Seattle. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. DEDICATION OF 15 FEET FOR 203RD ST SW RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO 20323 81ST AVE W 5. CIVIC PARK PUBLIC ART PROJECT 6. PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC ART PROJECT 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN Parks, Recreation., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser explained this is the continuation of last week’s public hearing. She suggested reopening the public hearing and allowing public comments to continue. Mayor Nelson resumed the public hearing for the PROS Plan, noting this was a continuation of the public hearing for people who had not yet spoken. Scot Simpson, Edmonds, said Shell Creek runs through Yost Park and there is the potential to have salmon in Shell Creek. Currently fingerling coho are released in Shell Creek and they make it to Puget Sound but are unable to make it back because of a manmade waterfall downstream on private property. The owner has been told it could be replaced with step ponds at no expense to him through grants but he has been uncooperative. Former Councilmember Dave Teitzel tried to speak to him but he would not entertain a conversation. The only way possible for this situation to be resolved is for a group of citizens interested in having salmon as their neighbors to approach this person. He requested the council and the city support this effort by adding the following in addition to #11 in the PROS Plan revision table, “Assist citizens in their efforts to have the dam blocking salmon in Shell Creek removed.” He invited anyone interested in supporting SOS (Save Our Salmon) to contact him at Simpson.scot@gmail.com. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, referred to numerous written comments he and others have submitted regarding the PROS Plan; the clear bottom line in all the comments is that the draft plan is not ready for council approval. The citizens of Edmonds deserve better planning, management and accountability on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 9 preservation and enhancement of parks, city properties and the environment. The parks belong to the citizens of the City and the City needs to get and incorporate public input into the PROS Plan so citizens have a voice in how City public property is managed. Although the council has heard how supposedly extensive the public engagement process was, it begs the question why there has been such a public uproar regarding the structure and content of the new PROS Plan. It was supposed to be an update of the 2016 plan; it is not. Not only were the action items in the 2016 PROS Plan deleted, but some of the publicly-accepted concepts were also removed. The entire structure of the plan, the concept for having a plan, disappeared. The goals in the plan changed, he questioned what happened to the old goals. This all happened with no explanation to the public, no accounting of what actions in the 2016 plan were completed and which of them needed to continue into the next plan. Accountability is a critical component in all levels of government and it is certainly not seen here. He expected to see the PROS Plan be accountable to the 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan which states on page 60, the city would develop and implement a tree planting plan on city property. The draft PROS Plan does not contain that plan, only a sentence that there is an Urban Forest Management Plan. The City is not accountable to citizens to put trees where they are supposed to in accordance with a plan adopted by the City. He summarized the council knows his opinion and have seen his written comments and he hoped they would do something about it. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to Mayor Nelson’s comment that this was a continuation of the public hearing and if someone had spoken before they were not supposed to speak tonight. He could not remember if he spoke before and asked if he was allowed to speak or if Mayor Nelson had requested a list of people who spoke before that would not be allowed to speak tonight or could anyone speak. Mayor Nelson said Mr. Reidy could speak. Mr. Reidy said Mr. Scordino is an incredible asset to the community and he fully supported everything he stated. He should be respected and listened to and should be very involved in the process. The PROS Plan was in front of the planning board at multiple meetings and a great deal of time and effort went into it, but he was unsure the city council was ready to vote on it. He has talked to a lot of people who feel more time is needed. He has been told concerns raised by the public that need further discussion include Pilchuck Audubon Society members, Underwater Park users, requests that Edmonds take over management of Southwest County Park, poor conditions of the portion of the interurban trail in Edmonds’ and access to Lake Ballinger Park, improvements and access to Mathay Ballinger Park, detailed recommendations by Save Our Marsh members, etc. He urged the council to listen to citizens, take their time and not shortcut the PROS Plan approval. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented Southwest County Park is a beautiful park, 120 acres of open space surrounded by Edmonds encompassing a series of forested ravines and Perrinville Creek flowing through the eastern portion of the park to Brown’s Bay on Puget Sound. The City can acquire it as a gift from Snohomish County. It would greatly increase the canopy cover within the city limits, provide beautiful trails down to the water and safe places for salmon. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said Lake Ballinger is the largest water body with the most WDFW identified salmon resources within the City of Edmonds. It is also a shoreline of the state within Edmonds which has experienced the least investment by the City. While other significant recreation areas identified by comprehensive plan policy B2 have experienced investment, Lake Ballinger has not. It was her understanding there was no restored shoreline on Lake Ballinger within the city limits. She questioned why people’s concern for the environment seemed to end at trees, the marsh or Southwest County Park and why wouldn’t those seeking to prioritize the environment want to meet the goals in SR-99 where there is a service gap and priority identified by the PROS planning process. Other shorelines in the City receive investment regardless if they are identified as open space. If the City plans to pursue open space designations for the lake, she hoped it would be done through appropriate agreements with Snohomish County and likely DNR. She acknowledged she talks about SR-99 a lot, it is where she lives and she does not hide the fact that investment will benefit her and her neighbors. She felt the City had an underlying Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 10 moral obligation to address pollution from SR-99 outside of any other argument she makes because it directly affects the health and environment of the community and is also the direct source of commercial tax revenue. Many of the downtown resources would not exist without the reappropriation of commercial wealth from SR-99 to downtown. Ms. Seitz continued, SR-99 is not her singular focus; she has commented heavily about south Edmonds, it has a greater population than SR-99 and is definitely deserving of both the resources identified and many more parks and open space investments. The investments identified in the draft PROS Plan will not come close to raising the park per capita standard in south Edmonds to be comparable to Five Corners or north Edmonds. She has advocated for all neighborhood parks to be expanded to three acres so that children from across the City can have access to sports field type recreation opportunities which benefit everyone. She has also advocated for the area northeast of Five Corners as the most densely populated area in the City with zero park resources. Across the board resources in the City are more closely aligned with race than population density. Future investments identified by the PROS Plan are also more closely aligned with race than with where the population is and where pending land use applications are. Although the marsh and Southwest County Park are great opportunities, she believed all the projects identified in the CFP should be evaluated on the following questions in alignment with the GMA, is the resource located in the area of need and is the resource located in the area where density has been or will be sited. Although race is not identified in either of these metrics, asking these two questions will lead to equitable investments regardless of the color of people’s skin. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, suggested expanding the thought process regarding the PROS Plan related to interlocal agreements. The City has interlocal agreements with Lynnwood for Meadowdale Park and Lyndale Skate Park and he suggested expanding that thought process to the county park in Esperance, the school district for school playgrounds within the city’s boundaries, neighborhood assets that are overlooked in the PROS Plan as low hanging fruit to enhance the amenities available in those areas. Another opportunity is Southwest County Park; Perrinville Creek and the associated flooding downstream would be prime for a collaborative effort between stormwater management and parks. He did not see enough collaboration between departments or disciplines on these issues. Another idea was related to public safety in the park such as lighting and police patrols; he did not see any mention of safety in the PROS Plan and that should be paramount. The PROS Plan is lacking in a number of fundamental areas and the council needs to step back and look at it more holistically for a one Edmonds approach to unify the City rather than segmenting it. There is a lot that could be done for little investment while the City saves for future investment to purchase additional property in underserved areas of the City. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott observed staff has listened to citizen comment and included it in the plan, including Goal 6 regarding climate objectives. One of the questions that is consistently raised is about action planning and he asked how those action plans are generated, scheduled and vetted through a community process. Ms. Feser answered the terminology used is a department work plan which happens in two ways. Based on council and community priorities in consultation with the mayor, the department develops an annual work plan. A report on the plan is presented quarterly to the planning board, mostly recently at the planning board’s retreat. The work plan is always available to the public and councilmembers. Another way actionable items happen is through the budget process; the distribution of resources to support the council’s and the community’s priorities. The annual budget process is way for the public to be involved, review and see the projects in the capital program, what programs are being offered in recreation and cultural arts services, etc., a way to vet the process and test priorities. She recognized the capital list is quite extensive and there are more projects than can be done; projects are prioritized and included in the capital plan using the priorities in PROS Plan as well as looking at available opportunity such as grants, internal and external partnerships, land acquisition opportunities, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 11 Councilmember Tibbott asked how a community member would submit an idea or suggestion that was in line with the goals and objectives in the PROS Plan. Ms. Feser answered there are a number of ways including directly contacting the department, expressing that desire to the city council or planning board or any of the other boards and commissions that parks supports including the arts commission, youth commission, cemetery board, and planning board. Ideas or suggestions can also be expressed through the budget process. There are limitations related to staff and resources and not everything on the list can be accomplished; the priorities established in the PROS Plan and opportunities that become available help guide those efforts. Councilmember Tibbott observed a councilmember could also submit request. Ms. Feser answered absolutely. Councilmember Tibbott observed environmental goals are also a strong interest in the public, noting those are also supported by other commissions and departments. He asked how parks worked with the development services department on environmental goals. For example, the tree board is under development services, how does parks cooperate or support the work done by other departments. Ms. Feser answered the comprehensive plan has several chapters that address environmental issues including community sustainability, land use and transportation. Public works, through their work with utilities, transportation, and capital facilities planning, address environmental issues. Development services addresses them via housing, land use, transportation and implementation of the comprehensive plan. Other citizen representative advisory boards and commissions such as the tree board, the mayor’s climate protection committee, the citizens housing commission, the architectural design board and the mayor’s conservation advisory committee also address environmental issues. For example, one of the parks maintenance staff, the field arborist, is the staff liaison for the tree board, attending their meetings and working on implementation of the street tree plan. That person is working directly with the tree board, does the boots on the ground work as well as works with other departments to implement the tree plan. The phrase “environmental sustainability” is mentioned more than 300 times in the comprehensive plan which illustrates addressing environmental issues is spread through the city’s operations. Councilmember Tibbott commented there are eight different elements in the comprehensive plan, but the PROS Plan is only one of the eight. Ms. Feser answered the PROs Plan is not a chapter in the comprehensive plan, but is adopted by reference. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the other elements also speak to sustainability. Ms. Feser agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Ms. Feser to describe the outreach efforts and results and the top recommendation from those outreach efforts. Steve Duh, Conservation Techniques, answered the public process included a number of different steps to get information from the community and include it in the PROS Plan. There was a community survey, a statistically random mailed survey that had over 500 responses (a 20% response rate) and an identical online survey for the broader community. In total there were approximately 1,960 responses to the survey. There were also two virtual public meetings at different points during the planning process, tabling events at the uptown market, ongoing social media and web content provided and posted in four languages to engage and inform the community throughout the process. In addition, there were eight sessions with the planning board. He summarized there was a lot of engagement in the process. Some of the big takeaways were strong interest in trails and trail connectivity, strong interest in upgrading and improving existing parks and park amenities, buying additional conservation or open space land, renovating Yost Pool and providing for additional community events such as movies in the park and summer concerts. Councilmember L. Johnson asked for a map showing the distribution of parks and open space in the City. Mr. Duh displayed a map that identified City open space, active use parks, and non-city parks. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be fair to say that the public outreach was extensive, equitable and inclusive. Mr. Duh answered yes. The survey responses were representative of the entire Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 12 community in terms of the various demographic subgroups both in terms of geographic distribution as well as age and households with and without kids. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether the surveys were statistically significant. Mr. Duh answered yes, the mailed survey was a statistically significant random sample and aligned well with the broader online-only version, a good overall sample of data in total. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the results identified that the overwhelming majority prioritized open space, parks and specifically identified the SR-99/Lake Ballinger as a top priority. Mr. Duh said it was noted in the survey that south and southeast Edmonds were priority areas, gap areas. Councilmember L. Johnson said this map illustrates the glaring inequity, an inequity she was surprised to find when she toured the city’s parks and inventoried park amenities including trash cans and park benches. She referred to an article in American Progress, The Nature Gap, regarding confronting racial and economic disparities that states people of color, families with children in low income communities are most likely to be deprived of the benefits that nature provides. The map illustrates that is happening in the Edmonds community. The article also states, the inequitable distribution of nature’s benefits in the U.S. is not the result of consenting choices of communities of color or low income communities to live near less nature, allow more nature destruction nearby or to give up their right to clean air and clean water. Nature deprivation is instead a consequence of a long history of systemic racism. Listening to the comments, she was left asking, where was the outrage that there was only one small park in the SR-99 Lake Ballinger neighborhood and what was that lack of outrage called. She was struck by where the focus was and hoped people would take a close look at the map and in addition to the call for environmental protection add equitable distribution. She hoped more would be outraged by the inequitable distribution. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying to figure out an end game and how the council should proceed. She recommended the PROS Plan be remanded back to the administration and a citizen committee be created like was done for the urban forest management plan. She has never seen this many comments provided and although a great job was done on the PROS Plan, there is still more work to be done. She questioned how the revisions would be incorporated into the plan for review. Ms. Feser answered the table Councilmember Buckshnis was referencing contains all the revisions that were made between draft version 4 and 6. Draft 4 was released to the public on January 7 and is what generated a lot of the public comment, feedback and involvement through the planning board and emails to the council. Staff worked with the planning board to process the feedback that fell into four categories. The consultant, staff and the planning board worked through revisions to version 4 which are summarized in the table. Version 6, which was distributed last week, is latest final draft and includes all the recommended revisions in the table. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with what Councilmember L. Johnson said, but cited the need to be realistic, Edmonds is a coastal town. During recent grant reviews, the DEI issue is the marsh and nearshore estuary because the white man and the industrialist ruined tribal lands. She agreed consideration needed to be given to Highway 99, but the marsh and nearshore restoration and all the piped streams in the City need to be part of the environmental consideration. She said the tribes like to look out seven generations; and the same concept could occur with Highway 99. If property is available on Highway 99, the City should pursue it. She suggested an ILA with Mountlake Terrace so Edmonds could construct a playground on the west side of Lake Ballinger Park. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, the PROS Plan needs action items or strategies which were also lacking in the urban forest management plan. It is important for the council and citizens to understand what staff intends to do. She summarized the plan needs some finetuning to allow scientists to weigh in on environmental issues such as watersheds, the marsh and the nearshore estuary and all the properties on the waterfront. She pointed out a creosote pier at Brown’s Bay fell into the water. A city employee obtained a grant to remove it, but that was never done because the employee passed away. Grants are available for salmon recovery which frees up money for other neighborhoods, but to do that there needs to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 13 be a well-written PROS Plan document for salmon recovery, nearshore estuary, etc. The infrastructure bill will help with pipes and culverts. She was happy to be part of the team to finetune the document, but offered to defer if another councilmember was interested. The focus needs to be on providing comprehensive material so grant funding will be very simple. Council President Olson said like many Edmonds residents, she took the survey and she prioritized land acquisitions and park improvements outside the bowl. It is obviously from the map and tours that there is work to be done to bring those parks up to the standards that are enjoyed in other parts of the City. She felt good that it was a community value and everybody she talks to agrees with that. Where there is a bit of division is where the environmental piece of the pie fits in; the point she is making on behalf of the community is that is the whole pie. Nothing else happens when those things are let go and the salmon recovery piece is specific to this region as it is part of the food chain. Edmonds has an opportunity to do something about that that few other cities do. It is a responsibility and honor to be given that stewardship role and there needs to be a way to do both things. Council President Olson continued, the struggle is figuring out the citizen involvement and the accountability pieces which are tied together. Rather than continually adding more citizen groups and taskforces, she suggested thinking about the groups that are already in place. Staff presents to the planning board quarterly; is there a way to inform citizens of that quarterly or annual meeting and invite them to participate in a planning board taskforce to facilitate more citizen involvement in evaluating the action items on parks’ annual work plan. That would be a great opportunity to learn from many knowledgeable citizens, and develop a good action plan as well as provide accountability. She agreed the City does not always have control over what properties become available or what grants are available but having things fleshed out will allow focus on grants and finding opportunities. She agreed with another councilmember that the later version of the plan reflects the public feedback. With regard to priorities, she emphasized the library book drop. Councilmember Paine commented there has been a lot of public feedback through the outreach, surveys and planning board meetings which she attends. No one will say that Edmonds is not a group that does not have environmental desires. In the last two years, there has been an increased recognition of the need for equitable distribution of resources across Edmonds. She appreciated the key recommendations and said the PROS Plan is well written although it may need a few tweaks or small fixes. She asked how the CIP fits into the PROS Plan and referred to Ms. Feser’s email about the ability to apply for grants once the PROS Plan is done. She asked when staff anticipated the PROS Plan would be completed and what is the end game. Ms. Feser answered one of RCO’s requirements to remain eligible is the submittal of the PROS Plan every six years. Their criteria includes a capital program, a list of projects and their associated costs. Public engagement in the PROS Plan to establish community priorities is important to RCO as well as community support for projects when applying for grants. The PROS Plan is a good way to show that the public had an opportunity to look at the park system as a whole and determine priorities. One way to show that is identifying projects in the CIP and having funds allocated for those projects such as acquisition, planning, development or renovation. There are two ways to demonstrate the capital program in the PROS Plan, 1) a list of projects and associated costs, or 2) projects sequenced over six years showing when work would begin; both versions are included in the draft PROS Plan. Having the projects separated into six years provides more detail and carries more weight with the granting agencies when a project has a start date and the timing of funding identified. Ms. Feser continued, RCO primarily does a grant cycle every two years and are adding more grant programs. RCO is a one-stop stop for park and environmental grant opportunities. There is typically a deadline of February 28th to submit the PROS Plan and be eligible for the next grant funding cycle. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 14 City’s PROS Plan was done in 2016 so she believed it needed to be updated by 2022. However, the 2016 PROS Plan was submitted in December 2016 which is different than the typical February 28th deadline so Edmonds’ existing plan makes the City eligible for grants until the end of the year. She obtained an extension in February, but she was informed by RCO today that the City’s existing plan is in place until the end of the year so work can continue on the plan until everyone is satisfied. Ms. Feser pointed out the work plan identifies the PROS Plan will be completed by the end of February and it is now nearing the end of March and that work continues which prevents her from working on other projects. The longer work on the PROS Plan continues, it pushes out other projects; land acquisition has been shelved for a little bit as have ADA compliance issues and she has been unable to work on the marsh. The marsh came into the parks department last year, with a staff of one, her, working on it. She has not be able to spend much time on it. A lot of public feedback and comment is exactly what is wanted in the PROS Plan process and the public involvement is considered a success. With that being said, there is a tradeoff with continuing to work on the PROS Plan. Councilmember Paine was surprised not to hear much about recreation in public comments. She hoped recreation programs would address inclusivity related to abilities, languages and cultures and events that include all citizens. She recalled when Ms. Feser was hired, she spoke of festivals in Sammamish such a Diwali event. If Ms. Feser is the one person working on the PROS Plan and those other things, she was concerned about the opportunity costs if the PROS Plan process lasted much longer such as land acquisition. Ms. Feser said approval of the park planner position was delayed until the budget amendment process. It will be mid-summer before that person is in place so she is covering until that person is in place. With regard to Councilmember Paine’s comment about recreation, a new goal and set of objectives was included in the PROS Plan related to equity and inclusion and recreation programming is specifically listed. The City’s recreation programs are moving into Mathay Ballinger and consideration is being given to holding concerts in the parks throughout the city; staff resources have been shifted to looking at those opportunities even before the PROS Plan is adopted. Councilmember Chen recognized the hard work that Ms. Feser and Mr. Duh have put into the PROS Plan. This is the most comprehensive plan he has seen, although it is the first plan he has seen. The PROS Plan needs to first prioritize people; the environment is super important and he supported first focusing on land acquisitions in places where they are needed and he recognized staff was working with consultants and realtors to identify those opportunities. When those opportunities arise, they need to be seized in this real estate market. He thanked Mr. Scordino for taking him on a tour and he encouraged the council and the public to tour areas like Shell Creek, the marsh, and Lake Ballinger where there is a small access on the Edmonds side with a bench that is falling apart. Without an action plan, the plan could just sit on a shelf. He recommended analyzing what had been accomplished from the 2016 plan and how it could be improved. He recognized time was essential and at some point the council needs to move on. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to her earlier comment where she asked if the outreach was extensive, equitable, inclusive and statistically significant and both confirmed that it was. She referred to a comment about forming a citizen committee to revise the plan and incorporate comments and asked if that could be done in a way that kept it extensive, equitable, inclusive and statistically significant. Ms. Feser answered if council gave direction to appoint a citizen committee to do specific tasks, that could be done with consideration to ensure the group was representative of the community. The results should be brought forward in the same manner as the entire PROS Plan was, through the planning board for public review and feedback. That could be done through planning board meetings or a specific PROS Plan email to ensure it was publicly and extensively vetted. She recommended any significant revisions to the PROS Plan be vetted with the public in the same manner that the earlier versions were vetted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 15 Councilmember L. Johnson observed undertaking such a process would be a pretty significant redo and time effort that holds up other projects. Ms. Feser answered it depended on the scope of what the citizen group did, whether they were writing action items for all the goals and objectives. She estimated it would take 4-8 weeks to recruit, hold meetings, provide staff support, involve the consultant, work through the planning board, give the give public an opportunity to comment, compile the comments, work through the process and bring a planning commission recommendation to council. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the Statement from the Director, the first time in the city’s history a community based planning project has had an emphasis on diversity and equity in its outreach and efforts to more inclusively capture the community’s ever evolving priorities related to parks, open space, trails, recreation facilities and programing. She commended Ms. Feser for what has been done, commenting it was something new for the community and sometimes growth and adjustment comes with some pains. She could read the weight that the PROS Plan has been on Ms. Feser and was aware that a lot of things were being held up by this process that was supposed to have been completed in February. She recognized the work that has gone into the PROS Plan, something new and exciting for the City and something to celebrate. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE 2022 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN. Council President Olson commented as tonight was the public hearing and this was a big issue with a lot of feedback and conversation still ongoing, it was not appropriate to vote tonight. She did not support the motion to vote today. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion in recognition of all the work that has been done. There is a lot of accountability with the parks work plan going to the planning board quarterly; that provides a check and balance and review. In addition people can always speak to the city council. She envisioned it would be very expensive to have another 6-8 weeks of the consultant’s time. She recalled a councilmember saying people are important and there needs to be equity so it is important to adopt this plan. She anticipated further review would be gilding the lily; the PROS Plan is beautiful work and everyone has had a chance to see and comment on it. The parks work plan, provided as part of the budget process, is extensive. It would be great to get the park planner in place before June to help get other things underway. She supported the plan, anticipating there was plenty of community accountability so there were no gaps that would drop through the cracks. Councilmember K. Johnson concurred with Council President Olson, tonight was the public hearing and she had not anticipated the council would be discussing the plan. It has been the council’s custom to wait until a subsequent meeting to take into account all the comments before having further discussion and action. For those reasons, she did not support moving forward with the plan tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion. She did not understand the interest in opening the plan for further public comment. A committee of three citizens, four staff members and one director did a similar review of the UFMP. She felt there was a huge gap related to the environment such as watersheds, environment and the comprehensiveness of the waterfront, the piping and things of that nature. She recognized the environment is addressed in Item 6, but felt it needed to be done more completely. Action items can easily be pulled from various plans and included in the PROS Plan. Councilmember Chen said this plan had a lot of effort, knowledge and hard work put into it including public hearings where the public offered their expertise, comments, and knowledge and that needed to be taken into consideration. He did not think it would take 6-8 weeks; if the citizens who were involved were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 16 utilized, it could be done in 2-3 weeks. He asked if that was a reasonable assessment. He wanted to respect the public who devoted their time, energy and knowledge to provide feedback. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine asked Ms. Feser if additional funds would be needed to support the consultant. Ms. Feser answered at this point, the consultant has completed their contract. Moving forward, further revisions to the PROS Plan, research and additional work will have a cost. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL UP TO $20,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THE PROS PLAN DISCUSSION TO INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY. Councilmember Paine said Mr. Duh has done a beautiful job on the PROS Plan and it is important to keep the team together. To do the plan justice, it needs to be done professionally. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with keeping consultant. She reiterated a lot of information could be pulled from other plans and added as action items as well as adding information regarding the watershed. Council President Olson said the amount seemed like more than the job will take, especially if staff is efficient about when the consultant is brought into the process. She requested staff be thoughtful about that. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested confirming that Mr. Duh is available to continue. Mr. Duh said he available and has had preliminary conversations with Ms. Feser about it. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed support for this step, but she preferred to keep it completely community based and was hesitant about narrowing it to a select handful which would risk undoing the inclusive nature of everything that had been done to this point. She regretted the additional time and cost that would be necessary, but if the council wanted to do it, it should be done right and in a way that ensures outreach from the entire community. Councilmember Chen agreed a little more time was necessary, but he wanted to establish an end date to complete the plan. He recommended including members from the SR 99 corridor, noting many people do not have the time or are not accustomed to this type of involvement. With regard to community involvement, Council President Olson agreed with having representation geographically and in other ways. She did not think there was the time or the necessity for new surveys. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested providing Ms. Feser 1-2 weeks to think about how to move forward with the PROS Plan instead of motions and direction from council. She asked Ms. Feser if she would like time to come back with proposal for incorporating the over 100 comments from the public about the PROS Plan. Ms. Feser requested she have the opportunity to take what she heard tonight and put together a proposal to do this last step of PROS Plan and it bring back to council for approval along with a cost estimate from the consultant, who would be part of the committee and the timeline. She proposed returning to council with a proposal at the April 5th or 12th meeting. Council President Olson advised the council was meeting on March 29th; and asked if Ms. Feser prefer to present a proposal then. Ms. Feser said she would prefer April 5th because the March 29th would require submitting information for the packet in two days. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 17 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF SECOND. 2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin introduced this item. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • EV Ties to Major Sustainability Goals o Comprehensive Plan ▪ Transportation Element Policy 6.22: Encourage and promote the use of EV charging stations … including standards for new developments that provide parking facilities ▪ Transportation Element Policy 6.23: Position Edmonds to respond to technical innovation, such as EVs ▪ Community Sustainability Element: Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation Policy B.3options that reduce GHG emissions o Climate Action Plan ▪ Goal: Carbon Neutral by 2050 ▪ TR-5: Promote Electric Vehicles and other low-carbon vehicles o New Energy Cities Action Plan ▪ Policy Initiative Action 3C: Electrification of the Transportation System. Shifting the transportation fuel source from fossil to clean electricity (including) charging stations … for multifamily construction • Sources of Edmonds Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions o Local Sector Based Emissions ▪ Transportation 40% - Passenger Travel 80% - Truck Freight 9% - Commercial Services 6% - Port 3% - Rail 1% - Transit 1% - Offroad <1% ▪ Buildings (residential) 35% ▪ Buildings (commercial) 15% ▪ Buildings (industrial) 2% ▪ Refrigerant Loss 6% ▪ Waste 2% • Growth in EV Demand o Electric Vehicles registered in Edmonds ▪ 2017: 367 ▪ 2021: 838 • Growth in EV Options o Number of options and models are increasing o Battery technology continues to improve o Many auto companies moving to all-electric vehicles Company Pledge Year Jaguar All Electric 2025 Toyota All Electric or Hybrid 2025 Volvo All Electric 2030 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 18 GM All Electric 2035 Honda All Electric 2040 Ford Carbon Neutral 2050 • Three main components of Code o Which staging levels should be required by use type? (Capable, Ready, Installed) o Which Charging Level is Appropriate? (Levels I, II, or III) o Identifying an appropriate ratio of EV charging stations, by use type. (Single-Family, Multifamily, Non-Residential, etc.) • Stages or types of EV charging infrastructure o EV Capable ▪ Electrical Panel capacity and conduit for future use o EV Ready ▪ Electrical Panel capacity conduit and circuit for charging o EV Installed ▪ Electrical Panel capacity, conduit, circuit and specialized equipment for charging • Charging Levels - The infrastructure is categorized by the “Charging Levels” or voltage produced o Level I ▪ 120-volt circuit (like a household outlet) ▪ 8-20 hours to fully charge o Level II (code proposal) ▪ 240-volt circuit (like an oven or dryer) ▪ 4-8 hours to fully charge ▪ Most common level for residential uses o Level III (Rapid Charging) ▪ 480+ volt circuit (too much for home usage ▪ Less than one hour to fully charge ▪ At commercial sites or near highways • Applicability o EV Charging Infrastructure would be required when… ▪ A new development or new off-street parking facility; ▪ Existing development – substantial damage or substantial improvement (50% rule) occurs within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or ▪ 50% increase in parking capacity (based on total parking spaces) • Proposed Edmonds Standards Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units1 N/A 1/dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units1 40% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Non-residential uses 40% of parking spaces N/A 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units o All EV installed, EV ready, and EV capable spaces are to be included in the calculation for the number of parking spaces, as provided by the applicable chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. o A portion or all of a lesser requirement for EV charging infrastructure can be substituted with one of a higher requirement • Other Sections o 17.115.040.C Calculations for Station Requirements- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 19 ▪ Covers: Multiple Uses, Fractions, Adjusting Percentages, etc. o 17.115.050 General Station Standards ▪ Covers: Parking Size, Installation, Station Location, Time limits, etc. o 17.115.060 Signage ▪ Covers: Basic signage requirements • Other code provisions o References in other code sections for consistency: ▪ 16.60.3030 (CG) ▪ 16.110.020 (WMU) ▪ 17.50.010 (Off street parking) ▪ 17.50.020 (parking space requirements ▪ 21.90.012 Service station definition ▪ 22.110.090 (WMU Height bonus) • West Mixed-use Height Bonus – ECDC 22.110.090 o Remove Credit 2 from Miscellaneous section of Height Bonus Score Sheet– Charging facility for electric cars, provide minimum 4 spaces Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the proposed Edmonds standards for multi-family, 40%, 40% and 10%, and asked if that was additive so 90% of stalls would be required to have charging. Mr. Lien agreed 90% of the stalls would need to be ready for charging. In the multifamily standards, 10% would be required to be installed and 80% would need to be capable or ready so as more EV were in use, those could be upgraded, a total of 90%. For non-residential 50% would need to be installed or capable and of that 10% would need to be installed at the time of development. Councilmember K. Johnson said that seemed excessive to her. Councilmember Chen asked the estimated additional cost for a builder. Mr. Lien provided the following: • Costs of Retrofitting o Bottom Line: It is much cheaper and cost effective to include EV charging infrastructure during new construction or major renovation o Cost Estimates for EV Parking Spaces in Denver EV Infrastructure Requirement During New Construction During Retrofit Savings w/ New Construction Electrical Panel & Wiring $300/space $2,500/space $2,200/space Full Circuit $1,300/space $6,300/space $5,000/space Councilmember Tibbott referred to EV Ready (Level I) and asked if it would be typical in home construction to wire for a 120 or 220 circuit and would it be better not to prewire it but have the conduit in place which is the $300 expense versus doing the full circuit. Mr. Lien answered the standard for single family is one EV Ready space per dwelling unit. EV Ready includes electrical panel capacity, conduit and circuit for charging, basically the plug in for charging. It is the same type of wiring provided for ovens and dryers. Councilmember Tibbott commented with EV Ready, the homeowner would have the option of installing 120 or 220. Mr. Lien said the code requires 220. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented the narrative for this agenda item states the City of Edmonds is proposing a new chapter to title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code related to EV charging infrastructure, new code rather than a rewrite. The background/history of the agenda item states, This code amendment was initiated to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by supporting the growing demand for electric vehicle usage. The planning board reviewed the EV charging infrastructure code amendment at the June 9, June 23, July 14, and August 25, 2021 meetings. They held Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 20 a public hearing and recommended city council consider approval of this item at the September 8, 2021 planning board meeting. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance on the proposed amendments was issued on September 17, 2021. There was a multi-month gap before it was introduced to city council in February 2022. He asked why new code was worked on so intensively, involving many planning board meetings. He recalled in September 2020 city council made a budget amendment for three year temporary position for the code rewrite, and $140,000 was budgeted. At that time, Councilmember Paine explained this was a long term plan for the council for probably a decade. The proposal is a three year temporary code writer housed in development services. The first year’s cost would be $140,000 for a full-time person to work with existing staff. It would get the code rewrite underway and progress can be reevaluated next year and the next year. He asked what the money that was budgeted accomplished in terms of code rewrite in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars budgeted since 2006. He requested a complete report on the status of the code rewrite including what all the money budgeted over many years, going back to at least 2006, has accomplished. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented her church has several charging stations in the parking lot for neighbors to use. She suggested there were quite a few parking lots in Edmonds that could be used similarly. With regard to areas without parks or nature, she suggested a weekly transport that took people from the Highway 99 area to and from parks. Doug Lane, Edmonds, an EV owner, spoke in support of the proposed code, commenting the key to EV use is the ability to charge your vehicle at home. Public stations are necessary when one exceeds the range of their vehicle or while traveling, but the real enabler and anxiety reducer is being able to charge at home so adopting this regulation would facilitate greater use of EV. While there is a cost for including EV charging, it also creates value; single family homes, condominiums, apartments or commercial facilities that have that capacity will be more desirable and more sought after in the future. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED. Councilmember Paine said there were no objections at the public hearing and there were few public comments when this was presented to council previously. She summarized it was great infrastructure and time for the City to join the 21st century. Council President Olson said if other councilmembers were prepared to vote, she was also prepared to vote. Typically the council does not vote on the public hearing night, so she will not support it if a councilmember needs more time. Councilmember Tibbott preferred to have it on the consent agenda although he was supportive of the ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson also preferred to have it approved at a subsequent council meeting as typically the council does not take action directly following a public hearing. Council President Olson said a councilmember could pull it from the consent agenda if more discussion was desired. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND THE SECONDER AGREED TO CHANGE THE MOTION TO PLACE THE ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 21 3. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC ENTITLED BICYCLE PARKING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin provided an introduction, explaining the former Senior Planner Eric Engmann previously presented this material. This is public hearing for bicycle parking requirements. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien presented: • Bike Parking Ties to Major Sustainability Goals o Comprehensive Plan ▪ Transportation Element Policy 4.1: Encourage active transportation by providing safe facilities for bicycle and pedestrians ▪ Transportation Element Policy 4.13: Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities and installation of bike racks and lockers near schools, commercial districts, multifamily residents, recreation areas, and transit facilities ▪ Community Sustainability Element Policy B.3: Explore and support the use of…transportation options that reduce Greenhouse gas emissions o Climate Action Plan ▪ Goal: Carbon Neutral by 2050 ▪ TR-3: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by promoting active transportation • Proposing new chapter in Title 17 for bicycle parking and storage o Four main components 1. Creates bike parking standards for multifamily and non-residential development 2. Separated into short term and long term parking requirements 3. Includes locational, installation and maintenance requirements (how to operate) 4. Provides definitions, calculations, and applicability standards to support new chapter • Difference between short-term and long term bicycle parking o Short term parking ▪ Less than 4 hour parking ▪ Parked at bike rack near primary entrance ▪ Higher need with non-residential use o Long term parking ▪ More than 4 hour parking (overnight) ▪ Parked in secure on-premise space ▪ Higher need with multifamily residential use • Short term bicycle parking requirement Type of use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling unit 1 per 10 dwelling units Non-residential 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces • Long term bicycle parking requirement Type of use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units1 0.75 per unit Non-residential 1 2 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 2 3 spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages or those with ground floor units with direct outdoor access are exempt from this requirement o Edmonds bicycle advocacy group proposed increasing the non-residential to 2 per 25,000 square feet and not less than 3 • Standards – Multifamily examples Development Type Short Term Spaces Long Term Spaces Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 22 10 multifamily units 2 8 50 multifamily units 5 38 100 multifamily units 10 75 • Standard – Non-residential examples Development Type Long Term Spaces January proposal Tonight’s proposal Smaller building 2 3 Medium building (25,000-50,000 square feet) 2 4 Larger building (over 50,000 square feet) 3+ 6+ • Locational and installation requirements o Visibility and illumination o Proximity to entrances o Accessibility o Minimum area requirements (18” by 60”) o Secure structures o Electrical outlets (long-term) o Accommodations for wall mountings (long-term) • Changes from January to Tonight’s Proposal o Location: Short Term B. Installation of Short-Term Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: 1. Required to be visible from and within 30 feet of building’s public entrance; except as it can be provided at locations not visible from the main entrance when directional signage is provided at a building entrance; 2. Must be located within the landscape/furnishing zone (defied as that area between the roadway curb face and the front edge of the sidewalk); except where the landscape/furnishing zone is more than 30 feet from the public entrance or the landscape/furnishing zone is adjacent to an arterial without on-street parking, the short-term bicycle parking may be provided at the building frontage; o Location: Long Term B. Installation of Long-Term Bicycle Parking. Long-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: 1. Required to be located on the same site as the building; 2. Required to be located inside the building, such as vehicle parking garage or other secure common area, except it can be located outside the building if located within a secure area up to 300 150 feet of the building’s main or employee entrance and provides permanent cover including, but not limited to, roof overhand, awning, or bicycle storage lockers; o Applicability Development for each of the land uses identified in this Chapter 17.20 ECDC shall be required to provide bicycle parking facilities when one of the following occurs: A. A new development; B. Substantial damage or substantial improvement is made to an existing development within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or C. The parking capacity of an existing development or parking facility is increased by 50 percent or more of the total parking spaces provided C. Increased parking capacity. Increased parking capacity to an existing development that do not meet the other applicability standards in this subsection shall meet the following standard: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 23 1. Parking space increased between 1% and 49% of existing capacity shall meet the short-term bicycle parking standards in section 17.120.030 2. Parking space increases above 49% of existing capacity shall meet both the short- term and long-term bicycle parking standards in subsections 17.120.030 and 17.120.040 o West Mixed-use Height Bonus – ECDC 22.110.090 ▪ Remove Credit 3 from Miscellaneous section of Height Bonus Score Sheet – Indoor Covered Bicycle Storage and Indoor Charging Facilities Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Brock Howell, Director, Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (Snotrac) and principal of Bicycle Security Advisors, which has provided consulting to the City of Seattle, other cities and transit agencies on bike parking, said Snotrac advocates for connecting people and communities in Snohomish County and beyond with safe, equitable and accessible transportation. He expressed strong support for the bike parking ordinance and the changes proposed tonight. Increasing the convenience and safety of biking is an important strategy for making communities affordable for low income households with affordable transportation, for addressing climate change and for improving public health. There can only be as many people biking as there are safe places for them to park their bikes at home, work and other destinations. Bike theft substantially increased during the pandemic so providing secure spaces is an important strategy for addressing that issue. This ordinance is unequivocally a great first step and the addition changes are a positive step in the right direction. Mr. Howell said a few things that could be adopted in future ordinances or through implementation include being clear on the standards for what is acceptable design of the bike racks or bike parking. He was concerned with the LEED standard for EV charging and bike parking in that it sets up a bit of a penalty in that those attempting to achieve a LEED standard will have to do more in the other efforts to get height bonuses. Allowing bike parking 150 feet offsite was intended for unique circumstances in Seattle such as college campus and large employer sites and he suggested limiting that provision to those circumstances. Most other cities have higher standards for non-residential uses and the requirement is specific to building uses; the proposal is fairly low for non-residential uses. APBP sets out standards for different levels of ridership and Bicycle Security Advisors also provides guidance on that front. The bike parking standards pair well with the City’s efforts to create a bike network funded by the Sound Transit grant. He encouraged the council to approval the ordinance. Luke Distelhorst, Edmonds, a member of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG) who worked on the code update with Mr. Engmann, echoed Mr. Howell’s comments and hoped the council would support these updates. This ordinance is a first step in providing secure parking and taking it to the next step of providing an all ages, all abilities bicycle network in the City to induce demand for the type of transportation we want to see in the future. One of the slides missing from the presentation on EV chargers is that e-bikes are far outpacing sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. and there needs to be adequate facilities and parking to ride e-bikes to school, work, and local stores and for recreation. He encouraged councilmembers to reach out to him or other EBAG members with any questions. The proposal represents good code updates and he looked forward to council adopting them tonight or next week on the consent agenda. Margaret Elwood, co-chair of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group and owner of an e-bike, explained she is able to park her e-bike in her single family home, but if she lived in a condo or apartment downtown that did not have secure bike parking, she would not be able to own an e-bike because if it was stolen, a replacement would cost $5,000-$7,000. She rides her bike recreationally and for health reasons and can ride it to do errands if she has a companion to watch her bike because there isn’t an adequate lock Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 24 to leave it outside a grocery store. She commented it was very important for families living in a condo or apartment to have space for bike parking. She hoped the council would adopt the proposed bike parking standards. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Chen referred to the change from 300 feet to 150 feet from a building entrance and asked if that would impact ADA vehicle parking. Ms. McLaughlin answered typically bike parking is in racks which would be at the store entrance on private property and would not compete for spaces in the parking lot. Council President Olson expressed concern about visual clutter, commenting beauty and charm is core to the City’s identity and she struggles with the balance. She has not been a huge bike rider but embraces it and plans to become a bike rider. She wanted to be thoughtful about that element and was interested in hearing from other councilmembers and the public how to achieve the objectives, but maintains and enhances the beauty of the City. She thanked the commenters who mentioned e-bikes. With the various demographic and hills in Edmonds, e-bikes are a huge consideration and she wanted the design standards for bike racks to accommodate them. E-bikes are expensive, but like big screen TVs, she anticipated they would come down in price and would be a good, affordable option in the future. Ms. McLaughlin responded two factors people consider when making transportation choices are affordability and convenience. The availability of a safe place to park a bike and because of the cost, having them within eyesight is important for safety. The reason bike parking is in the furnishing zone is because that is where in an urban environment one expects to see things like pedestrian lighting, newspaper boxes, and other things that support the pedestrian and non-motorized environment. Council President Olson commented the wording was originally different and was not identified as one of the changes, 17.120.030.B.1. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson said the language in that section has an express bias in that it has to be visible from the front door where previously it could be visible or have directional signage. To the idea of having things less cluttered and more beautiful, she preferred not to have bike parking on the frontage of building because it is the more visible, less utilitarian part of the building. She recognized others would have different opinions. Councilmember Tibbott asked at what point do design standards enter into the equation and when are function and aesthetics considered. He liked the bike racks installed by the downtown association. Ms. McLaughlin said she was not the director when the ordinance was first drafted. She has inquired about establishing a bike rack standard for the City which does not currently exist, but that would have delayed the ordinance. She felt it was important to establish a bike rack standard which could have a neighborhood character or a standard rack in accordance with best practices design standards. She agreed about e-bikes, they have not been factored into the existing manufacturers yet in terms of giving those riders the confidence to park an e-bike due to their cost. The design standards for a bike rack do not need to be in an ordinance, but should be part of the standard plans and specs for public works. Councilmember Paine referred to the commenter who said 150 feet was too far, commenting if someone was riding their bike to do shopping and it is no longer there when you come out, it would be a terrible experience especially if it was someone’s only transportation. She asked about best practices for a city Edmonds’ size, whether it was 75 feet or 150 feet. Ms. McLaughlin said the ordinance language was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 25 trying to account for different land use typologies. On a Highway 99 parcel with a sea of surface parking, if bike racks were required in the furnishing zone, the front door would be 300 feet from the entrance. That is the reason for revising the language to at the storefront and within 30 feet. The intent was to ensure bike parking is as closely proximate to the front door as possible, recognizing sometimes it cannot be in the furnishing zone because it is too far. Councilmember Paine recalled a comment during the public hearing that 75 feet was a better standard. Mr. Lien said the comment was in regard to long term parking; Ms. McLaughlin was referring to short term parking. The original proposal for long term parking was 300 feet from the building’s main or employee entrance and the proposal would change that to 150 feet when not within the building; the preference is for long term parking to be within building and when it is not, it must be within 150 feet and in bicycle storage lockers. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding short term parking would be within the furnishing zone. Ms. McLaughlin advised it would be within 30 feet. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the requirements for long term bicycle parking states at least one outlet. The council just finished discussing the cost of installing EV charging before versus after; she asked how many bikes could be charged in one outlet and assumed there would be a limit. She suggested being more forward thinking and requiring more outlets for larger buildings. Mr. Lien referred to 17.120.040.B.5 which states at least one electrical outlet shall be available for the use of electric assisted bicycle charging within 8 feet of an area where a group of long term bicycle parking spaces is located. He could image in a larger multifamily development, the long term spaces could be spread around. He said the number of outlets could be increased. Councilmember L. Johnson said that would make sense if there were multiple long term storage locations but for example in her daughter’s dorm, all the bike parking is in one location. She suggested consideration be given to increasing the number of outlets. She expressed support for design standards, not to address clutter versus beauty that was mentioned because for her if a bike could replace car, it was an improvement. Her interest in design standards was related to function, noting people often post regarding bike racks that work well and racks that do not. Ms. McLaughlin agreed, expressing interest in looking at best practices for the number of outlets in long term parking and said that would be possible by the time this was on the consent agenda. Council President Olson observed there were enough comments made for staff to consider before bringing this back to full council for action. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:25. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked City staff, administrative services, IT, and the clerk for the seamlessness of this meeting and going from in-person to virtual and back again after not having been in-person for a ridiculous long time. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 26 Councilmember Chen thanked staff for making the hybrid meeting work, noting he had some concerns before the meeting, but it worked great. Even though the governor lifted the mandate for masks, he suggested being mindful that the virus was not over; cases are increasing rapidly in Hong Kong and other places so people should still be carefully. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Chen’s comments, advising her coughing was due to pollen allergies. Council President Olson thanked everyone for making choices that were right for them and making good choices for their own health. It is important to be supportive of everyone making choices that are right for them, either objectively or because it made them feel more comfortable. She suggested not being a jerk and being supportive. She advised the administration that there are a lot of volunteers who are willing and able help with graffiti and trash and suggested getting a plan together so they know who to call. She wanted to get Edmonds cleaned up and pretty again. Councilmember Tibbott relayed the Health Board came out with a report this week related to youth health issues. One of the data points he found disturbing was that the average TV use among teens has gone up during COVID which emphasizes the need for outdoor recreation which he was thankful was part of the City’s plans. Councilmember Paine wished everyone a good spring. Councilmember L. Johnson urged everyone to be safe. Councilmember K. Johnson recognized Sunday, the first day of spring, was also the international Nowruz celebration, a 3,000 year old event celebrated in the Middle East, Balkans, and Central Asia, celebrating the first day of spring and a new day. She offered to work with the diversity commission on a Nowruz celebration for next year. It is an event her family celebrates that could be extend to others in Edmonds. Student Representative Roberts said it was great to be back and wished everyone a happy spring. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 27 Public Comment for City Council Meeting 3/22/22 From: joe scordino Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:22 PM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Feser, Angie; Nelson, Michael Subject: Please DO NOT Approve the draft PROS Plan without Action Items and Revisions Council Members; Please DO NOT approve the current draft of the 6-year Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Citizens of Edmonds have identified numerous deficiencies that have been ignored or dismissed by the contractor hired by the City to ‘update’ the 2016 PROS Plan. Instead of updating the prior ‘publicly-approved’ PROS Plan and its’ Action Items for the 6-year period up to now, the contractor instead deleted the Action Items and changed the Goals and structure of PROS Plan - - and in so doing, deleted much of what the citizens of this City were expecting to see in the Plan. The 2016 PROS Plan had important concepts that are absent in this revised draft: • Capitalize on the unique identity of Edmonds • Look forward to the future of Edmonds • Steward and activate key community assets These concepts need to be 'reinstalled' in the current draft of the PROS Plan. I’m pleased that the draft Plan included the ‘equity’ issue on locations of neighborhood parks, but it should not have taken an outcry by the public (as evidenced by the huge number of written comments) to realize the deficiencies in this restructured draft PROS Plan. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 28 I ask that the Council hold-off approving the current draft until a Council appointed Citizen Committee is convened to recommend Action Items and revisions to the PROS Plan for Council consideration in approving the final 2022-2027 PROS Plan. Thank You Joe Scordino; 40+ year resident and father of four kids I was proud to raise in this town. From: Stephen Lacy Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 7:13 PM To: Public Comment (Council) Subject: PROS Plan I'd like reinforce the points made by Joe Scordino in this letter to the council (copied below). It appears that the current draft of the plan is lacking in some critical information. I'm especially concerned about the lack of updates on the actions items from the previous plan and a lack of concrete actions to be included in the current plan. I'd also like to communicate my personal priorities of protecting the remaining natural areas in the city--especially the marsh (including the remediation area owned by WSDOT) and Southwest County park and Perrinville Creek watershed. I like Joe's request to create a citizen committee to review the past plan and propose changes to the current plan. Thanks, Stephen Lacy 960 5th Ave S, Unit 207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Councilmembers; Please DO NOT approve the current draft of the six-year Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Citizens of Edmonds have identified numerous deficiencies that have been ignored or dismissed by the contractor hired by the city to “update” the 2016 PROS Plan. Instead of updating the prior “publicly-approved” PROS Plan and its’ action items for the six-year period up to now, the contractor instead deleted the action items Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 29 and changed the goals and structure of PROS Plan – – and in so doing, deleted much of what the citizens of this city were expecting to see in the plan. The 2016 PROS Plan had important concepts that are absent in this revised draft: • Capitalize on the unique identity of Edmonds • Look forward to the future of Edmonds • Steward and activate key community assets These concepts need to be “reinstalled” in the new PROS Plan. I’m pleased that the draft plan included the “equity” issue on locations of neighborhood parks, but it should not have taken an outcry by the public (as evidenced by the huge number of written comments) to realize the deficiencies in this restructured draft PROS Plan. I ask that the council hold off approving the current draft until a council-appointed citizen committee is convened to recommend action items and revisions to the PROS Plan for council consideration in approving the final 2022-2027 PROS Plan. Thank You From: greg ferguson Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:16 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council); Feser, Angie; Nelson, Michael Subject: PROS Plan comments Several related points: 1. Including an action item list as was done for the 2016 PROS plan would be an important addition to the current draft plan. Recommendations and objectives convey intention but actions are the means to accomplish goals and should be at the heart of a plan. 2. Each council meeting is begun with a statement acknowledging the original inhabitants of Edmonds. This statement should have real world meaning. For example, federal courts have forced very reluctant state and local governments to honor tribal treaty fishing rights. The courts have also upheld the concept that those rights without fish are meaningless, that half of nothing is still nothing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 30 Three of our four streams that should be accessible to salmon in Edmonds are blocked. Perrinville, Willow, and Shellabarger creeks have their entire flows diverted into pipes. One way to live up to our legal and moral obligations to original occupants is to bring salmon back to these streams, also to restore our watersheds, and to convert the Edmonds marsh back into a saltwater estuary. Parks can play an important role in doing all these things. 3. Next, if we lose the Unocal property to development, it will be a tragedy for our kids, grandkids, and generations beyond. Mayor Nelson, many city council members, and the Parks Department agree with this. But, we have no idea when site clean-up will be completed and the land transferred to WDOT. If this happens tomorrow are we ready? Do we have a plan for the property, do we have funding sources identified? The recent Save Our Sound bill allocates $50,000,000 a year for Puget Sound recovery. Can Edmonds get any of this or the other wide array of funding available without a plan for what will happen to the property? Let’s not lose this land because of a lack of preparation. We need a comprehensive Edmonds Marsh restoration plan that includes Unocal. 4. Finally, the original PROS plan did not address multiple environmental issues. Greenhouse gas reduction, halting park streambank failures, complete marsh restoration, and tree planting were among the things not included. To the credit of our Parks Director, Angie Feser, many have now been referenced in PROS Plan goal statements. However, this should not happen again. There needs to be mechanisms in place that ensure that city government planning documents and city operations themselves include the environment as one of their important goals. Cheers Greg Ferguson From: greg ferguson <gghhff@me.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:30 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council); eac Subject: Civic Park Art Project The shade structure should be covered in solar cells, making it a solar canopy. This would help demonstrate that the City of Edmonds is taking climate change seriously. Cheers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 31 Greg Ferguson From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:29 AM To: Council; Public Comment (Council) Cc: Ron Eber Subject: Numerous DEFICIENCIES in the draft PROS PLAN Besides the structural problem with no Action items for the Goals, the draft has significant deficiencies that the public has been trying to get addressed in the HUGE number of public comments that the contractor has ignored. The Council would not have to waste time later dealing with individual 'City-property' problems if the PROS PLAN were to be done correctly and comprehensibly (that's what Plans are for). Below are just a few of the deficiencies I've observed in the document that by themselves should warrant revising the PROS Plan so that it is a “useable” PLAN for City property with actions and strategies to actually make things better for Edmonds citizens. Yost Park – What’s the PLAN for curtailing the SERIOUS ongoing erosion of stream banks in the Park? Trees are falling and bridge footings are being undercut due to erosion from high stormwater flows. Are we going to wait until the trails have to be closed for safety reasons before developing plans to address the problem?? The deteriorating upper creek is occupied by juvenile salmon and cutthroat trout and the downstream sediment deposition is impacting spawning adult salmon. is there NO CONCERN in this City for safety of people using the Park trails and recovery of salmon? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 32 Sunset Avenue Overlook – What’s the PLAN for making this City-owned open view of Puget Sound and the Olympics more accessible to EVERYONE in Edmonds. We can’t ‘move’ this outstanding view point to Highway 99, so what is the PLAN to provide more equity in use by citizens outside the Bowl? Why doesn’t the PLAN address the need for more parking spaces, more benches, elimination of the curb and tripping hazards, lower vegetation, and other improvements for senior citizens so MORE citizens can enjoy this unique City property? Shouldn’t the PLAN address how important this site is to senior citizens and the huge number of people of all ages that appreciate the ‘walkability’ of Edmonds (including those with dogs on leash)? Edmonds Marsh-Estuary Wildlife Sanctuary – What’s the PLAN for creating a Regional Park with the acquisition of the old Unocal Property to provide recreational opportunity as well as wildlife habitat and salmon recovery. What’s the PLAN for merging Marina Beach into this Regional Marsh-Estuary- Beach Park so that beach renovations will be fully funded by grants and not be in competition for local funds needed for neighborhood parks in the Highway 99 area. Dogs – what’s the PLAN for dogs on leash in Parks and ‘legally’ on beaches? The PLAN should acknowledge many Edmonds residents walk their dogs -on leash- in Parks and on beaches. Why doesn’t this PLAN address this ‘need’ and common use by citizens? Why are dogs prohibited, but not enforced, on the beach? If it is not important enough to be enforced, the PLAN should assess whether the prohibition should be removed on all public beaches (if dogs are on-leash). A possible exception could be retaining the prohibition for all dogs (including leashed) in the migratory bird area at north Brackett’s Landing where dogs can impact migratory geese that feed there. Otherwise, current management is just encouraging flagrant violation of a law that maybe shouldn’t be a law for dogs on-leash. Fishing Pier – What’s the PLAN for this very unique recreational amenity in Edmonds? The recent City improvements to the shelters and bulletin board have been damaged and left unusable for quite a while now. Shouldn’t the PLAN recognize the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 22, 2022 Page 33 importance of the Fishing Pier to the Region as well as the City, and the need for maintaining taxpayer investments in the Fishing Pier? Willow Creek Hatchery Area – What’s the PLAN for maintaining and improving this City-owned property? If the PLAN is to rely on volunteers to carry the entire burden of operations, maintenance and improvements, shouldn’t the PLAN clearly state that so there are no false expectations by the public? This not only includes the one-of-a-kind community Salmon Hatchery, but the City’s Educational Center, the Demo Garden, and a wildlife area and trails along the creek. Shouldn’t the PLAN acknowledge that this area will be the ONLY publicly accessible place in Edmonds to see spawning salmon in the future (when Marsh tidal channel is in place)? Shouldn’t the PLAN identify the restoration needs for the deteriorating stream channel so it will be available for salmon spawning in the near future? Maplewood Park – What’s the PLAN for restoring the trails and excess erosion in the natural areas of the Park? Is City just going to close the back area of the Park since much of the trials are becoming safety and further erosion hazards? Marine beaches – What’s the PLAN for making these City-owned beaches more accessible to EVERYONE in Edmonds. We can’t ‘move’ the beaches to Highway 99 to achieve the 'equity' goal, so is there a PLAN on how the City will achieve the Equity Goal for the City's marine beaches? As I’ve said, citizens are ready to volunteer their time to help make this a usable PLAN. All the Council has to do is appoint a Citizen Committee to revise the Plan and THEN bring it back for Council approval.