Cmd61422 spec mtg
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 7, 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
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Rob English, Acting Public Works Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural
Arts & Human Services Director
Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Casey Colley, Youth Commission Coordinator
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council 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
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. RESOLUTION CONDEMNING GUN VIOLENCE AND RACIAL HATRED
Councilmember Paine read a Resolution of the city council of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
condemning the gun violence, both nationally and here locally, which has occurred over the past several
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 2
weeks and the racial hatred which has fueled this violence; expressing condolences to those impacted; and
issuing a call to action for all in our community to work towards ending gun violence and hatred in our
community.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the resolution and thanked Councilmember Paine for the
work she did putting it together and the additional documentation. He proposed a minor amendment to
whereas 10, remove “white nationalism” and insert “them.” There are many groups that support racism
and hateful ideologies, not just white nationalism. Inserting “them” covers all the groups who might
support racism and hateful ideologies.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO REMOVE “WHITE NATIONALISM” AND INSERT “THEM” IN THE 10TH WHEREAS.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented without naming it, it will be harder to address. White nationalism
is on the rise and by not naming it, the council is doing a disservice to what is actually going on. It is
white supremacy rebranded with new language and it has seeped into politics and can be seen at the
federal level and especially boys being indoctrinated into it. The use of “them” seems as if the council is
afraid to say it; it needs to be named and called what it is. She did not support the proposed change as it
dilutes the hard work Councilmember Paine did, it is the council trying to tiptoe around the issue, and it
waters down the intent of the resolution.
Councilmember Paine expressed the hope that the council would support the resolution as submitted. She
referred to what happened in Buffalo, New York and what has happened nationally. Commemorating D-
Day, the Battle of Midway and the atrocities of WWII illustrate how damaging white nationalism is to the
community. It has been 78 years since D-day, when Allied troops gave blood. There was bloodshed
across the nation this last weekend and overwhelmingly atrocious gun violence. Kids are afraid to go to
school, parents are afraid to send their children to school. She urged the council to support the resolution
as history cannot be ignored.
Council President Olson asked if Councilmember Tibbott would accept a friendly amendment and retain
“white nationalism” and add “other hate ideologies.”
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD “OTHER HATE IDEOLOGIES.”
Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for that amendment or listing the 4-5 groups.
Councilmember Paine commented hateful ideologies is already in that whereas and she preferred the
resolution remain as is. She did not think the resolution would be controversial considering all the recent
history.
Councilmember Chen thanked and applauded Councilmember Paine for her hard work drafting the
resolution. It is the right thing to do to point out what the United States is experiencing as a nation and he
supported the proposed amendment to add “hate ideology.” He pointed out in the shooting in California,
the shooter was an Asian American; not all shootings are done by white nationalism. He expressed
support for the amendment to add “other hate ideology” to the 10th whereas.
Mayor Nelson restated the substitute amendment:
TO ADD “OTHER HATE IDEOLOGIES.”
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 3
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson proposed amending section 2, paragraph A, to read, “wish to do harm.” She
was concerned with attaching semi-automatic firearms to the statement “to harm themselves,” and
preferred it refer to harm to others. She said the current wording touched on suicide which is not what this
resolution addresses.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO CHANGE SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH A TO “WISH TO DO HARM.”
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. YOUTH COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT AND SENIOR RECOGNITION
Youth Commission members Julie Andres, Sam Yi, Finn Paynich, and Aaron Nateephaisan were present.
Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Shannon Burley provided an
introduction.
Youth Commission Coordinator Casey Colley reviewed:
• Congratulating graduating seniors
o Owen Lee (they/he)
▪ Attending Occidental College to study Critical Theory & Social Justice or Urban &
Environmental Policy
▪ Enjoyed getting to participate in and learn firsthand about government decision-making
▪ Plans to stay engaged with politics and government while also focusing on community
organizing and other forms of social change
o Sydney Pearson (she/her)
▪ Attending Scripps College leaning towards social sciences and humanities
▪ Has valued getting to understand city government while learning how to make an impact
through politics and seeing changes in the community from work our commission has
accomplished
▪ Wants to work directly with members of the greater community in my college area and to
advocate for mental health resources and programs on campus
o Aaron Nateephaisan (he/him)
▪ Plans to take a pre-med track and pursue a career in healthcare.
▪ Attending the University of California- Los Angeles (UCLA) to study Human Biology
and Society.
▪ Enjoyed interacting with the community in a new way and helping our community by
volunteering my time and offering opinions on diverse topics.
▪ Plans to be involved in government. UCLA offers human biology and society, which
focuses on health disparities within different communities and highlights the role of
government and policies in these issues.
o Brooke Rinehimer (she/her)
▪ Pursuing a degree in chemical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 4
▪ Enjoyed creating positive change for youth in the City of Edmonds and gaining a much
richer understanding of advocating for change
▪ No current plans to continue involvement with politics or government but would like to
do so
o Audrey Lim (she/her)
▪ Attending the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), Political Science and
Economics at Haas School of Business
▪ Wants to get involved with international affairs and work for the United Nations
▪ Enjoyed learning about how the municipal government functions and witnessing how
powerful youth voice can be
o Finn Paynich (they/them)
▪ Attending Cornish College of the Arts for a BFA in musical theater
▪ Loved the people they met and the opportunities to make real political change—It was
inspiring and empowering
▪ Hoping to use a passion for arts to make change in the performing world and have a
platform to speak out on issues relating to equity, inclusion, justice, and the planet
o Brook Roberts (he/him)
Sam Yi reviewed:
• Introduction
o This has largely been a transition year for the Youth Commission. A continuation of COVID
protocols, Casey Colley’s maternity leave, and a majority of the commission preparing to
graduate have all contributed to an atypical 2021-2022 Youth Commission term.
• Activities and Accomplishments
o Added social media manager position
o Established committees (Mental health committee, environmental committee, diversity
committee, youth in government committee)
o PROS plan participation
o Released a statement on the status of the strEATeries
o Edmonds Food Bank volunteering every Monday
o Partnership for Earth Day beach cleanup event
o Attended WLYAC and Office Of Equity Task Force meeting
o Began regular attendance at other boards/commissions
o Youth Guide To Government (Brook Roberts)
o Introduction to Youth Court (Audrey Lim and Sam Yi)
• Speakers during the Past Year
o Tabatha Shoemake, Community Engagement Officer at the Edmonds Police Department
o Civic park artist Clark Wiegman
o Andrea Petzel, Founder and Principal of Broadview Planning, LLC
o Human Services Division
o Chris Collier, Alliance for Affordable Housing Program Coordinator, Housing Authority of
Snohomish County
Aaron Nateephaisan reviewed:
• Activities We Hope to Continue Next Year
o Youth Court
o Updating mental health resources
o Regular attendance at Edmonds Food Bank
o Regular attendance at other board/commission meetings
o Partnership for Earth Day beach cleanup
• Goals for the Upcoming Year
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 5
o Higher participation inside and outside of meetings
o Improved community presence as COVID restrictions continue to lift
o A consistent social media presence to get in touch with youth
Council President Olson thanked the youth commission for their service to the City, commenting she had
a chance to get to know a few members. She noted five of the seven seniors are going to school in
California and she hoped they would be back.
Councilmember Tibbott commented it is always great to hear about the youth commission’s activities and
accomplishments. He asked what volunteer activity could be used to promote the youth commission to
other youth who have not been involved with the commission’s activities. Sam Yi answered one of the
best ways to inform people about the youth commission is to engage in schools, and visit classrooms,
clubs or social areas where students who like to make change congregate and offer them the opportunity.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was honored to be the council liaison to the youth commission this
year. She commented the world is at your fingertips, they will all do great, and she was happy they were
going to all these interesting schools. She appreciated their dedication and thanked Owen Lee and Brook
Roberts for spending time with her on their projects. She looked forward to working with the remaining
youth commissioners next year.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the youth commission was by far her favorite council appointment. She
was fortunate to be spend two years with these awesome leaders and it was an honor to have a front row
seat to everything they accomplished and are still planning to accomplish. She looked forward to sharing
the Youth Guide to Government with her kids and said the Youth Court is a fabulous idea. She applauded
everything the youth commission did to raise awareness about mental health issues, specifically among
teens and all the collaboration they did. She congratulated and thanked the graduating seniors and looked
forward to all that they will accomplish.
Councilmember Chen thanked the youth commission and congratulated them on all their
accomplishments, commenting the members are so young and have already accomplished so much in
their lives. They are full of ambition and energy and will change the world. He worked with several youth
commission members including Owen and Brook and was amazed by their energy and knowledge and
their drive to change the community and the world. He congratulated the commission on their success and
thanked them for their service.
Councilmember Paine commented the youth commission always knocks it out of the park, brings it full
force, does many things the community appreciates and speaks with a varied but young voice which is
very exciting. She recognized the seniors for their work, commenting she was jealous they were heading
to college, something that would be her first choice of things to do. She encouraged commissioners to
stay in touch with each other and with the council and to stay involved. She suggested forming an
impromptu alumni group and continue to be a resource for the community and themselves.
Mayor Nelson commented although he cannot have favorites among boards and commissions, the youth
commission is his favorite. He wished them all the best. As a California native, he was confident the
students would visit California and return to Washington. Youth commissioner are leaders and he looked
forward to the wonderful things they will do in the future. He thanked them for their contributions to date
and looked forward to future accomplishments.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in-person audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 6
Scott Simpson, Edmonds, commented everyone in Edmonds would appreciate having salmon in Shell
Creek and Yost Park again, with the exception of the owners of 625 Carole Way, Brian Washburn and
Vanitha Vihongkham, who built an illegal dam on their property that prevents salmon from going
upstream to Yost Park. He referred to an image from Zillow.com, 2 of 16, a picture of Shell Creek in their
backyard with natural steps in the creek and no dam when the picture taken. They bought that house in
2014 and in the past 8 years built an unpermitted dam in their backyard which was also within the time
period the state adopted regulations to prevent stream restriction. At the March 22, 2022 council meeting,
he requested a line be included in the PROS Plan indicating the council’s support for citizens’ efforts to
have the dam removed. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for being made aware of the
dam but nothing has been done. Bringing salmon back to Yost Park would not only improve the
experience of many Edmonds residents who walk the park, but would improve the park’s entire
ecosystem at no cost to the City. He was not asking for the building department to pursue the illegal
building of the dam without a permit or for the state to enforce their regulation; all he was asking was for
the council to approve a motion to show where the council stands on this issue. He suggested adding the
following to the PROS Plan, “assist citizens in their efforts to have a dam blocking salmon in Shell Creek
removed.”
Laurie Sorenson, Edmonds, expressed her thanks and appreciation to the council, stating she was deeply
grateful for what they do to keep the City safe and reading the extensive materials in the packet requires a
lot of personal sacrifice. She also thanked staff for their hard work. She expressed support for the
recommendation in chapter 9 item 2 in the PROS Plan to expand the marsh to include the Unocal
property. Given the well-known effects of climate change and potential species extinction, it is a moral
imperative to restore this nearshore habitat. She was excited the council was putting that in writing and
backing the plan. However, she did not see a plan for the connection between Marina Park and the marsh.
In general she would like to see more detail in the plan regarding salmon recovery and environmental
stewardship. Once the council has approved including the Unocal property, she recommended the City
make those plans known to the legislature and the powers that be. She recognized Ecology will not be
done for years, but believed funding needed to be in place. She was interested in council showing
leadership, possibly with the public’s assistance.
Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, referred to the resolution regarding the problem with shootings,
commenting the shootings that have been experienced in the United States over the last month and in the
past are a tragedy. With regard to the statement that the largest number of deaths for a certain age group
of young people was from gun violence, it should be pointed out that this is overwhelming in inner cities
by gang warfare, related to money, drug trafficking and protecting their turf. Making a blanket statement
without that clarification does not give the whole story. It has been aggravated by the recent defund the
police concept because it has taken police out of the protective position in the inner cities. He is from
Chicago which is now nearly unlivable. Identifying one race and others does not cut it; it is not just one
race. Emphasizing whites is a racist idea, white supremacist and white nationalism are popular these days
but are unprovable and he and others do not believe it is true.
Caleb Nichols, Edmonds, former co-chair and founding member of the youth commission, expressed
disappointment over the ban on camping in Edmonds. As housing prices rise in the greater Seattle area,
many people choose to live in their vehicles to make ends meet. This action criminalizes people in
Edmonds rather than providing sustainable solutions to the problem of rising housing prices and housing
insecurity. As someone with family members who live in their vehicles who are gainfully employed, he
found it disturbing that they could be imprisoned simply for visiting him. He hoped the council would
take the time to address the root causes of housing security and reverse this decision. With regard to the
resolution proposed earlier, white nationalism is the prevalent threat today and to hide from that fact is
hiding from the truth.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 7
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, spoke regarding the equitable engagement framework, the bullying
proclamation by the mayor and restated some previous comments made remotely related to drug abuse
and fentanyl issues in the community. The opioid overdose crisis is out of control; fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid, is 80-100 times stronger than morphine and about 50 times stronger than heroin and is commonly
used to create counterfeit pills disguised as oxycodone, Xanax, Adderall, among others. It is virtually
undetectable unless a strip is used and is so strong that even a small amount can kill a person. According
to the CDC, over 150 people die every day from overdoses related to synthetic opioids like fentanyl. In
2021, the U.S. saw 108,000 overdoes, a nearly 50% increase over 2019 according to CDC data; two-
thirds of the 108,000 drug overdose deaths involved fentanyl or other synthetic opioid. This issue
dovetails directly to homelessness and crime issues seen in the community today. She implored the
council, the city and the youth council to create an awareness and education program for youth in the city
so they are aware of the potential threats to their lives and safety. She thanked the council and staff for
everything they do. Fires seem to come up regularly and although she would rather be at home relaxing,
she felt compelled to ask the mayor to find ways to show better leadership. Creating division in the City is
not productive and preys on citizens’ emotions who are living their lives. She requested the mayor rethink
the way he communicates his concerns without involving more division.
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, thanked the council for all they do, commenting it is a thankless
job and she understood how stressful it could be at times. With regard to bullying on the council, she
referred to a newspaper article regarding what has occurred on the Edmonds City Council. It is not all
councilmembers, there is an issue with council leadership which the rest of the council needs to pay close
attention to. The movement has occurred this year and perhaps the council needs to take action on it.
Leadership is not always looking at the best for the citizens. With regard to the robbery that occurred off
Highway 99 about two blocks from her house, she said residents expect this on a daily basis. For
example, she is always worried her house will be broken whenever she leaves or that she or and her son
will be harassed or perhaps robbed at a park. If this had occurred in downtown Edmonds on 5th & Main,
people would be totally up in arms; unfortunately, when it occurs in the uptown area, it receives less
attention. She anticipated more would be seen regarding bullying of staff by council.
William Leiter, Edmonds, professional engineer, representing Robert Burnhoff, a neighbor of
Perrinville Creek, spoke regarding the proposal to hire an outside consultant to prepare design up to 60%
for a total of $900,000. He applauded the City for doing the work but had several concerns. First, he
requested the council ask Mr. English if the City has a video inspection of their ductal iron pipe under the
BNSF tracks that can be made available to the public. He has been documenting the degradation of that
pipe for 15 years including holes and lamination that is occurring and has been unable to get an answer
from Mr. English whether the City has video inspection of the pipe. The Perrinville Creek culvert under
Talbot Road cannot be replaced. Unfortunately, Mr. English has presupposed the outcome of the research
on the design in his memo. The pipe under Talbot Road is too steep and the only solution is a bridge that
would allow the creek to return to its natural grade. The ductal iron pipe under the BNSF tracks should be
replaced with a bridge or at the least, a countersunk box culvert to provide fish passage. The diversion
structure, which is actually a flow splitter, cannot be reconstructed or recommissioned as Mr. English
suggests in his memo. If WDFW has not already stated so, this permit will not be renewed. It was wrong
to install that in the first place to benefit two downstream neighbors so they could have an English garden
with a salmon stream through it. Obviously, the City cannot afford to maintain that for two people. The
flow splitter needs to be removed and a new outfall installed to Puget Sound so Perrinville Creek can flow
free.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented on council changes to the PROS Plan:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 8
1. The City is failing to keep its commitments to the SR-99 area identified in Ordinance 4079. If the
City is unwilling to keep its investment in public safety commitments, a public review of this
ordinance and development on SR-99 must be undertaken.
2. The City is not siting park investments and critical infrastructure in accordance with the GMA. The
vast majority of Edmonds residents agree that parks and recreation are essential to quality of life. The
City’s continual failure to site resources in gap areas is denial of an essential service to its residents.
3. The inclusive public process and needs assessment identified that park and open space investment
should be prioritized in SR-99 and south Edmonds. Council changes to recommendation 2 and 3 must
be deleted to be consistent with the public process and needs of the City.
4. The Edmonds Marsh was not prioritized by the inclusive public process or needs assessment. Council
should not insert policy commitments for the City to purchase a contaminated site for more than $8
million. It is not a sound use of public funds and is not needed to restore the marsh. It is the connector
version 2.0 and uses public funds to achieve outcomes that could easily be achieved through
regulation.
5. Perrinville and Shell Creeks were not prioritized by the needs assessment, community meetings, or
public survey. The council should not redirect funds from SR-99 and south Edmonds areas that were
prioritized by the PROS Plan process. Siting open space in SR-99 and south Edmonds is consistent
with the first and second priority regarding watersheds as identified by the City so there is no
environmental excuse to redirect funds from these areas, it is just the council’s personal preference
for these pet areas.
6. The development of environmental priorities did not go through an inclusive, transparent public
process and the council disregarded an open letter from the SR-99 community for an inclusive and
transparent public process to occur. Council priorities for the Edmonds Marsh, Shell Creek and Yost
Park should be deleted.
7. Council identified financial support for specific community groups that were not selected by the
community or planning board during the public process. These should be deleted.
8. The City needs to immediately conduct a scoping process for a SEPA environmental impact
statement to reflect the council’s changes. Land use and recreation are significantly impacted and
housing may be significantly impacted. Impacts must be evaluated according to Ordinance 4079,
GMA compliance as well as evaluating the loss of a large mixed use parcel downtown in conflict with
zoning if the council creates a policy commitment to purchase the Unocal property. The analysis must
include impact to housing and implementation of required population growth.
9. Council changes are institutionally racist because they redirect environmental investment from the
most diverse areas of the City with the most open space service gaps and the highest environmental
health disparities to the widest areas of the City with the least service gaps. The council cannot say
they value all communities and then amend plans to redirect funds from underserved communities. If
the council values all communities, they need to critically reevaluate the more than $41 million in
new investment downtown and prioritize access to the environment and health of all communities.
Tom Murdoch, Director, Adopt a Stream Foundation, advised the Adopt A Stream Foundation in
partnership with the City of Lynnwood and the Snohomish County Conservation District, will soon
announce a unique program, Perrinville Creek Salmon and Trout Relief Fund. The objective of that effort
is to reduce stormwater runoff from the Lynnwood portion of the Perrinville Creek Watershed flowing
into Perrinville Creek and into Edmonds. The Adopt a Stream Foundation will work with residents in the
Lynnwood portion of the Perrinville Creek watershed to install rain gardens that focus on reducing
stormwater runoff flowing into Perrinville Creek and into Edmonds. With regard to the consultant
contract associated with Perrinville Creek, he suggested the contract be modified to include that the
design consider restoring the salmon run to Perrinville Creek. He has been looking at the creek for about
30 years; it used to have an excellent coho or silver salmon run. There is little mention of channelizing of
the creek done without permits from the City or Department of Fisheries downstream from the two
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 9
splitter boxes Mr. Leiter mentioned. That channel needs to be reconfigured to accommodate stream flows
from a stormwater perspective and provide suitable habitat for salmon.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said with the tree ordinance, Edmonds is knowingly violating the GMA
by stealing and then charging for property rights only from those dividing vacant land, increasing home
density and lowering house prices. If they built one home on their 1.2 acres, they would be free from City
theft and extortion, but that would increase urban sprawl outside Edmonds. According to law, division
should be allowed without charging them for or taking the rights to their property. Trees are the property
of the owners whose land they grown on. The fact that land is vacant does not negate property rights. The
council has been misled regarding how much control government is allowed on private property, vacant
or developed. They purchased their land to build three homes for their family and love trees in the right
place. The tree ordinance states division applications will be denied unless $3,000 to $12,000 payment for
each tree removed is made and remaining trees are permanently signed over to the City as protected and
written as such in future sales documents. Developed property owners need only volunteer trees as
protected and can remove them from the list at any time. Edmonds has permanently taken property rights
to every tree growing on all vacant land without just compensation, then charges owners for their own
property before allowing for division. In the U.S., private property is the foundation of not only
prosperity, but of freedom itself. Property rights are protected through common law, state law and the
constitution. The rights of people to possess, control, protect, derive income from and dispose of freely.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the supreme court treats property as a fundamental right, forbidding
government from imposing arbitrary or irrational restrictions on its use. Both federal and state
constitutions provide that the government may not take private property unless it is for a public use and
just compensation has been made. To legally own the rights to all trees on their property, compensation
must be made equal to the extortion they are required to pay Edmonds for each tree. For their property,
that could be close to $1 million. In reality, if they sold all their trees, they would get $2,000, nowhere
near close to covering the cost of removing even the ones needed to site their homes. Treeless vacant
properties are required to place six trees per 1/3 acre; they have to retain 24 huge trees on each 1/3 acre,
41% retention, pay the fee cap of $107,000 for removed trees and are forced to permanently sign their
property rights to the City with the hope that Deb Powers and Kernen Lien will approve their application.
By law they should not lose their rights or pay anything to the City for their trees. She urged the City to
following the law and restore property rights of new home buyers and vacant land owners to be equal to
their neighbors without arbitrary regulations and takings and let people build homes.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he has spent much of the 40+ years he has lived in Edmonds in the woods
and streams and has very personal knowledge of the outdoor environment. With regard to agenda item 8.2
regarding the Perrinville Watershed Study, he requested the council consider amending the contract to
have the contractor use the information analysis they will conduct to also provide alternatives for
remediating the excess stormwater flow at the upper end of the watershed, a critical need and a great time
to get it done at the time the other study is done. With regard to agenda item 8.3, the PROS Plan, he urged
the council to table action on this item until the council receives the revision table and the public is
allowed to provide input which the council committed to at the April 5th meeting. He referenced his
written comments and quotes from pages 20 and 21 of that meeting. As the council was not provided the
information that was committed to, the council should not be taking action at this meeting. With regard to
agenda item 8.4, the Tree Code, it is time for the council to reopen the urban forest management plan
(UFMP). The tree code is supposed to implement the UFMP, but is not doing that. It would be time better
spent to update and revise the UFMP to achieve the intended goals and objectives rather than continuing
to fiddle with a tree code that is turning into a mess.
With regard to agenda item 8.5, Waterfront Study, Mr. Scordino recommended the City begin the process
of amending the comprehensive plan as there is no reason to wait until 2024. The study includes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 10
numerous recommendations; now is the perfect time to put those recommendations into the form of a
comprehensive plan amendment with alternatives, start the public process to get public input, and get the
comprehensive plan changed. The lack of essentially a viable comprehensive plan relative to that
waterfront area affects the public’s ability to work with state legislators and state agencies to find the least
costly way for the City to utilize the Unocal property to restore the marsh. Unless that is fixed, it will cost
the City millions if the process cannot start to get people on board with restoring salmon in Washington
and utilizing that property for that purpose. He said council questions of City staff that pertain to
accountability of the administration is not bullying, it is good governance.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2022
4. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
6. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
7. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
8. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
9. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
10. RESOLUTION CONDEMNING GUN VIOLENCE AND RACIAL HATRED
11. APPROVAL OF STORMWATER CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE
12. APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION DOCUMENTS FOR COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER (CHC) AS PART OF THE HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION &
GATEWAY PROJECT – STAGE 2
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. VACATION ACCRUAL FOR RETURNING EMPLOYEE
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson reported this item is related to an employee who is being rehired. The
City’s policies do not address vacation accrual for an employee who is rehired. The request is for the
employee to be returned to the vacation accrual rate he was at prior to leaving the City’s employment.
This is something that should be considered in the policies long term. She has usually seen if someone is
rehired within a year after leaving the organization, they are put back at the same seniority level they had
when they left. The recommendation is to approve placing Brian Tuley, the information services manager,
at the same vacation accrual rate, and allow him to take and accrue vacation in the first six months of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 11
employment. The City’s current policy states an employee cannot use or accrue vacation during the
probationary period.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE MR. TULEY'S VACATION ACCRUAL BASED ON HIS PRIOR YEARS OF
SERVICE WITH EDMONDS (APPROXIMATELY 8.5 YEARS), EFFECTIVE ON HIS HIRE
DATE OF 6/1/2022, AND 2) WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR HIM TO COMPLETE HIS
PROBATIONARY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ACCRUAL AND USE OF HIS VACATION.
Council President Olson said she was thrilled Mr. Tuley missed the City and wanted to come back.
Councilmember Paine observed this would give the employee the same rate of accrual for 8.5 years. She
asked if he cashed out his vacation bank when he separated from the City or was more vacation being
added. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered he would have received vacation and sick leave cash out per policy.
This request is not loading the bank, which was cashed out, but placing him at his previous accrual rate
rather than the accrual rate of a first year employee. Councilmember Paine was thrilled he returning.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that was something that should be added to the City’s policy. She
recalled this happened one other time during her 12 years on council and the City was lucky to have both
employees back. She thought it was going to be fixed last time and hoped it was fixed this time.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ESA FOR
DESIGN AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR THE LOWER PERRINVILLE CREEK
RECOVERY PROJECT
Acting Public Works Director Rob English explained there are two items in the proposed scope, 1) an
interim solution to reestablish the creek to the BNSF culvert below the diversion structure, and 2) look at
a permanent, long term solution to open the fish passage from Talbot Road to Puget Sound, a new creek
assignment and removing barriers at Talbot Road and BNSF. A request for qualifications was issued in
March and one firm, ESA, responded. Their contract is included in the packet. Presentations were made to
the parks & public works committee on May 10th. Two presentations will be provided tonight, one by
Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla related to the Tetra Tech study completed in 2015 and a second
presentation by ESA.
Mr. De Lilla advised he will present the work that has been done since 2013 to present to help mitigate
flows within the Perrinville basin. In 2015 the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit
Study was done to evaluate the entire basin to determine ways to decrease flows and scour for Perrinville
Creek. Those findings determined certain portions did not contribute to Perrinville creek including the
east infiltration basin and the golf course in Lynnwood and the west basin in Edmonds.
Current Basin Limits - 2015 Perrinville Creek Basin Flow Reduction Study (Tetra Tech – Figure 5)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 12
Mr. De Lilla continued, the other findings were a majority of the basin has a 15-24 foot layer of glacial till
which is low permeability soils which makes infiltration difficult. In 20% of the total area where the creek
is located, there are more permeable soils, the same soil that causes scouring. Other findings were
mitigating the 2-year storm was the cost effective for decreasing scour and flows. Otherwise, projects
became very cost prohibitive and would have to be designed for a storm that no one can predict. Today’s
design standards are either 50 or 100 year storms. The study includes recommendation for projects for
Edmonds and Lynnwood, 12 were selected, as well as recommendations to build rain gardens in private
residences, and Perrinville specific code changes. Another findings was the post office site is the
headwater for the Perrinville aquifer so the groundwater water levels at that location are quite high so
costs for mitigation in that area would be much higher than the $450,000 per cfs limit they were trying to
place.
Mr. DeLilla reviewed:
• Possible Project criteria
o 30 possible projects (14 Edmonds/16 Lynnwood) feasible sites
o 12 recommended (7 Edmonds/5 Lynnwood)
▪ Meeting all 3 criteria below
- Project cost below $450,000* per cfs of 2-year peak flow reduction
- Overall 2-year peak flow reduction greater than 0.15 cfs
- Limited siting and construction constraints
*2015 dollars
• Perrinville Flow Reduction Projects/Studies/Agreements (City)
o Completed
▪ (2013) Talbot Road Drainage Impr/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
▪ (2015) Perrinville Flow Reduction Study
▪ (2015) Drainage Improvements (Dellwood & 191st - Raingardens and Infiltration)
▪ (2016) Discussions with Snohomish County Conservation District (SCCD) for Municipal
Raingarden Program
▪ (2018) Seaview Infiltration Project (Phase 1)
▪ (2019) Interlocal Agreement with SCCD*
▪ (2020) 83rd Ave Raingardens
▪ (2020) 81st Ave Raingardens
o 2022
▪ Seaview Infiltration Project (Phase 2) Fall Construction
▪ 83rd Ave Raingardens (Phase 2) Fall Construction
▪ Geomorphology Study (In Progress)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 13
• City/Snohomish County Conservation District Improvements
PRIVATE RAINGARDENS Number Year Installed Watershed
7905 189th Pl. SW 1 2019 Perrinville
8011 180th St. SW 1 2019 Perrinville
18605 79th Pl. W 1 2019 Perrinville
18505 83rd Ave. W 1 2017 Perrinville
7910 187th Pl. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
19011 78th Pl. W 1 2021 Perrinville
7904 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
7628 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
8204 182nd Pl. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
7912 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
• Updates to City Codes Specific to Perrinville Basin
o Development Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated impervious surfaces to remain):
▪ 25% => 50% (currently 25% citywide)
▪ 0% in 2015
o Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3
Standard) for developments of 10,000sf or more impervious surface area
o Edmonds currently in discussions with Lynnwood to make code changes so that these
requirements are applicable there as well.
• Lynnwood Accomplishments
o Completed
▪ (2016) Maximizing the volume of stormwater going into the Lynndale Park infiltration
gallery under the dog park. Exceeding its design capacity and performing well.
▪ (2016/2017) Retrofit to the Blue Ridge Pond.
▪ (2017) Lynnwood Elementary School is 100% infiltration.
▪ (2017) 12 rain gardens with the Snohomish County Conservation District
o 2022
▪ Stream Keepers plan on installing 6-10 rain gardens with the Perrinville Creek Salmon
and Trout Relief fund this summer.
Jon Ambrose, Hydrologist and Geomorphologist, Engineering Group Director, ESA, reviewed:
• ESA Team Roles
o All team members have experience on nearby Meadowdale Park Restoration at the railroad
o Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
▪ Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling/Design
▪ Geomorphology
▪ Restoration Engineering
▪ Fish Ecology
▪ Permitting
o Hanson Professional Services
▪ Railroad and Road Bridge Engineering
o Shannon & Wilson
▪ Geotechnical Engineering
o Duane Hartman & Associates
▪ Survey
• Sediment Source Investigation Ongoing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 14
o Photos of Perrinville Creek
▪ Debris jam, sediment accumulation that is likely fish passage barrier
▪ Layer of less permeable till overlaying thick lenses of highly erodible advanced outwash
and massive deposits of erodible sand seen in Perrinville Creek
• Proposed Scope of Work for Interim Action and 60% Design of Long-Term Solution at Railroad
and Talbot Road
o Preparing Necessary Information for Infrastructure and Stream Design
▪ Topographic survey, hydraulic modeling and hydrology, geotechnical investigation,
geomorphic analysis/sediment transport, and cultural resources assessment
o Design of Interim Action(stream channel and diversion structure modification)
▪ Including emergency permits
o 60% Design of Long-Term Solution Railroad Crossing and Talbot Road
▪ Structural engineering, bridge design, stream challenge design
▪ Permitting
o Public Engagement and City council Engagement, Stakeholder Meetings
▪ 12 different meetings planned with city council members and public
o Project management
• Proposed Sequencing
1. Interim action – in summer 2022, excavate new stream channel from diversion structure to
BNSF culvert
2. Long-term solution design – replace undersized culverts through BNSF embankment with
property sized bridge or box culvert
3. Watershed management recommendations/activities
4. Fish passage at Talbot Road – replace undersized culvert at Talbot Road with properly sized
bridge or culvert
• Interim Action Alternatives
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 15
o Dashed lines show three alternative alignments for interim action
o Maintenance of diversion under 2/3 alternatives
o These have been presented to WDFW, tribes, and landowners
• Long-term solution in Lower Perrinville Creek
o Properly size replacement structure through BNSF railroad embankment
o Properly sized channel and stream mouth
o Eliminate diversion
• Talbot Road Culvert Replacement
o Properly sized replacement structure at Talbot Road
o Sediment management upstream
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 16
Paul Schlenger, ESA, reviewed:
• Why focus on lower creek when there are problems throughout the watershed?
o Most important part for salmon
▪ Currently no salmon access to creek
▪ No access for spawning by coho, chum, steelhead or sea-run cutthroat trout
▪ No access for rearing by juvenile chinook
o Stream routed entirely through City’s diversion pipe due to no steam channel (filled with
sediment)
▪ City has to restore creek to an open channel to restore fish passage
▪ Urgent to do this during summer/early fall to allow salmon to return to spawn and rear
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the statement that coho could be returned for spawning and asked
if they would be able to spawn in the short section between the Talbot culvert and Puget Sound. Mr.
Schlenger responded yes, there is a short reach below Talbot Road that could potentially support some
spawning.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this will be very costly and there is an infrastructure bill with
funding for projects like this and now there is a culvert replacement bill. She asked about outreach to the
legislature and others groups for funding such as WRIA 8 for chinook recovery, or if the City was
planning to bear the entire cost. Mr. English assured securing grants to help design and construct the
project would be one of the efforts. In meetings with a couple of legislators earlier in the year, they
indicated the need to have conceptual plans in place and potential opportunities for grant programs. This
contract with ESA will assist with obtaining future grants. There are also opportunities with the City of
Lynnwood and Snohomish County.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this contract had morphed enough to include the long-term watershed
issues that were disclosed in the PowerPoint. She recalled Joe Scordino suggested expanding the contract
to cover the entire reach. Mr. English answered the scope that Mr. Scordino referred to would be an added
effort. This contract focuses on the lower reach and the sediment evaluation and assessment.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the contract scope could be expanded tonight or should that be done
in the future. She was aware the lower reach needed to be designed now, but it would be nice to have a
package prepared to present to funding partners. She noted looking at the situation is enough, and the
slides from the presentation are great. A package needs to be prepared because there are funding
opportunities available and other jurisdictions are getting funds because their projects are ready. Mr.
English said there could be a conversation with ESA about a feasibility study for upstream options. The
Tetra Tech study was the initial assessment and a lot of good projects came out of that study. There can
be continued study to determine other opportunities. There are challenges within basin due to high ground
water and identifying areas within the basin for infiltration.
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized ESA also worked on the Meadowdale Beach project. She recalled
William Leiter thinks the culvert under the railroad tracks has deteriorated enough that there may be a
train derailment, another reason for urgency in doing the project now for the short-term effect as well as
the culvert issue. Mr. Ambrose responded when the structural engineers are assessing the site, they could
also look at the condition of the pipe under the railroad if that is an extreme concern for the City. Mr.
Schlenger added one of the early steps is sizing what the replacement would look like. Through their
work on Meadowdale and other projects, they are becoming more familiar with BNSF. They believe the
current BNSF culvert is undersized; if it is undersized, that leads to a conversation with BNSF to explore
their participation in the cost. When they reach that point, he expected BNSF to inspect their own culvert.
That information would be provided via this contract, either via ESA or BNSF.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 17
Councilmember Tibbott echoed the request for partnerships in future projects. He did not support using
more ARPA funds for this in the future and preferred to utilize partnerships. This contract will help
leverage other funding sources for restoration. The contract includes $157,00 to study the railroad box
culvert/bridge idea; he asked if it was urgent to do that now. The railroad tends to be slow to participate
and he wondered if that could be removed from this contract. Mr. Ambrose responded the most critical
piece of the entire project is replacing the railroad crossing; the earlier that can start, the earlier it can be
completed. BNSF requires any applicant go through a lengthy process, a minimum evaluation to
demonstrate lack of capacity, bringing them a 10% design to enter their grade review process. ESA’s
recommendation and the most effective component of the entire design is replacing the culvert under the
railroad.
Councilmember Tibbott said he tends to agree, but he viewed it as pushing a string to get something done.
The entity that will pull this loose needs to be identified to ensure BNSF’s participation happens. He did
not see the City being able to tilt the scale toward involvement from BNSF. Mr. Schlenger answered
information provided through designs provided and reviewed sequential by BNSF is getting their
agreement on what a replacement structure looks like, whether it’s a box culvert or a bridge and then
working through their design process. That will facilitate BNSF’s support and approval for the project.
That has been done in part with the way the team has been constructed because Hanson Professional
Services and Shannon & Wilson often work with BNSF. A bridge to carry a train is a specialized bridge
and requires specialists in this team and having that review opens doors to other funding sources. They
have been in discussions with BNSF so if they are familiar with the project and it has gone through their
review, they can ask for a letter of support and/or partnership for grants. There are grants the City is
eligible for and other rail specific grants as well as funding in the Infrastructure Act. This design opens
the door to more partnerships with BNSF on rail grant funding sources.
Councilmember Paine referred to the photograph of the 15’ sand lens and asked if that was on Perrinville
Creek or was it an example. Mr. Ambrose answered that is a photograph from Perrinville Creek and is
approximately 35’. Perrinville Creek has significant erodible geologic lenses so that is a long-term issue.
Sedimentation will not stop and is expected to continue episodically in response to rainfall and flow, as
well as due to mass wasting and landslides.
Councilmember Paine said in looking at the pictures and listening to the presentation, it seems the
broadest access point for sand to flow to create eel grass beds, etc. for nearshore habitat would be at Puget
Sound. She asked about the cost differential between a box culvert under Talbot Road vs. a bridge,
recalling the prior public works director said Talbot Road was at risk for washing out with a large storm.
Mr. Ambrose answered as part of their scope of work, the structural engineer will look at various
alternatives. The City had a study completed by Herrera in the last five years that looked at three different
culvert replacement alternatives. There is different bridge technology since then. There is a steep
embankment with a steep slope; they will look to the structural engineer to make a recommendation and
cost is certainly a consideration. Function and cost is part of any analysis they do.
Mr. Schlenger added for a crossing like that, there are state standards for a culvert versus a bridge and it
would meet the minimum size according to those standards, stream simulation, etc. Councilmember Paine
asked if it would be a 100-year or 50-year minimum size. Mr. Ambrose answered there are multiple
requirements for new fish passage structures, both width and height; height requires three feet of
freeboard for a 100-year storm. It would have to pass a 100-year storm, but it also requires enough width
to have a naturally moving channel under the roadway. The current crossing width at Talbot is a 30” pipe;
Herrera recommended a 16’ crossing. Councilmember Paine commented she was eager to get this started.
She echoed the request to search out funding sources, commenting it was long past time and she was
aware of the timing of the fish window to get this underway.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 18
With regard to the sequence of work necessary to address the Perrinville Creek issues, Councilmember L.
Johnson recalled the explanation about doing the BNSF bridge/culvert first and Talbot Road second due
to the sediment. She asked if the same logic holds for work needed up stream; that it makes the most
sense to approve this step to move the needle with BNSF and provide more access to available funding
sources. Mr. Schlenger recommended working in both areas simultaneously. In the lower portion of the
creek, the railroad needs to be addressed first, because when the Talbot Road crossing is unleash, all that
sediment will head to the railroad crossing and it needs to be able to go out into Puget Sound. If funds are
available that does not preclude doing both at the same time.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked what was the key portion of the creek. Mr. Ambrose answered the key
portion is from Talbot Road to Puget Sound. As part of this scope of work, they will be looking at
opportunities to reduce the magnitude and timing of the delivery of sediment. He provided those pictures
so people can get a sense of the magnitude of the situation. Access in upper Perrinville Creek is very
difficult. They will identify areas and opportunities to reduce sediment quantities, but the reality is, it is a
high sediment load river. There is really nothing that can be done to eliminate the fact that sediment will
move under Talbot Road and through the stream channel but it needs to move out to Puget Sound. That is
the bottleneck now, between Talbot Road and Puget Sound. If a new channel and crossing can be
accommodated under the railroad bridge, large episodes of sediment transport can be accommodated in
Perrinville Creek. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate that possibility; it needs to be designed to
accommodate that reality and doing that requires a better channel alignment, a larger channel and most
importantly, a larger crossing under the railroad.
Councilmember Chen commented on the urgency of the projects. He has visited the creek at the
McLaughlin and Flynn residences and knows about their situations. To him it seemed like things were
being done backwards. The picture of the person near the massive deposits of erodible sand in Perrinville
Creek is alarming. A landslide could be the result of a storm or the changing climate and there is a
possibility that things could get worse. He suggested looking at a holistic design. Without knowing what
will happen upstream, he questioned spending efforts downstream to design a bridge or culvert and only
guessing at the size that would be necessary to accommodate the situation. Not to diminish the
importance of downstream, he recommended understanding the upstream situation before investing in
downstream solutions. Mr. Schlenger responded the upstream study is ongoing and that information will
be available during the proposed lower Perrinville contract.
Councilmember Chen observed the $906,000 proposed project is just a design. He asked about the
estimated cost to construct the interim solution. Mr. Ambrose answered early estimates were developed
last year, he recalled it was under $500,000, but at the time modifications to the diversion that likely will
be required in an interim solution had not been fleshed out. There are no structures, no new culverts, no
structural engineering, no geotechnical engineering required. It is a much similar process, but is just
interim until the railroad crossing is upgraded. With regard to Councilmember Chen’s prior question, he
explained the project is not doing anything backward. What is known for certain is that there will be large
volumes of sediment moving down Perrinville Creek, that it is geologically unstable, and that it has vast
amounts of sediment that will be moving downstream, down Talbot Road and through private property.
Completely mitigating for that delivery of sediment is nearly impossible to do completely; the appropriate
design approach in their opinion is to accommodate what they know is a certainty in terms of where it
comes from. This is an eroding gully that will continue to move sediment down to a problem area. They
will also look for opportunities to arrest that sediment delivery. Councilmember Chen suggested the
council keep in mind that the proposal is to invest $1.5 million in an interim design.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ESA.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 19
With regard to Councilmember Chen’s comment, Mr. English explained the $906,000 contract contains
two tasks, first the interim solution which is $80,000-$100,000 of $906,000; the balance is the design to
60% and the permitting effort for the long-term solution. It is a big investment and gives momentum for
the long term solution in solving the culvert at the BNSF tracks as well as Talbot.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding to the contract dealing with the excess stormwater in the
upper reach in the future. She asked if the contract addressed that. Mr. English answered the contract does
not address that. That would need to be considered as part of a feasibility study for opportunities in the
upper portion of the watershed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if she should make an amendment or
would staff promise to do it. Mr. English suggested staff talk to ESA and come back to council.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much it will cost to go from 60% design to 100% design on this
project. Mr. English answered he did not have a good number. If $800,000 is invested for permitting and
60% design, he anticipated another $400,000 would be necessary depending on the alignment and efforts
with BNSF. Mr. Ambrose said one thing to consider with designs like this is 60% design is 100%
geotechnical design, it is very advanced structural engineering, the nature of the structure, the size and
location has been agreed to, agreement has been reached with BNSF on their review, there will have been
a robust public engagement process, and input received from agencies, tribes and co-managers. He
anticipated it could be a smooth process to move from 60% to 100% design given the robustness of this
initial effort. He summarized the project will get far with this effort.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed in addition to this study, there will be some money required for
100% design and some money to implement the interim design. She summarized the total cost sounded
like $1.9 million. Mr. English responded there isn’t a good number for construction of the interim portion
if that can happen this summer. Councilmember K. Johnson said her point was it was not just this project,
but several other segments of the same task. Mr. English agreed, this contract will provide an interim
design; there will need to be a separate contract to construct it. The balance of the contract will get the
process pretty far down the road toward a permanent solution, but there funds will be necessary to finish
that design and to actually build it in the future.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday added, getting to 60% design will open up grant funding opportunities. While
it is true additional money will be required to get from 60% design to 100% and additional money for
construction, everyone is optimistic that once the project gets to 60%, the City will be able to take
advantage of funding partnerships. This project is a prerequisite to get to that point.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Olson commented it was clear the council was not going to get through all the agenda
items. Staff prioritized the agenda items as PROS Plan, Edmonds Waterfront Issues Study, and Tree Code
Updates. With the time remaining she asked if the council wanted review the Edmonds Waterfront Issues
Study or stop after the PROS Plan. It was the unanimous consensus of council for the PROS Plan to be
the last item on the agenda other than Mayor and Council Comments.
3. 2022 PROS (PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE) PLAN
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser reviewed:
• PROS Plan Overview
o Purpose
▪ The PROS Plan is a 6-year guide for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails
and recreational opportunities for the Edmonds community
▪ Plan adoption required to retain eligibility for state and federal grants.
o Community Engagement
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 20
▪ Community Survey
- Total responses: 1,958
Random‐sample mail: 501 (20%)
Online community‐wide: 1,457
▪ 2 Virtual Public Meetings
- ~ 60 Attendees participated
▪ Website / Social Media
- Ongoing
- Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish
▪ Events & Tabling
- Uptown Market
▪ Community feedback
- Project email list
- Public comments – written and verbal
- Primary focus
Equity/diversity
Dive Park @ Brackett’s North
Southwest Snohomish County Park
Environmental stewardship
Edmonds Marsh/Estuary
▪ 8 Planning Board sessions
- Scope of work review: Jan 27th
- Work session: May 26th
- Update and Goals: Nov 10th
- Plan overview: Jan 12th
- Public hearing: Jan 26th
- Subcommittee session: Feb 3rd
- Recommendation Review: Feb 9th
- Public hearing: Feb 23rd
▪ City Council sessions
- Study session: Feb 1st
- Capital List (Parks & PW Committee): Mar 8th
- Public Hearings: Mar 15th & Mar 22nd
- Revision Proposal: Apr 5th
- Final Review: June 7th
• Plan revisions
o Added executive summary
o Add full set of maps ‐ Interlocal Agreements (ILA) hashing
o Trails maps updated ‐ 76th Avenue bike lane
o Capital Facilities Plan Table expanded to include costs sequenced over 6 years
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 21
o Addition of new objective to Goal 3 to highlight partnerships and ILAs
o Relocated Goals & Objectives to precede Capital Planning & Implementation (Ch 9)
o Minor staff edits and errata corrections
o Chapter 9 Key Recommendation/Action Initiatives (Highlighted in Attachment #2)
Steve Duh, Conservation Techniques, was present to answer questions.
Councilmember Paine commented the gaps identified via public feedback have been addressed. However,
the document with changes to chapter 9 was new topics and was not received through the normal
planning board and other public outreach processes. She asked where that information came from. Ms.
Feser responded Councilmember Paine may be referring to a document provided by Council President
Olson that was referenced in the packet in an attempt create a compromise. The document contained
things Council President Olson had heard and learned from individuals in the community who were
interested in changes. Council President Olson emailed that information to her, asking that she consider
them as revisions to the PROS Plan. All the revisions in the document were considered; some were
incorporated and some were not. She considered that as input and feedback from the council just as
emails and comments she received from other councilmembers.
Councilmember Paine expressed concern that it did not go through a more public vetting. She was glad
Ms. Feser and the consultant reviewed it, but it seemed to circumvent the normal public process by
providing it to Ms. Feser without sharing it with the full council. She found that a bit of a surprise, that it
seemed to circumvent the public engagement process that the City paid a lot of money for.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there have been changes. A similar example is the urban forest
management plan which included a very detailed public process; rather than send it back to the
consultant, it went through a group. There are numerous other examples. She summarized the changes
that have been made are great although she still sees some gaps. She referred to the April 5,2022 minutes
that indicate a table would be provided which is in chapter 9.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in reading the 2022 PROS Plan, it was difficult to follow as she did not
do a compare and contrast with the old plan; some people had a problem with not being able to see all the
changes that had been made. During a previous review, a table highlighting the changes was provided; in
this update, people did not realize that chapter 9 outlined the revisions. She suggested an amendment
related to combining the Edmonds Marsh estuary and Marina Beach in the capital planning process. The
original grant proposal had it as one project, Daylighting of Willow Creek and it included funds for the
hydrology project. In 2019, those were separated with the marsh going into stormwater and Marina Beach
going into parks. That resulted in two different granting cycles and a design that was not sanctioned by
council. The waterfront study quotes that report, but it was never council sanctioned.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not want the marsh and Marina Beach separated in future grant
applications because the systems starts at Marina Beach and flows into the marsh. The council should not
be putting money aside to design the marsh or Marina Beach until the Unocal property is resolved. She
liked the suggestion made during audience comments about the barrier on Shell Creek and putting that in
the PROS Plan. She suggested adding Shell Creek or the watershed to the section that describes creeks.
She expressed appreciation for the work Ms. Feser did with the consultant, commenting the plan is greatly
improved.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented when this first came to the council, one of the most significant
things to her was, as highlighted in the message from the director, emphasis on diversity and equity and
the outreach efforts to more inclusively capture the community’s ever evolving priorities related to parks,
open space, trails, recreation facilities and programing. She highlighted everything in the document that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 22
talked about DEI aspect and steps taken to engage with the community. One in particular, equity,
inclusivity and accessibility (page 690), maintaining and enhancing social equity across recreational
opportunities and facilities should be a core function of municipal park and recreation systems. Through
the PROS Plan, the City of Edmonds made a concerted effort to reach out to, connect with, and engage its
historically under-represented communities. The City also invested in and committed to outreach in four
major languages of the community, Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish. Also with substantial past
investment in downtown, the City is reexamining the distribution of parks and recreation resource
investments to other areas of the City with the goal to advance equity across Edmonds. The outreach was
vast and statistically significant.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the PROS Plan states the City did one thing, but now the end
result is something else and it was clear to her that a few have had a very outsized influence on the plan.
They identified what they thought should be included in the PROS Plan and portions were included;
however, the narrative regarding the process has not been corrected. The plan describes the process and
celebrates how it was done, but that is not what has happened and those claims can no longer be made. If
the council intends to move forward with the revised PROS Plan, then the claims regarding the outreach
need to reflect what actually happened. She was unsure that could be accomplished tonight.
Councilmember Tibbott thanked Ms. Feser for the work done on the PROS Plan. He was impressed how
public comment had been woven into the plan and with specific implementation steps outlined in chapter
9. He recalled from the outreach that the top amenities people were looking for were walking paths and
trails, both within parks and providing connectivity between parks. He asked how ideas for future
improvements such as in Mathay Ballinger Park could be included. Ms. Feser answered the way to do that
on an annual basis is through the capital budget process. The parks & public works committee has been
working through the capital program, and during that process, projects can be vetted and brought forward.
The PROS Plan is used to inform that effort, but the council’s decisions through the budget process are
how priority projects are approved. Obviously, everything on the list cannot be accomplished, but the
PROS Plan helps inform the capital program.
Councilmember Tibbott summarized a decision package would be presented for council consideration.
For example, the council may want to prioritize improvements in an underserved part of the City and
decision packages could be proposed for those in the annual budget. Ms. Feser agreed, advising if a
priority project is not included as a decision package, council can suggest or propose a decision package..
Council President Olson commented when the outreach was done and questions were asked, the feedback
not very environmental. This is an update to the 2016 PROS Plan which was more environmental. While
she agreed with the councilmember’s comment that the feedback from the process was somewhat
different than the council additions, it was because the feedback did not represent what the council
wanted the park’s exclusive focus to be and were trying to add back in more environmental emphasis that
existed in a degree in the 2016 PROS Plan. That does not water down the feedback from citizens related
to park locations, activities and amenities, it just adds focus on the environment which was missing. She
did not hold it against citizens who did not contribute that input, but as a representative of the entire
community who has a responsibility for environmental stewardship, she felt good about the changes and
input by council. The process honored citizens’ input and the document she provided was the result of
citizen input received through the PROS Plan process. Many of items in the document were not
environmentally focused, they were other inputs from other pockets of the community who wanted to
ensure there was emphasis on ADA, trails, municipal code updates, etc.
Council President Olson referred to the book the council read, “Getting to Yes,” and at the time there was
discussion about forming a council subcommittee. Starting from a single document is one of the ways to
move toward agreement and then people make edits, similar to what Ms. Feser did with the consultant.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 23
The document was intended to be a starting point. At the time she provided it, there were plans to form a
council committee and it was intended as a place to start.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed appreciation for chapter 9 and offered a minor revision to item 1 in
recommendation #2, Open Space & Conservation Acquisition, adding Shellabarger Creek. Shellabarger
Creek feeds into the marsh and there are several opportunities for acquisitions.
With regard to chapter 9, Councilmember Paine objected to how the changes came to council despite
what others have said. She had no changes to recommendation #1 or #2. She recommended item 9 in
recommendation #3 be deleted (Develop a master plan encompassing the city-owned Edmonds Marsh and
Marina Beach Park and the Unocal property once acquired). That will likely take until 2028-2030 due to
time Ecology is taking to release the Unocal property. The cleanup likely will not be complete until 2024
followed by a 2-year period for reassessment and retesting. Marina Beach Park is an important estuary
access point; however it looks now, there are opportunities to get funding and development in the future.
She referred to the $1 million in grants, commenting Marina Beach is basically the tailpipe to two major
watersheds on the west side of Edmonds. It is important not to hinder grant opportunities for Marina
Beach and the Edmonds Marsh.
Councilmember Paine continued, it is unknow when the Unocal property will be released. The timeline in
item 9 will be impossible to accomplished before the end of this PROS Plan. She suggested rewriting that
so it does not hinge on property that the City does not own or for which there is not a solid timeline.
There is already a Marina Beach master plan and it may be desirable to do something similar for the
Edmonds Marsh as well but that should be delayed until there is some status on the Unocal property. The
PROS Plan includes recreation; Marina Beach had a nice recreation aspect to it.
Ms. Feser asked for clarification, whether the request was to delete item 9 entirely or modify it so it was
not contingent upon the purchase of the Unocal property. Councilmember Paine answered she wanted it
separated so it was not contingent on the Unocal property. Ms. Feser summarized it could be rewritten so
the Unocal property purchase would not hold up moving forward on a planning process that encompasses
the Edmonds Marsh and Marina Beach Park together. Councilmember Paine answered there is a master
plan for Marina Beach. The grants were not accepted due to council’s request. Tying a major portion of
the public waterfront to private property does not make sense.
Councilmember Paine requested adding to item 2 in recommendation #8, “and in partnership with
community groups.” She recommended changing item 3 in recommendation #8 to read, “Develop and
continue partnerships with and financial support of community groups” and not list the organizations. An
outreach plan should be for all things and not strictly environmental groups, but be as broad as possible.
Listing only a few organizations makes it too narrow.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Paine’s comment about the master plan and
Marina Beach and the Edmonds Marsh. She is on the grant committee and has read hundreds of grant
applications. The only reason Marina Beach and the Edmonds Marsh were separated was because the
council made the decision in 2019 to separate the Edmonds Marsh into stormwater and Marina Beach into
parks and recreation. Separate grant proposals were submitted; public works did not receive a grant
because WRIA 8 recommended looking at the entire project. The Meadowdale Beach project is one
project that includes recreational aspects. She recalled one of the reason for the Marina Beach master plan
was to get rid of the dog park. She suggested adding to the survey whether the City should purchase the
Unocal property, recalling in the 2016 PROS Plan, there was interest in having the entire project become
a natural wildlife habitat due to its urban location.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 24
Councilmember Buckshnis continued, the cleanup of the Unocal property will be beneficial to wildlife
and could provide a free-flowing lagoon, etc. She acknowledged it takes time to restore property, efforts
to restore Taylor Creek in Seattle have been ongoing for 20 years and it is just now getting to the point of
construction. She was not in a hurry to do anything but wanted to maintain a holistic approach to assist
with obtaining grant funds or to seek funding to purchase the property from an organization like Forterra.
The council removed the marsh from stormwater because it is not a stormwater project although there are
stormwater aspects to it. It is basically a nearshore estuary that she hoped can be restored in the next six
years. The 2016 PROS Plan included the marsh due to its importance to the ecosystem and there was no
concern about the timing.
Council President Olson commented there were downsides to spending money on a master plan prior to
acquiring land as it could end up being wasted money. Ms. Feser agreed that is the challenge with the
Unocal property, the marsh and Marina Beach; it would be nice to move forward with a plan that
incorporates all those parcels, but without ownership, a purchase and sale agreement, or permission from
the land owner to do a planning process, it could be fiscally irresponsible. If something did not work out
with the Unocal property, the expense and time for that planning effort would no longer be applicable.
The City is not able to apply for grants on property where there is not a purchase and sale agreement or
permission from the owner. The City is two owners away, Unocal has to hand over the property to
WSDOT and then WSDOT will go through the process of selling it or figuring out a way for the City to
acquire it in some capacity, not necessarily acquisition. It is a great concept, but she was unsure it was
wise to do it in the short term.
Council President Olson said the language “once acquired” covers that and is also a placeholder so it is
not forgotten in the next PROS Plan update. With regard to holistic, the council chose not go forward
with the Marina Beach project, because as a recreation area alone, it is not a spending priority. Council is
interested in spending in underserved areas that need recreation space. Barring it being part of a holistic
project, she did not see moving forward with Marina Beach as a separate project.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
MOVED TO VOTE TO KEEP ITEM 9, RECOMMENDATION #3 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF ON
PACKET PAGE 929.
Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Feser and the team for their excellent work and their patience with this
process. This is the most comprehensive PRO Plan the council has experienced. The process has stressed
equity, inclusion and outreach, an effort that he applauds. He referred to packet page 832, Lake Ballinger
Access, the only public access to Lake Ballinger on the Edmonds side. Edmonds owns half the lake; he
lives in that neighborhood and visits the area often. The access point is overgrown, the bench is half
broken, and there is no access to the lake. The Capital Improvement & Planning Opportunities listed
include adding a permanent base under the bench and improving the waterfront. He requested adding
another capital improvement opportunity, consider adding a fishing pier for residents’ use. Mountlake
Terrace has made tremendous improvements on the other side of the lake, including a fishing pier.
Although the City’s access point is not a large area, it is the only access to Lake Ballinger in the Uptown
area.
Councilmember Chen referred to Maintenance Considerations for Lake Ballinger Access which state
“none noted.” However, the picture for that item illustrates tremendous maintenance needs. With regard
to equity, inclusion and outreach, the picture says it all. He suggested adding “continuing ongoing
maintenance.”
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether developing a master plan assumed the Unocal property had been
acquired and if so, did it need to be included in the sentence. Council President Olson answered it is
included. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his support for the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 25
Councilmember Paine said she wouldn’t mind supporting this motion if there were equal monetary
expenditures in other parts of the City as well, and not just the Edmonds waterfront. With regard to
Councilmember Chen’s recommendation, she agreed with the idea of a fishing pier at Lake Ballinger
Access, commenting she grew up near a lake with numerous fishing piers. It is a great local place to build
community and residents can walk there. She was interested in equity balance in the PROS Plan in terms
of dollars spent. She did not support retaining item 9 in recommendation #3 as it causes problems. She
summarized the City needs to address the equity issue.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented throughout the document there is a description of where ideas
came from such as from outreach, surveys, etc. The public process was transparent and the source of the
input is clear. Now there is another portion of input that came through the council president with the
indication the information was provided by citizens. There was no public process or understanding of
exactly where the information came from like there was for the other feedback. Due to those concerns,
she did not support the motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10:30.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND TO EXTEND TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Chen’s comment to include maintenance
considerations for Lake Ballinger Access. She suggested an ILA, noting Mountlake Terrace is planning
the golf course property. She was unsure where to put it in the PROS Plan, but suggested a goal to discuss
with Mountlake Terrace the creation of a recreational park area in the golf course property, now called
Lake Ballinger Park. She questioned whether the Lake Ballinger Access was part of Lake Ballinger Park.
Ms. Feser responded the western side of Lake Ballinger Park is in Edmonds city limits. There is the
possibility of accessing Lake Ballinger Park from the west from the Interurban Trail. Encouraging ILAs
and partnerships was added to goal 3. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended being more specific, such
as adding item 6 to recommendation #6 related to working with Mountlake Terrace on an access point for
recreation on the Edmonds side of Lake Ballinger.
Councilmember Chen asked what would be the best way for him to propose an amendment to the PROS
Plan to include, 1) adding a fishing pier to Lake Ballinger access, and 2) working with the City of
Mountlake Terrace on an ILA to use part of their park to build a recreational area because there is no land
on the Edmonds side. Ms. Feser suggested making a motion for each. A fishing pier could easily be added
as an amenity for the Lake Ballinger Access and she could develop language regarding working with
Mountlake Terrace via an ILA or a collaborative effort in joint development and access of Lake Ballinger
Park on the eastern Edmonds border.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADD A
FISHING PIER TO THE LAKE BALLINGER ACCESS AT THE LAKE BALLINGER
WATERFRONT.
Council President Olson recalled the fishing pier in Edmonds was a joint venture with the Port and
WSDOT and asked the cost for a fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered quite a bit of research would be
required. It is a heavily permitted use and she was not sure it was doable because it creates a structure in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 26
the water body. That is one of the challenges with that site; even though it looks very simple, lawn up to
the water’s edge and a bench, it is shoreline which requires a lot of permitting and design work. It is not
impossible, but takes a lot of time and effort. Staff can definitely research a fishing pier. Another option
would be to talk to Mountlake Terrace about the northwest corner of Lake Ballinger and using the
western access to the park from the Interurban Trail and a path to a fishing pier on the northwest portion
of the lake. That might be a better option than a fishing pier on the narrow lake access. Staff could explore
both options.
Council President Olson asked if the motion as stated would cover exploration and possible action based
on research. Ms. Feser suggested stating explore the option of installing a fishing pier at Lake Ballinger in
conjunction with Mountlake Terrace or any amenity including a fishing pier.
Councilmember Chen clarified his motion was to consider adding a fishing pier.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she personally found the idea of a fishing pier exciting. However, it was
very off the cuff and does not include a public process. While she may find it exciting, she did not have
direction from community saying that was what they want or what would be most beneficial to them. She
feared the City spending time and money on that without having conversations with the community about
things that would be more beneficial. She noted a fishing pier is a community-wide benefit and she
questioned whether was what the Lake Ballinger/Highway 99 area needed the most. She did not have that
answer and her concern was spending time and money on something off the cuff. There needs to be a
better process to determine if this is the right direction.
Councilmember Paine agreed shoreline development would be a rigorous process. She will support the
motion as it is a good idea for further investigation. The City can also take it out on the dog and pony
show to truth test it.
Councilmember Chen clarified his motion, consider adding a fishing pier, was not saying do it tomorrow.
He acknowledge it was a long process. Projects in the PROS Plan will include public processes and
outreach in many languages.
Council President Olson said she was conflicted as a lot of good points have been made. She recalled the
point Ms. Feser made earlier about the budget process being a good time for council to add projects.
Including this project in the budget, which includes hearings, would be an opportunity to hear whether it
is an amenity the community would be exited to add, instead of adding it to the PROS Plan. Considering a
fishing pier involves spending time and resources. She leaned toward not supporting the motion and
getting more input from the community.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION
FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO AMEND TO EXPLORE OPTIONS WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR
ACCESS AND POSSIBLE JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOR LAKE BALLINGER PARK WHICH
COULD INCLUDE A FISHING PIER.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled trying to do a gazebo at the dog park in 2008/2009; a lot of money
was wasted due to shoreline regulations.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 27
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern with off the cuff amendments. If the council is identifying
things that they think would be beneficial for the community, she suggested also researching a satellite
community center with programs and outreach that the neighborhood could walk to. She also
recommended upgrading the playground, installing more robust equipment and benches. She did not want
to limit what was possible and feasible for the most underserved area of the community.
Councilmember Chen hoped the council would focus on parks and recreation amenities.
Council President Olson said the general point is correct; the community has been asked what specific
things they want. She asked Ms. Feser if there was enough in the PROS Plan to give her the latitude to
pursue something like talking with Mountlake Terrace about improving access and a fishing pier. Ms.
Feser answered that is included in new goal 3, objective 11, coordinate for and implement additional
facility partnership and/or joint use operating agreements with the Edmonds School District, Snohomish
County and neighboring jurisdictions. Neighboring jurisdictions are Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and
Lynnwood. There is enough in the PROS Plan for staff to do that work. Council President Olson asked if
the language in the PROS Plan was preferrable instead of identifying specific items. Ms. Feser answered
it was council’s discretion; if council wants to include more specifics in the PROS Plan for Mountlake
Terrace and Lake Ballinger, that can be done.
Mayor Nelson restated the amendment:
TO EXPLORE OPTIONS WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR ACCESS AND
POSSIBLE JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOR LAKE BALLINGER.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Olson referred to the partnerships listed in item 3, recommendation #8, and asked if
there was value to staff, who refer back to the PROS Plan, to have those detailed. The statement also
states other organizations and volunteer groups. Ms. Feser answered it tends to call out specific groups
more than others and may give some prioritization to those that are listed versus other groups. Council
President Olson asked if that was a positive or negative. Ms. Feser answered it was probably not a
positive because an organization may not want to come forward if they saw a number of other
organizations listed. Eliminating the specificity still creates the opportunity but does not limit or given the
perspective of a limitation. Council President Olson suggested rewriting it to include environmental and
community groups.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion as amended:
TO ADD A FISHING PIER TO THE LAKE BALLINGER ACCESS AT THE LAKE BALLINGER
WATERFRONT AND EXPLORE OPTIONS WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
FOR ACCESS AND POSSIBLE JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOR LAKE BALLINGER.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR ACQUIRING PROPERTY TO CREATE A SATELLITE
COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE LAKE BALLINGER OR SOUTH EDMONDS AREA.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented without knowing what is the most feasible or what is the
preferred direction from the community, if one amenity is highlighted, other options should also be
highlighted and not limited.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 28
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND
L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
ADD IN ITEM 4, RECOMMENDATION #3, PARK DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT,
“EXPLORE OPTIONS TO UPGRADE, ENHANCE OR REPLACE PARK AMENITIES,
SPECIFICALLY THE PLAY AMENITIES AT MATHAY BALLINGER PARK.”
Councilmember L. Johnson commented there are no schools in that area, there is one park with limited
offerings, and this is a park that should be considered for upgrading what is offered. She was glad
restrooms, benches and tables were listed, but the play structure could be enhanced to offer more to the
community.
Councilmember Tibbott said this was a good example of something that could be proposed as a decision
package so he would not support the motion although he was supportive of replacing equipment. The
parks & recreation department has a schedule for replacing equipment.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the parks department regularly inspects and upgrades play
equipment, usually on a rotating basis throughout the City. The amendment is unnecessary as it is part of
the regular park maintenance work.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 146 which describes Mathay Ballinger Park including capital
improvement and planning opportunities and maintenance considerations. As Councilmember Tibbott
said, parks has a schedule for park upgrades.
Council President Olson referred to the Park & Facility Condition Assessment Matrix on PROS Plan page
39 (packet page 725) and asked about Mathay Ballinger Park. Ms. Feser answered there are definitely
some opportunities for amenity additions to Mathay Ballinger that would be a great return on investment.
Council President Olson commented she thought it was tongue in cheek when councilmembers mentioned
identifying specific projects, but that seems to be what is happening. In the interest of not continuing to
tweak the plan, if it is already a high priority in the matrix, she will vote no on the motion. Ms. Feser
explained the parks capital program includes capital replacement projects. The City has heard through the
PROS Plan that Mathay Ballinger Park needs some investment and it will be one of the parks at the top of
the list. The PROS Plan helps prioritize projects that are brought forward in the budget. Council President
Olson commented it was clear from past discussions that that park and that underserved area is a council
priority.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON AMENDED HER MOTION TO LEAD WITH
IMPROVEMENTS AT MATHAY BALLINGER PARK. THE SECONDER AGREED.
Ms. Feser asked if the motion was to amend recommend 3.4 to say Mathay Ballinger Park has
prioritization in that group or just to include a statement regarding the priority of improvements at Mathay
Ballinger Park. Councilmember L. Johnson answered she was open to the most appropriate place to
include that; there are a couple places in the PROS Plan that reference the matrix. She wants Mathay
Ballinger Park to be at the top of the schedule, so wherever it was most appropriate to highlight that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 7, 2022
Page 29
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
PUT APPROVAL OF THE 2022 PROS PLAN ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THESE
CHANGES IMPLEMENTED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
4. TREE CODE UPDATES
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed.
5. EDMONDS WATERFRONT ISSUES STUDY
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed.
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. ADJOURN
The council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.