Loading...
Cmd92022 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 20, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Human Serv. Dir. Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Rob English, Interim Public Works Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Michele Szafran, Associate Planner 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 Teitzel 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. PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO COUNCILMEMBER LAURA JOHNSON Councilmember Paine read a resolution thanking Councilmember Laura Johnson for her service to the Edmonds City Council. Former Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the council for the resolution, finding it humbling. She said serving on Edmonds City Council was one of her more challenging endeavors and she learned quite a bit about Edmonds. She has a deep appreciation for the City’s professional staff; Edmonds would not function without their knowledge and dedication and they are often in challenging situations and should hear the council’s appreciation more often. Serving on council, she was most proud of the collective work Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 2 undertaken to assist the most vulnerable residents. The dedicated work and efforts of the human services division is changing lives for the better, possibly even saving lives. She hoped council will work to make all that Edmonds has to offer more assessable to everyone who calls Edmonds home. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE FINAL VOTE ON THE COUNCIL VACANCY APPOINTMENT PROCESS TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 10.1 AND RENUMBER THE REMAINING ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for in-person audience comments. Eric Bidstrup, Edmonds, spoke regarding the process the council uses to select members to fill vacancies on the council. Memories of the September 7th special meeting are still fresh in councilmembers minds as they are about to repeat that process for the position that Laura Johnson vacated. In the last 8 years, over 40 ballots have been necessary on 3 separate occasions to fill council vacancies, requiring a lot of time and effort on behalf of the council. He has deep respect and appreciation for the hard work all councilmembers put in to meet the needs of the City and to lead the community. He encouraged the council to consider making the process of filling vacancies more efficient than it has been historically. He proposed the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) as one possible way to improve the process. In the last two years, city councils in both Olympia and Bellingham adopted RCV to fill council vacancies. A key benefit of adopting this process is that each councilmember can openly express not only their first choice, but their second, third choices and so on in terms of how they view the candidates that have applied. Putting that information out for the public and other councilmember’s consideration will lead to a more informed process that can help expedite filling open positions. He acknowledged this was not a perfect process for filling vacancies; any process that involves the six remaining councilmembers to vote will inherently have the possibility of 3-3 deadlocks and ties such as occurred during the most recent process. He challenged each councilmember to consider whether they had the top candidates they supported in mind when they came to the September 7th meeting and suggested making that information more readily available would allow the process to move more quickly than it has historically. When filling vacancies, via any process, the goal is to find four or more supporting votes for a candidate to fill the vacant position. He was simply proposing a more efficient process to reach that goal by surfacing a larger and richer set of information for councilmembers to consider before going through the voting process. This is not a radical change, it is simply an alternate method of getting four or more votes. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, said she was pleased and was sure the late Councilmember K. Johnson was pleased with Councilmember Teitzel’s appointment to the council. She thanked former Councilmember L. Johnson for her service and wished her good luck in her future endeavors. She thanked the City for trimming the shrubbery on Sunset Avenue after a disabled friend of hers spoke to the council suggesting the shrubbery be trimmed. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said City Attorney Jeff Taraday represented to the Parks & Public Works Committee last week that there are non-right-of-way easements. Mr. Taraday’s mention of this term has the potential to be of value to the council’s constituents. He posed several questions, 1) what qualifies as a non-right-of-way easement? Mr. Taraday has represented that a utility easement is a non-right-of-way easement and that a utility easement is a proprietary property interest held and owned by the City’s utility. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 3 He was unsure whether Mr. Taraday was correct, but hoped the city council would request further explanation. Mr. Taraday’s representation opens the door to related questions. Are the following non- right-of-way easements: a side-sewer easement, a native growth protection easement, a slope easement, an easement of lateral and subjacent support, a temporary construction easement? 2) Can City staff issue use permits to anybody including third parties to make use of a non-right-of-way easement? For example, can City staff issue a right-of-way construction permit to a third party to make private use of a utility easement? Does City staff have the ability and/or authority to issue a right-of-way construction permit to a third party to make private use of a temporary construction easement? How about a native growth protection easement? Constituents can be dramatically impacted if the City issues permits to third parties to use non-right-of-way easements. Constituents can also be dramatically impacted if City staff issues permits to third parties to use unopened rights-of-way. 3) Is an easement reserved by city council during a street vacation legislative process for construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services a non-right-of-way easement? If so, can City staff issue a permit to anyone including third parties to make use of such an easement reserved during a street vacation legislative process? He requested the council give this much attention and do all they can to prevent those who own property burdened by any type of City of Edmonds easement from being exposed to harm. Mayor Nelson described procedures for virtual audience comments. Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, commented Councilmember Laura Johnson pushed the homeless hotel agenda and with her leaving the council, it felt like a hit and run. Anyone supporting this is not representing their constituency. There have been two unreported deaths in the homeless hotel in Everett which she viewed as a coverup and has reported to a news station. She found a councilmember’s suggestion to her about giving this a try unconscionable and appalling and throwing their constituents under the bus in favor of a minority view. She questioned why they cannot be put somewhere they are away from the drug traffic on Highway 99. She suggested councilmembers who think this is a good idea are in denial. In speaking to councilmembers in other cities, what is occurring in the Renton hotel is appalling. She questioned giving this a try when history shows what goes on in these places. The person who owns the Everett hotel has not been paid $65,000. People enter into these contracts thinking it is a good idea and a way to help, and later realize they cannot have people dying in their hotel. She wanted to know the cause of those deaths, and how many aid cars, fire department and police personnel are going to those hotels. She urged everyone listening to contact the Edmonds City Council as well as the Snohomish County Council. She pointed out once a homeless hotel is opened, it will be like pulling teeth or worse to get it closed. Buses from Highway 99 travel into downtown Edmonds, and even though loitering is illegal, people can still hang out and do drugs on the City’s beaches and leave their needles. She urged the council to take action because this is wrong. Gemma [no last name given] thanked the city council for everything they have done in the community. The council shows great leadership for her and her friends. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ALLAN GOURLIE, CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ AND ANTHONY SALDANA 2. JULY 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Council President Olson requested Item 8.1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 4 Councilmember Teitzel requested Item 8.12 be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS. 5. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO COUNCILMEMBER LAURA JOHNSON 6. OPIOID SETTLEMENT ALLOCATION AGREEMENT 7. CHANGES TO FINANCE MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION 8. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH KPG PSOMAS FOR 76TH AVE AND 220TH ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 9. APPROVE VACATION ACCRUAL FOR RETURNING EMPLOYEE 10. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LANDAU ASSOCIATES FOR THE CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD PROJECT 11. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN (SMAP) 13. APPROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SURPLUS AT 23610 HIGHWAY 99 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 (Previously Consent Agenda Item 8.1) Council President Olson requested the following amendment to the minutes: Revise her comment on Page 2 regarding her nomination of Jenna Nand to read, “…similar to Mr. Teitzel former Councilmember K. Johnson... COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HKA GLOBAL, INC FOR THE CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 8.12) Councilmember Teitzel commented this $21 million project is one of the largest capital project the City has ever undertaken and it was his understanding it will have very good environmental outcomes. He noted the project was a fair distance behind schedule and asked about the original completion date and the expected completion date. Acting Public Works Director Rob English responded the current completion date is early December which will be followed by a three month start up period, taking final completion Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 5 into February. He would need to check with WWTP Manager Pam Randolph regarding the original completion date. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH HKA GLOBAL, INC FOR THE CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING PERMANENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this public hearing is the result of a long process that began in February/March 2022 with the adoption of interim design standards for BD2 multifamily only buildings. That led to the creation of an interim ordinance with several design standards for those building types. Since the interim ordinance was adopted, work began on permanent standards to meet the six-month deadline to replace the interim standards which is October 21, 2022. The interim as well as the permanent standards are intended to fill a narrow gap in the BD zone design standards, not the larger design standard issues in the comprehensive plan or multifamily design standards. The permanent standards were reviewed by the architectural design board (ADB) who developed a recommendation. The planning board reviewed the permanent standards and made a recommendation to council. This is the public hearing on the proposed permanent standards. Mr. Clugston continued, because the interim standards expire October 21, 2022, council action is necessary by October 4, 2022 so that the permanent standards go into effect before the interim standards expire. If the interim standards expire before the permanent standards are adopted, there would be a time period after October 21, 2022 where a new multifamily only building in the BD2 zone would not have to meet the design standards; until October 21, 2022, a developer would need to meet the interim design standards that are in place. Mr. Clugston explained at the same time the design standard work was being done, the designated street front also became an issue. The designated street front was related to the blue line on the map in the BD2 zoning code. The interim ordinance related to extension of the existing designated street front is valid through December 1, 2022. The planning board will hold a hearing on a permanent max next week and that issue will come to council for review and adoption in October and November. The interim designated street front standards slightly extended some of the BD2 designated street front areas. He posed a hypothetical question, what if the designated street front is extended to all BD2 zoned parcels? In that case, multifamily only buildings would no longer be allowed in the BD2 zone because the blue line would touch all the BD2 zoned parcels and multifamily only uses would not be allowed on the ground floor, there would need to be some sort of commercial in all buildings in BD2. If the council’s work eventually leads to that over the next couple months after the planning board holds their hearing, a permanent designated street front ordinance could repeal the BD2 multifamily design standards. Mr. Clugston noted there were four permanent design standards initially and a fifth that the ADB and planning board wanted to add. The initial proposed permanent design standards were related to materials, private amenity space, street-side amenity space, and roof modulation/stepdown. Rooftop decks had been discussed but were not included in the interim standards, but the ADB and planning wanted to include language regarding rooftop decks in the permanent standards. He reviewed: • Materials o Breaks up massing; strengthens identity o Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass o Alternatives okay if contribute to cohesive design theme Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 6 • Private Amenity Space o Improves livability for smaller residential units o Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style o Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the façade, and increases ‘eyes on the street’ o 10% of the project area o Balconies, decks, patios, and yards ▪ Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use ▪ If with individual units, > 40 sf o Balconies can project 6’ into setback from R-zone property ▪ Interim allow 5’ projection, ADB referenced 6’ for ADA compliance o Decks and patios can project into setback 10’ • Street-side amenity space o Results in a setback from the sidewalk to serve as amenity space o Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience o Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity o 5% of lot area must be provided o Must be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky o Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. o Street-side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building o Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street-side amenity area • Roof Modulation/Step Downs o Interim: “Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists.” o Proposed permanent: “Roof treatment and modulation. In order to provide the appearance of a well-modulated roof, three types of roof modulation are required and can include differing heights, projections, slopes, materials, step downs, step setback or a similar expression. • Rooftop deck o Optional but desired amenity o Allowed above height limit o Transparent railing, no permanent structures allowed o Railings set back 5-feet from R-zoned properties • Next steps o Action needed by October 4 to replace interim standards by October 21 o Take testimony during public hearing o Provide final direction for staff to include in permanent ordinance Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918, the ECDC code related to the development regulations and design standards for the downtown BD zones. She asked how the BD2 interim standards would be integrated with existing standards that state building façade should echo historic building patterns, reduction of mass, etc. or if they would be added to another chapter. Mr. Clugston answered the intent is to add Section 22.43.080 to the design standards for buildings in the BD zones. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if changes would be made to Ordinance 3918 because the interim standards are not the same as the BD design standards. In fact, BD4 is very restrictive compared to what has been done to BD2. Mr. Clugston answered the interim standards the council adopted only applied to multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone and that is what the permanent standards are for as well. The other sections in Section 22.43 stand alone and will remain. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 7 Councilmember Buckshnis commented the BD2 definition has nothing to do with residential and the current standards which are very strict about ground level details, tile work, historic, awnings, etc., everything that is seen today in the downtown area. Mr. Clugston answered the existing standards in 22.43 do not apply to buildings that are not in the designated street front area. That is why this special set of standards was created to apply to multifamily only buildings in those areas that did not have a designated street front. Where the designated street front exists, there could be a mixed use building with 12’ floor-to-floor heights, commercial depths, etc.; all the existing standards would apply. These standards only apply to multifamily only buildings where the designated street front does not apply. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this was being addressed first when the council voted long ago to extend the designated street front. If the designated street front standards were adopted, this would be a moot point. Mr. Clugston answered it may end up that way, but due to the way both interims standards came about, this one came first and the interim designated street front map came second. These interim standards expire October 21st; after that there are no interim design standards for multifamily only buildings in the BD2 zone. The planning board is holding a public hearing next week on extending the designated street front; the interim standards the council adopted in June extended the map slightly in some areas but there are still a dozen or so parcels that do not have the designated street front requirement yet. If the planning board decides after their public hearing to extend the designated street front to all BD2 zoned parcels and council also makes that change, then this section essentially becomes moot and with the adoption of a new designated street front map, the council could repeal this section. He summarized due to how and when the interim standards were adopted, this one came first and the designated street front interim standards came second. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the council also voted not to allow rooftop decks but it is included again. If the council adopts the interim standards tonight, a developer could be vested between now and next Wednesday. Mr. Clugston answered yes, they would be vested to the interim standards that currently exist. Councilmember Teitzel observed rooftop decks are very popular in new construction in the Puget Sound. He referred to the ADB’s recommended language regarding rooftop decks, (page 275 of the council packet), “No permanent structures are allowed within the roof deck area.” He asked how no permanent structures was defined, whether it included elevator housings, stairwell housings, cellular transmission equipment, etc. Mr. Clugston answered the intent is not to have permanent structures in areas that would be used as part of the amenity space. Elevator penthouses and similar features are already allowed to extend above the height limit and could be located in that area and although he did not know why it would be needed, he assumed a cellular antenna could be on a rooftop deck. The intent for the rooftop deck space is not to allow any permanent roofed enclosures, etc. where people could congregate. Elevator penthouses, which are already allowed, would continue to be allowed. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the somewhat permanent triangular sail-type shades/umbrellas that are seen on some decks and asked if that would be considered a permanent structure. Mr. Clugston answered by definition, it would probably be a temporary structure but the intent is that those would not be allowed. If people wanted to bring them up for day or two or an afternoon, he suspected they could, but the intent is not to have permanent structures that require a building permit. Councilmember Tibbott asked if stairwells would be allowed. Mr. Clugston answered stairwells are currently not allowed to exceed the height limit. Councilmember Tibbott asked how high they would extend on the roofline. Mr. Clugston anticipated not very far, a covered stairwell would be similar to an elevator penthouse. The height of exterior stairs to a roof deck might be the height of the exterior railing. Again, the intent is not to have extra height on the building that is not already allowed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 8 Councilmember Tibbott said in reading the ADB and planning board’s notes, there seems to be some concurrency that it would be a good idea to allow a stairwell on the roof. He asked if that was being considered. Mr. Clugston answered it was not included in the proposed permanent standards, but the council could add that if they wished. Councilmember Tibbott said it seemed like a good idea for a number of reasons including making the rooftop amenity more accessible. Councilmember Tibbott commented he has seen shade sails attached to permanent poles and asked if that would be considered a permanent structure. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott observed a shade sail would need to be attached to a temporary structure and taken down. Mr. Clugston agreed. If rooftop decks were allowed and elevators were installed to provide access including ADA access, Councilmember Teitzel asked how that would work for emergency egress. For example, in the event of a fire, how would people on the deck escape without a stairwell and if they could not access the elevator. Mr. Clugston answered that was a building code question and he would need to research it. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the design standards in Ordinance 3918 related to rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit into the material and colors of the overall building design. She asked if the detail in the ordinance would be included in the interim standards. Mr. Clugston answered the interim and permanent design standards include language regarding building materials as well as language stating rooftop railings and guardrails need to be transparent. Other design elements could be added. He reiterated the interim standards expire October 21; if the council does not adopt permanent standards by then, the interim standards expires. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understands that and in her opinion it should have never gotten this far. She summarized she was not in favor of the roof top decks as they created an undesirable environment. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described the procedures for in-person comments. Jack Malek, Shoreline, a former Shoreline planning commissioner and a realtor representing Karen Wiggins in the sale of the Sound View Plaza building on the corner of 2nd & James in the BD2 zone, explained the building has been on the market for approximately two years. Another broker attempted to sell it for about 1½ years and he has had it for 4-5 months with no sales. That is partially due to the commercial lending climate during COVID, but that climate has changed and commercial lending is aggressive, as low as 4% and SBA lending is phenomenal right now. The building is 18,439 square feet on the ground and street level and another 3,740 square foot penthouse, far more square footage than most people need or want. It would be difficult to break that up into 400-1200 square foot increments and to find that many tenants in this changing market. The large, successful engineering firm Landau and Associates occupied the building for 23 years. When COVID hit, they moved much of their administrative staff remote and to smaller offices near the Northgate light rail station and one 7,000 square foot laboratory. The footprint and demand for office and even retail is limited. The City has done a great job fostering development of the stretch of Highway 99 in Edmonds, but that’s not where everyone goes. There need to be people living in the downtown area to patronize and benefit the businesses. Without the ability to do more residential in this building, he feared it would remain vacant. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented this issue is a reminder of the challenges and difficulty of this legislative process. It is extreme complex and difficult to follow as a citizen. He tries to stay on top of this type of legislative process, but gave up on this one a while ago. There were multiple moratoriums, multiple interim zoning ordinances, introduction of a concept that moratoriums could be extended without a public hearing, emergency actions mixed into the process so that sometimes things were effective immediately and other times they were not and things were treated as emergencies when there was no mention of an emergency in the motion. He summarized this has been a tough process, one he hoped the City would learn from. It is a shame staff and city council have been so burdened with this issue because Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 9 it should never have come to this. The code should have been updated and rewritten years ago. A lot of money was budgeted for the code rewrite in 2006 and 2007 and the number one priority in 2007 according to the city attorney’s annual report was the code rewrite. The City should not have gotten to a point where a zone category titled commercial would ever be argued by someone that no commercial was required. BD2 has commercial in its title; how did it ever get to the point where someone thought they could build a multifamily only property in a commercially labeled zone? He encouraged the council to use this as an example of the mess the code is in and to include resources in the budget for the code rewrite. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, commented she worked with Karen Wiggins and Jack Malek for many years and their project is very different than what is being considered, a big box with residential only and no store frontage. Jay Grant, Edmonds, recalled an exemption was allowed for solar panels and suggested using the term “environmental improvement” due to changing technology. The Port planned to put HVAC equipment on the roof and would have been Gold LEED, but that was denied. He concurred with the point made by Councilmember Teitzel regarding egress from the rooftop in the event of a fire without any stairs. He encouraged the council to think broadly rather than narrowly. Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual public comments. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said her primary concern was separating the street front from the design standards. The design standards apply some of the things developers have looked for in downtown Edmonds in the past such as increased height, less setbacks and actually increase the bulk of the building over what previously existed. Eighty people attended an ADB meeting to oppose the proposed building; one was in support, a former councilmember. If citizens were told heights were going to be increased in the bowl and one of the lots that a neighbor described on the backside of the alley would be a 40-foot wall with a rooftop deck, that was essentially raising heights in the bowl. That is a big discussion that is sliding in through the backdoor. Having 80 people attend an ADB meeting is pretty remarkable. The public doesn’t know what is going on with this proposal including the lack of any open space. She referred to the presentation regarding design standards by former City staff Eric Engmann that clearly referred to lot coverage. Most of the multifamily zoning has a percentage of lot coverage, she recalled it was 40-45%, but the proposed building is about 90-95%, the amenity space is paved and there is no green space or open space. She felt this was the wrong way to go about design standards. She understood the time limitation, but pairing them and then separating them was a mistake. The planning board and the ADB agreed that the street front should dictate and it was nearly unanimous that the blue line should be extended to all of the BD2 zone which would make this obsolete. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, relayed his surprise with the rooftop deck amenity coming up at the last minute. Some councilmember already addressed his questions/concerns with rooftop decks related to access and elevator shafts, walkways or stairways leading to the deck extending above the allowed building height. He envisioned looking up and seeing things extend 8-9 feet or more above the rooftop as well as awning or umbrellas which de facto extend the building height. He recognized the time restrictions, but did not support the council approving the rooftop deck amenity recommendation at this time. He anticipated this may sort itself out eventually during the BD2 zone discussion, but if it doesn’t, he did not support the rooftop deck amenity recommendation made by the planning board and the ADB. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she does not live in the bowl, but if the issue is blocking views, she has two heavy iron stands in her yard with umbrellas that someone could easily bring up the stairs or in an elevator to a rooftop deck. Her umbrellas, although they are very sturdy and expensive, wind can be lifted by the wind and fly like a sword which could be an issue on a rooftop deck. She suggested instead of a rooftop deck, designing the building with covered decks on each unit. She noted a rooftop deck will be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 10 hot and will need an umbrella. Rooftop decks are a great place to sit and watch parades which she has done with friends who live in apartments in downtown Seattle. She cautioned against building too much because it is getting pretty crowded in downtown Edmonds. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Clugston advised he will research the building code question. The proposed permanent design standards are in Exhibit A on page 277 of the council packet. It would be good to know if the council wants to change those standards so staff can return with an ordinance that incorporates that change. Otherwise, the ordinance presented on October 4th will essentially reflect what is on pages 277-278. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether staff was seeking a motion from council tonight. Mr. Clugston answered he was interested in council guidance whether to change the language in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council already provided guidance that they did not want rooftop decks, yet they are proposed again. Edmonds is not Seattle and she was not in favor of rooftop decks and she hoped her fellow councilmembers agreed. She preferred to wait and pragmatically review all the BD zones. The entire downtown area should be considered and a determination made whether rooftop decks are desired and if so, add them pragmatically in the future. Council President Olson clarified the rooftop decks were not included in the interim design standards, but the proposed permanent standards are based on input from the ADB and planning board. She suggested Councilmember Buckshnis may want to make motion to remove rooftop decks from the proposed permanent standards. Councilmember Teitzel said he tends to favor rooftop decks because of the expert opinions from the ADB and because they are a nice amenity. However, due to questions and concerns have been raised tonight, he agreed with removing rooftop decks for now and revisiting it later, not just for BD2 zones but for other zones as well. For example, some restaurants downtown may potentially want to have a rooftop deck. He recommended getting further input and making a cohesive decision. Mr. Clugston summarized the rooftop deck appears to be the main issue; he will check on the building code issue and return on October 4th with two ordinances, one with and one without rooftop decks. Councilmember Chen observed the focus seems to be rooftop decks and building height. He asked if there was discussion about increasing building height as allowing an elevator on the rooftop already exceeds the building height. Mr. Clugston answered no, the building height remains the same, a maximum of 30 feet. There are existing exceptions for elevator penthouses and similar features on top of building; there is no proposal to change that. The only change is to allow a rooftop deck. Councilmember Chen understood that views are very important to people living in bowl, if exceptions are already allowed for elevators, stairways and semi-permanent structures like umbrellas to exceed the 30- foot building height, would it be a smart business idea to increase the minimum height to allow a business on the first floor and two floors residential stories so the building is truly mixed use. Mr. Clugston said that was definitely a question that could be asked, but he was uncertain now was the time for it. The comprehensive plan will be updated over the next couple years and those larger policy questions like heights, setback, etc. are probably better discussed once the council makes its policy decisions in the comprehensive plan. There may be a desire to increase heights slightly via the comprehensive plan process to make a three-story building attainable. The height limit is currently 30 feet and there is no intent to change that as part of this effort. Councilmember Paine said she was curious about accessibility and challenges with reaching the rooftop, recalling the abundant discussion the last time this was presented to council. She is familiar with the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 11 Sound View Plaza building and other buildings in the BD3 and other zones that have rooftop amenities for penthouse condominiums. If something is done comprehensively, she wanted it to be more equitably designed so if there is rooftop amenity space, it is equal for all and considers safe ingress/egress. She looked forward to the discussion on October 4th. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE SECTION F, ROOFTOP DECKS. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Councilmember Teitzel that the entire BD area needed to be considered comprehensively. Including rooftop decks now is forcing something that needs to be looked at pragmatically. She supported the concept of rooftop decks, but due to the slope, she assume the people living in condominiums would not want to look down on rooftop decks. Council President Olson said the issue for her is the elevator and access. If there is nothing on the roof, there is no extra height associated with the elevator shaft on the roof. The issue of view infringement requires a more thoughtful process. These standards may be repealed if the designated street front is extended to the entire BD2 zone so it is cleaner to remove it now that and include it in the comprehensive plan discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston summarized staff will bring back an ordinance on October 4th that is substantially similar to Exhibit A on pages 277-278 of tonight’s packet without Section F regarding rooftop decks. 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATION PLN2022-0045 Associate Planner Michele Szafran presented the Street Vacation Petition Adjacent to 838 Fir Street & 1108 9th Avenue South, identifying the vacation request area on an aerial map and a street view of the primarily vegetated site. She reviewed: • Initiation of proceedings ECDC 20.70.050 o By City council or by property owners abutting the portion of ROW to be vacated. o Vacation request has been initiated by abutting owners ▪ A petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or alley to be vacated is included as an attachment in the staff report. o According to ECDC 20.70.070 a future public hearing must be set by resolution o On August 2nd 2022, Resolution No. 1501 was passed by Council setting the public hearing for tonight • Survey map of unopened alley row, approximately 17’ wide and 120’ in length, located south of Fir Street • ECDC 20.70.020 – Criteria for Vacation o City council may vacate a ROW if found that: 1. The vacation is in the public interest ▪ Removal of maintenance concerns for the City and/or liability from potential issues with any existing or future vegetation ▪ No public purpose is provided by the ROW, so returning the property to the tax rolls would be in the interest of the public. 2. No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation • ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision o Following the public hearing, the city council shall by motion: 1. Adopt an ordinance granting the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent with specific conditions that must be met within 90 days Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 12 a. Either i. Monetary compensation up to one-half the fair market value ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way iii. Any combination of the above (i or ii) totaling no more than one-half fair market value Or b. Grant an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated • Utilities and Easements o No existing public utilities and no future need ▪ No need for easements to City • Monetary compensation recommended consistent with ECDC 20.70.140.A.3.a.i o Appraisal based on single-family use o Pre-vacation ▪ 838 Fir Street = $1,000,000 o Post Vacation ▪ 838 Fir Street = $1,035,000 o Difference in appraised value of $35,000 o One-half of appraised value = $17,500 • Staff recommendation o Adopt Resolution of Intent to Vacate with the proposed condition in the staff report to require payment by the petitioners of one-half the appraised value Councilmember Paine commented it sounds like all the easements will be removed when the alley is vacated. Ms. Szafran answered there are no easements. Councilmember Paine asked if there was any guidance for the appraisal regarding the use of comparables. She noted the comparables (page 38 of the report and 374 of the council packet) are in many areas including Esperance, Lake Ballinger, etc. She asked how comparables are determined in a situation like this. In her experience in Seattle, they looked at neighboring property values and valued the property per square foot. This seems to be choosing properties that are most favorable to the property owner. Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell answered there is no specific language in the code regarding how appraisals are conduced other than the appraisal is to be prepared by a qualified land appraiser with an MAI designation establishing the fair market value of the area to be vacated. Councilmember Paine expressed concern the appraisal favors the property owner who will absorb the unopened alley. Council President Olson agreed with Councilmember Paine, commenting she knew where this property was located and it was a high value view area. Comparing it to the other properties was not apples to apples and there were plenty of properties that have been sold in that area. She questioned the comparables that were used and requested properties in the exact vicinity be considered. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen a lot of vacations, sometimes the property owner is charged and sometimes they aren’t. She asked if the intent of the vacation was to do a lot line adjustment to design a larger house. Ms. McConnell said staff has had conversations with the applicant to get a better understanding and that is not their intent. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why they want to have the property vacated. Ms. McConnell answered it is to have additional property, but it does not provide enough more land for an individual lot to do a subdivision; they would have to work together, houses would potentially need to be demolished, the lot lines realigned, etc. to do a subdivision. She summarized there is another process involved that is not part of this street vacation and that intent has not been made apparent to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if each party would pay half the appraised value. Ms. McConnell answered the City does not get involved in how the compensation is made to the City. Staff’s recommendation is up to one half the appraised value, $17,500. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 13 should be other comparables and this seems to be extremely generous to the people applying for the vacation. Council President Olson added other than property valuation, the street vacation is pretty straightforward. She was interested in hearing public comments. Councilmember Teitzel recalled public comment regarding the definition of non-right-of-way easement. He clarified this was vacation of a right-of-way, not an easement. Ms. McConnell agreed, it is the vacation of alley/street right-of-way. Councilmember Teitzel clarified it is basically City-owned property being vacated in exchange for compensation. Ms. McConnell agreed. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described procedures for in-person comments. Kent Scudder, Edmonds, one of the property owners that abut the right-of-way, described the purpose of the vacation request. They are trying to do a backyard makeover and found make site improvements in proximity to a right-of-way very restrictive with regard to wall heights, setbacks, etc. The primary motivation is to remove the right-of-way restrictions as well as improve the utility of their property by adding lot area. With regard to the appraisal process, he has been a commercial real estate appraiser for the last 35 years, primarily a dirt appraiser, similar to the ones who did the appraisal for this vacation. He understood the difficulty finding comparables in a City that is essentially built out. Comparables have to be vacant land so the appraiser finds them wherever they can. Vacant land won’t be next door or down the block because the bowl is built out so they had to look far and wide to find comparables. The rules for appraisals are dictated by the Appraisal Institute. Finding vacant land comparables requires going broader than one might expect; properties closest to the subject property are given the most weight in the appraiser’s analysis. He felt the appraiser did a good job, recognizing the disparity of the data and reaching a reasonable conclusion. He discussed it with the appraiser and they were persuasive in their argument as well as in their appraisal. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said a right-of-way is an easement, it is not property possessed by the City. The City has a right to use the land; the title belongs to Mr. Scudder and others. He wished the council understood that critical concept; Mr. Scudder is the fee title owner, the City only has an easement right. When the City vacates an easement, requiring compensation is optional, there is nothing in the law requiring compensation. The vacation is in the public interest as it eliminates maintenance responsibility and liability exposure. He requested the council vacate this unused, unneeded easement without requiring any compensation and if any councilmembers disagreed, requested they explain why. This vacation is in the public interest without requiring compensation. If councilmembers disagreed, he suggested treating the applicants like the abutting property owners at 174th Street SW who paid less than 10% of the appraised value for property that the City owned the fee title to, a much different situation than tonight’s vacation where Mr. Scudder and his neighbors own the fee title. The council can read about the vacation that charged less than 10% in Ordinance 3250. He questioned why the applicant in tonight’s vacation should pay 50% of appraised value for property they already own the fee title to. The title is not transferring; tonight’s applicant owns the fee title already. As requiring compensation is permissive, Mr. Reidy questioned why appraisals were required before it was known whether the council would require compensation. He questioned whether tonight’s applicants would be required to pay for the appraisal if City staff had done what the 2019 city council directed, initiate a 2-step process to resolve the differences between the planning board and staff recommendations and add a second public hearing. The city attorney was asked to help staff with drafting the related ordinance, but that was never done. He questioned why the council would allow staff to put forward a recommendation that differed from the recommendation made by the public hearing after a lengthy public process. At the October 15, 2019 meeting, then-Mayor Earling assumed this would be done by the end of the year or the process would need to start over. As the appraisal in tonight’s packet was required, he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 14 suggested refunding the appraisal costs to the applicants. He referred to pages 212-215 in the council packet, Resolution 1145 which provides an example of how the appraisal fee was refunded. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Ms. McConnell asked council for direction regarding the appraisal. If the council agrees with payment of one half of the appraised value, the resolution in the packet could brought back on the consent agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the City charges for some street vacation and does not charge for others. Ms. McConnell answered there are specific circumstances outlined in code when the City does not seek compensation for the street vacation which usually relates to the reservation of an easement to the City. There are other historic factors when compensation was not collected such as critical areas on the property that decreased the value so compensation was less than one half the appraised value, an instance where it was part of a City property sale, a cemetery expansion, or the council felt during its deliberation there was enough public benefit from the vacation not to require compensation. Councilmember Buckshnis observed this is an unopened right-of-way, no one can walk through it and it is part of their property. Ms. McConnell answered it is unopened and looks like it is part of their property, there is no representation of it being open to the public such as a trail. To the south of the property is a developed plat where the houses take access off Sea Vista Place that connects to 9th Avenue S. Councilmember Chen observed the City has right-of-way through this property being vacated. He asked whether this vacation cost the City anything, any repairs needed to be made, etc. Ms. McConnell said if it is vacated, it would be vacated as is. Councilmember Chen asked is the vacation would impact public access. Ms. McConnell answered there are no permit applications from the property owner or any indication regarding how that property may be utilized. If a permit was required for anything the property owner wanted to do, they would need to obtain one from the City. She was unable to speak to the property owners’ potential use or rehabilitation of the property or whether it could all be done onsite or if it would impact the public. Councilmember Chen concluded with that information, since it would not cost the City anything or inconvenience the public, he was okay with not charging the property owner for the vacation. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO WAIVE THE $17,500 VACATION FEE FOR THIS PROPOSAL. Council President Olson said staff’s recommendation for payment of one half the appraised value is consistent with the examples in the packet. However, there is still a question about the market value which is a separate issue. For consistency’s sake, as well as the exceptions cited in the code which did not apply in this instance, she supported following staff’s recommendation to require payment of one half the appraised value. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Paine agreed with Council President Olson, it appeared everything in the code was followed. Amendments may need to be made to the code in the future, but that does not apply to this action. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Tibbott did not support the motion. Staff’s recommendation conforms with previous presentations on the same topic. The vacation adds value to the property owners who receive the additional property and it was his understanding the City was not allowed to give away property without just compensation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 15 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER CHEN VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson commented in lieu of going forward with the action, she would like to have staff look at the valuation based on price per square foot from the tax assessor’s office versus the vacant parcels used in the appraisal. That differential would provide more information regarding whether the appraisal should be questioned. Ms. McConnell said that could be done if it was the overall direction from the council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED TO GET MORE INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE APPRAISAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ACTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the point made by Mr. Reidy, the City is requiring compensation for property the City does not legally own; the City holds the right to a right-of-way across the property so arguably the City could put a street or alley on that right-of-way. If the City opened that right-of-way and installed a street or right-of-way, he asked if the City would owe any money to the property owner for use of that fee title property. Ms. McConnell answered no. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed the question is whether the City would owe compensation in the absence of a street vacation if the City wanted to put an alley in that location. Councilmember Teitzel clarified since the City has rights to the right-of-way, if the City wanted put a street or alley in that location, since the City is not the fee title owner of the property, would the City owe any compensation to the property owner in that even. Mr. Taraday asked if the question presumed there was no street vacation. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City retained the right-of-way and eventually put in a street or alley in the right-of-way but were not the legal owner of the property. Mr. Taraday answered the City owns a right-of-way which entitles it to improve the right-of-way with an alley and would not need to pay the property owner any compensation. When that plat was recorded, all the streets and alleys in the plat were dedicated to the public and the City basically holds those in trust for the public. It may be many years or in some cases not foreseeable when the right-of-way would be improved. Councilmember Tibbott said his understanding from a previous meeting was that the public could use a right-of-way like that. For example, children in the neighborhood could play in the hedge because it is a City right-of-way. Mr. Taraday answered that is his understanding. He did not think the property owner had a right to exclude the public from the right-of-way as long as it remained right-of-way. In most cases, that is unenforced and people look the other way. While the speaker was correct that the underlying fee is owned by the property owner, the fee is subject to dedication of the right-of-way which carries with it a substantial burden on the property. He would need to research whether there was any case law that addressed the facts the councilmember mentioned, but his hunch was it would be inappropriate for a property owner to completely exclude the public from the right-of-way. It could be an unimproved pedestrian path that the City did not spend money improving, but that would be an informal pedestrian thoroughfare in a neighborhood which would still be a proper use of a right-of-way. If there was a path through the hedge, Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would be available for anyone in the City to use. Mr. Taraday answered the definition of right-of-way dedicated to the public is that the public can use it for travel. Councilmember Tibbott relayed vacating the right-of-way essentially removed the rights of citizens to use that land and it becomes completely available to the property owner who receives the vacated property. Mr. Taraday answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 16 Councilmember Tibbott commented in that case it makes sense there would be some compensation for removing the public’s rights. Mr. Taraday said another reason that cities charge for street vacations is the council is stewards of public funds and one of their responsibilities is to look out for the taxpayers’ resources and not give away property that has value. It would be one thing if everybody in Edmonds could get a street vacation and the city council decided it did not want to charge anyone for street vacations. The reality is not everyone gets a street vacation, they only exist in a few pockets of the City so it creates a benefit for a certain class of citizens who happen to abut an unopened right-of-way. Councilmember Tibbott said he was uncomfortable micromanaging or examining a property valuation done by a certified commercial appraiser. He did not disagree it sounded like a low valuation, but these professionals work hard at their craft and what has been provided is their best effort. He had some unease attempting to change what a professional evaluator determined for this property. Councilmember Paine recalled the City has defended its rights to access unopened right-of-way used by the public that lead to the water and if there are encroachments. Mr. Taraday answered the City requires encroachment permits when someone builds a structure in a right-of-way. He was unable to speak to how commonly the City defends its unopened rights-of-way or requires encroachment permits, but it was his sense encroachment permits were fairly common. Councilmember Paine clarified extra steps were required to do things in a right-of-way. She agreed with Councilmember Tibbott, this appraisal was done in accordance with the requirements in the code and she did not want to change the appraisal. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. There was unanimous consent from the council to postpone Item 10.3, Development Code Rewrite Work Plan. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. RECONSIDERATION OF FINAL VOTE TAKEN AT TODAY’S SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR FILLING COUNCIL VACANCY – POSITION #7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO PASS THE PROCESS IN THE PACKET AS AMENDED AT THE EARLIER SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PARK LAND ACQUISITION REPORT Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser explained a high priority was established by the mayor for acquisition of land for conservation of natural resources in the community. Tonight’s presentation is a report related to that work over the last couple years. She reviewed: • Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Recommendations 1. Acquisition to fill park system gaps – secure additional land for neighborhood parks to address gaps 2. Open space and conservation acquisitions – pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas 5. Trail connections – needed to help link destinations across community • Acquisitions that occurred in 2021 o DNR Tidelands ▪ Address: Shoreline between Casper and north end of Cary Street (approx.. 1,100’ feet of shoreline) ▪ Size: 20 acres Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 17 ▪ Assessed value: N/A ▪ Highlights - State of WA Dept Natural Resources - City has 1968 Use Deed (discovered by staff) - Confirmed with the State that members of the public have access to the tideland beach and water. o Shirley Johnson Property Donation ▪ Address: 9309 Bowdoin Way ▪ Size: 0.9 acre ▪ Appraised value: $350,000 (due to condition remain in open space) if sold on open market value over $1 million ▪ Expenditures: $46,500 ▪ “Purposes of being used as a park and/or community garden…for the citizens of Edmonds and for the local community as the City of Edmonds deems best in their discretion.” ▪ Next Steps: - Security site/demolition ($200,000) - Master Plan (long term) • City-Approached Possible Donations o 75th Pl W/Meadowdale Road ▪ Size: 1.28 acres ▪ Undeveloped, treed parcel ▪ Outcome: owner conditions not aligned with City goals o 232nd St W/Edmonds Way ▪ Size: 0.5 acre ▪ Developed with small house and outbuilding ▪ Outcome: owner changed mind • Possible Transfer: Southwest Snohomish County Park o Address: Olympic View Drive o Size: 120 acres o 2021 Assessed Value: $12,495,500 o Highlights: ▪ Largest single parcel of open space in Edmonds ▪ Passive/sensitive wildlife preserve (no bikes allowed) ▪ Perrinville Creek (2 branches) ▪ Possible transfer of property 2022 ▪ Site improvements needed ▪ Impacts to park maintenance o Esperance County Park ▪ Address: 7830 224th SW, unincorporated Snohomish County ▪ Size: 9.6 acres ▪ 2021 Assessed value: $5 million ▪ Highlights - Within unincorporated Snohomish County - Active and passive use developed park - Impacts to park maintenance • Non-Active Negotiation: o Perrinville Woods ▪ Address: 7794 Olympic View Drive ▪ Size: 4.69 acres total (4 parcels) ▪ Assessed Value: $2,487,700 ▪ Appraised Value: $2,500,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 18 ▪ Owner sale price: $4,700,000 ▪ Highlights - Four parcels, two with dwellings - Does not have Perrinville stream onsite - Near other large parks  Southwest County Park (120 acres)  Lynndale Park (22 acres) - Adjacent to city owned properties  Open space  Seaview Park o Main Street Property ▪ Address: 9XX Main Street ▪ Size: 0.15 ▪ Listed Price: $299,050 then $175,000 ▪ Appraised value: $60,000 ▪ City Offer: $55,000 ▪ Owner sale price: $150,000 ▪ Highlights - Undeveloped - Surrounded by city-owned open space - Shell Creek not on-site - Contains wetlands and critical area buffers which constrains development • Negotiations Ongoing o Unocal Property ▪ Size: 21.13 acres ▪ 2017-2023 cleanup/DOE ▪ 2025 clean-up complete ▪ Then title goes to state ▪ State – market value ▪ Highlights - Expansion of marsh - Connection of existing city properties of Marsh and Marina Beach Park - Decontamination in process, possible hot spots - City granted first right of purchase in 2021, valid through 2023 o Highway 99 Parcels ▪ Highlights - PROS Plan Recommendations/Goals - Various parcels - Continuous research Council President Olson referred to the quote on the slide regarding the Shirley Johnson donation and asked if those were the exact words in the bequest. Ms. Feser answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Snohomish County wanted to gift the City the two parks. Ms. Feser answered preliminary conversations, especially regarding Southwest County Park, were a straight transfer of property. Councilmember Buckshnis observed in addition to an increase in park staff, there would also need to be an increase in police staff. She also noted Southwest County Park was a key part of Perrinville Creek. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a presentation at the Lake Ballinger Forum regarding the old golf course in Mountlake Terrace and asked if Edmonds planned to do an ILA with Mountlake Terrace to put a park on the Edmonds side of property. Ms. Feser said at this time she does not have direction from the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 19 council to talk to Mountlake Terrace about an ILA for shared development. It would be worth a conversation during the CIP/CFP budget process and if council wants to make that a priority, it would be a project worth pursuing. She anticipated Mountlake Terrace would be a willing partner in preliminary discussions. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the designs are fabulous and include a fishing pier. Councilmember Chen liked the idea of an ILA with Mountlake Terrace for the former golf course property. He referred to the Plum Street Plaza property on Highway 99 that has been vacant for over year after a fire on September 11, 2021. He has not seen any movement on that property and suggested it had the potential for acquisition. He asked if that was one of the properties on Highway 99 that were listed on the spreadsheet in the presentation. Ms. Feser answered no, the spreadsheet primarily identifies undeveloped/underdeveloped parcels. She could look into the Plum Street Plaza if the council desires. Councilmember Chen suggested looking into possibilities for that parcel, finding out the owners’ intent, and expressing the City’s interest. Councilmember Teitzel commented acquiring additional space for citizens’ enjoyment is exciting. He observed the two county parks are already within the City’s boundaries, so use by residents and visitors would not change, but the responsibility for maintenance would shift from Snohomish County to the City of Edmonds. He asked if Snohomish County would be willing to provide funds to Edmonds to help defray maintenance costs. Ms. Feser answered as part of a transfer, it would be worth discussing maintenance operations and/or improvements with Snohomish County. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Unocal property, commenting it would be great if that property could be retained in a natural state for wildlife purposes, fish recovery, etc. He asked if there have been any discussion with the State about transferring the property to the City instead of selling it as long as it supported environmental goals related to wildlife preservation and salmon restoration. Ms. Feser answered conversations began with the State in late 2020/early 2021 about being creative such as would WSDOT be willing transfer to the property to other department like DNR or Fish and Wildlife and the City lease it from them. Those conversations did not get very far. There is some concern by WSDOT that they have spent $8 million to purchase the property and they need to get value back out of it. There are some RCWs that dictate that they may need to be made whole. The City is waiting for the site to be cleaned and transferred to WSDOT before having those conversations. The City should retain the first right of refusal so it is first in line when WSDOT decides to sell it. There are various forms of acquisition such as easements, dedications, donations, WSDOT retains ownership and the City develops it, etc.; it does not have to be fee purchase. Councilmember Teitzel commented it seems like the cleanup is taking a long time. He visits the area frequently and does not see any work happening. Ms. Feser answered the physical cleanup was completed; they are monitoring the site via numerous small wells. There is a period of time those have to sit and have certain readings before they can be cleared. Even when that is done, it has to sit for another year to maintain the readings. The property is in that final stage of the process now. Councilmember Paine commented Esperance Park does not touch Edmonds. Ms. Feser agreed it was currently in unincorporated Snohomish County and technically not within the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Paine referred to a very thin strip of undeveloped land, noting if that was acquired, it would touch Edmonds. She asked if that property was part of the land acquisition under consideration. Ms. Feser said she was not aware of that parcel but could research it. Councilmember Paine suggested informing the public that the City can accept property donations if it is a good match for all parties. Ms. Feser commented there are many forms of donation, such as partial lifetime estates (the donor can live on the property until they choose to leave), conservation easements, etc. and City staff is more than willing to talk to property owners about those. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 20 With regard to SW Snohomish County Park, Councilmember Tibbott said some of his neighbors are involved with cleanup in the park and would like to improve the trail system in park, but they are not allowed to because it is not an Edmonds park. Acquiring that park would speak volumes to the people who want to be more actively involved. Councilmember Tibbott recalled approximately a decade ago when uses of the Unocal property were considered, one of possibilities if there was not a ferry terminal, was developing it with condominiums. He asked about the zoning of the Unocal property. Ms. Feser answered it is general commercial and/or master plan; it is not currently zoned open space. In light of the fact that it borders natural habitat and is used by many animals, Councilmember Tibbott said there may be a better zoning designation for that property. He asked if the possibility of rezoning it to something more compatible with the current condition versus a commercial use had been considered. Ms. Feser answered it has been considered a little, but the current owner, Unocal as well as WSDOT, may have concerns because rezoning the property to open space may change the value of the land. Councilmember Tibbott said that should at least be explored, because it has become much more natural habitat over the years versus a commercial/industrial space and that might be a way to recognize what has happened on the property over those decades. With regard to Esperance, Council President Olson said the prospect of investing in an area that is not in Edmonds is a con. There is opportunity for economic development in that area, connecting to the Highway 99 International District right at the hub, doing an International Art Corridor that connects to the park, etc. She was glad there were conversations occurring even though it gives her pause. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Unocal property is zoned CW, Commercial Waterfront. Uses for the property were considered during the time Joan Bloom and Lora Petso were councilmembers. The environment has changed so it’s possible Unocal may be more receptive to rezoning the property. It would be great to downzone the property because the cleanup may be different. She supported extending the first right of refusal. Councilmember Chen commented Esperance Park is very nice and it is close to Highway 99, but it is the only park Esperance residents use. If the City acquired that park, it would take green space away from the Esperance residents which he was hesitant to do. Alternatively, he suggested talking with the residents about annexing Esperance along with the park. 3. DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE WORK PLAN This item was removed from the agenda. 4. 2022 SEPTEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT Administrative Services Director Dave Turley reviewed the proposed amendments: • Temporary staffing to cover a vacancy in admin services. The position has been posted but has not yet been filled. • Under OPMA, the City is required to provide a physical location for the public to attend meetings, even those held remotely. Using the Waterfront Center is no longer feasible. This amendment convert a room on the first floor of city hall. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether the space would be available for community meetings when not used for virtual meetings. Mr. Turley said there would need to be a staff person there for any meeting. The intent is to install a door to the sidewalk in an office on the southeast corner of the first floor of city hall to make it easy to access. Once people are in that room, they would have access to city hall so it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 21 could not simply be made available for use without a staff member or councilmember. Councilmember Tibbott recalled looking for space for committee meetings and this seemed like an ideal location. • Moves the cost of software for public records requests between departments. GovQA historically charged to different departments will be paid by Information Services and charged back to Departments. This is an accounting change with a net-zero cost. • Increases in Microsoft Office 365 license counts and costs • Endpoint protection – implement tools to enhance security by better protecting workstations and providing visibility into network activity • Ebb Tide trial expenses • Park maintenance overtime exceeded budget due to lack of seasonal staff • State grant to assist with funding consultants for the comprehensive plan update • Professional services for outside consultant plan review of building permits which has exceeded existing budget • Provide budget authority up to $25,000 annually for small claims to be paid from the risk fund • Additional work required by PUD at City Park odor unit • Funds to cover flood damage at the WWTP January 2022 • Funds to cover the extension of the carbon recovery project • Increased costs due to high fuel prices • Move designated ARPA budget to accounts from which expenditures will be made through end of 2022 • Provide budget authority to spend up to $450,000 in ARPA funds that the council authorized on September 7, 2022 to construct the 96th Avenue Stormwater Mitigation Project Mr. Turley relayed staff’s recommendation is to approve the September budget amendment as included in the packet. Councilmember Chen inquired about status of OpenGov. Mr. Turley answered it is ongoing but is not progressing as quickly as hoped. He had hoped to have it completed in 2022, but the current ETA is approximately March 2022. Staff meets with OpenGov every week where OpenGov asks questions and shows the progress they have made and staff learns how to use the package. Staff has given OpenGov data for 2022 and will be giving them data from prior years as well as budget info for 2023. He summarized it was still in the process of development. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the payment of small claims from the risk fund and asked for examples of small claims that would paid from that fund. Mr. Turley answered HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson is managing the risk function for the City. She has a lot of experience from previous workplaces that had a fund to pay small claims. For example if Parks was mowing and threw a rock that broke a windshield, rather than going through the process of putting it on the consent agenda and to WCIA, Ms. Neill Hoyson would have the discretion to pay the claim from the risk fund. The City receives a fair number of small claims like that. The Finance Committee reviewed a policy that Ms. Neill Hoyson developed that puts structure around when that is appropriate. It essentially streamlines the process and reduces the amount of time spent with WCIA on small items. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the amendment to move designated ARPA budget to the accounts from which expenditures will be made through the end of 2022, recalling the council removed green streets from the budget and now the amendment includes funds for green streets conceptual design. Mr. Turley suggested talking to Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum for more details. He recalled during the budget amendments process in February 2023, money was taken out of the budget designated for green streets. When the council passed the ordinance regarding ARPA spending in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 22 May, it included money for green streets. Councilmember Tibbott suggested removing the $89,250 amendment for green streets conceptual design until there is further clarification. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE GREEN STREETS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FROM THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT. Councilmember Tibbott recalled the council removed that decision package. If there is interest in moving forward with that, he wanted to hear the details instead of burying it in a budget amendment. Mr. Turley recalled most or some of the funds were removed during the February budget amendments. Councilmember Tibbott suggested bringing back with additional information. Councilmember Paine did not support the motion, recalling there was $600,000 in the budget and $400,000 was removed, leaving $200,000. She always likes to talk about green streets and other systems that would make the City a little greener and more environmentally friendly. She requested these funds remain, there are ARPA funds to cover it and it is specifically allowed via the federal legislation. She encouraged councilmembers to support retaining the funds in the budget amendment and to have a presentation about green streets, noting it is more than just pervious pavement. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the amendment. She clarified the funding was $1 million, $600,000 is in the 2023 CIP, and $400,000 was removed from 2022. The funds in 2022 were removed because there is no policy that defines a green street. She does not know enough to support a design and preferred to work on the code and the comprehensive plan to define what a green street is. Councilmember Chen agreed $400,000 was removed but there is still $600,000 in the ARPA funding for green streets. He would like to learn more about the concept of green streets and what could be done to beautify the City even more. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the amendment that moves designated ARPA budget to the accounts from which expenditures will be made, and asked what an ARPA grant contractor is or does. Mr. Turley answered rather than hiring a full-time employee, the City hired a consultant to handle ARPA grant management. In 2020 when the CARES grants came out, Edmonds, like a majority of cities Edmonds’ size, had very little experience handling that type of federal grant. There are a lot of rules about how the funds are distributed and how the funds can be spent and the City did not have that expertise. A lot of cities have hired a full-time person, Edmonds hired a consultant to manage the grants to ensure when funds are distributed to individuals and small businesses for example, they are eligible to receive the funds. Without hiring an employee, the City did not have the capacity or experience to manage that size of a fund; the CARES and ARPA funds combined is over $13 million. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND TO 10:45. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO 10:30. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE 2022 SEPTEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 23 Council President Olson said she would like to reconsider the motion on the amendment regarding green streets. Mr. Taraday said reconsideration can be done during the same meeting as long as the motion is made by someone on the prevailing side. Council President Olson said she wanted to reconsider the motion regarding the green streets conceptual design because she wanted to get more information about which streets would be designed in that way. She voted against the motion to remove it from the budget amendment but now wants to remove it which would change the vote to 4-2. Mr. Taraday advised there would need to be motion that passed to reconsider that vote. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, there is no main motion. Mr. Taraday said the question was whether Council President Olson can bring a motion for reconsideration on a previously adopted motion. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated there needs to be a main motion first and then an amendment. She suggested having a main motion and then a motion to reconsider the amendment. Mr. Taraday responded in a perfect world yes, but this council frequently does not do it that way. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO REMOVE GREEN STREETS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FROM THE BUDGET AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE THE GREEN STREETS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FROM THE BUDGET AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ACCEPT THE 3RD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT AS AMENDED. Council President Olson offered a friendly amendment to move the ordinance in the packet as amended. Councilmember Paine was agreeable to that amendment. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is Ordinance No. 4275. 5. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE SEAVIEW PARK INFILTRATION FACILITY PHASE 2 PROJECT Acting Public Works Director Rob English advised when this was presented to the PPW Committee last week, they requested a 5-minute presentation to make the public aware of this upcoming stormwater infiltration project. The scope of work is to expand the phase 1 improvements which included four injection wells for infiltrating stormwater and pull flows from the Perrinville Creek system in an effort to reduce flows and eroding velocities during higher storm events. The project was identified in 2015 study Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 24 done by Tetra Tech to identify projects in the Perrinville system to mitigate erosion and high flow problem in Perrinville Creek. Mr. English continued, the project was bid project in the summer, but due to issues with the bids and information provided, it was rebid in August. Three bids were received on September 6th; the low bid was provided by WSB Excavation & Utilities at $373,941; the engineer’s estimate was $344,555. He reviewed: • Proposed construction budget Description Amount Contract Award $373,941 Contract Award Mgmt. Reserve (20%) $74,788 Construction Mgmt., Insp., & Testing (20%) $74,788 1% Arts (non-grant portion of project) $935 Total $524,452 Funding Amount Stormwater Utility Fund 422 $160,252 Grant – Department of Ecology $364,200 Total Funds Available $542,452 Mr. English explained if the management reserve isn’t needed, the stormwater utility fund contribution would be reduced. Staff’s recommendation is to proceed with the award to WSB Excavation and Utilities and authorize a 20% management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions in the field. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO WSB AND AUTHORIZE THE MANAGEMENT RESERVE OF $74,788. Councilmember Teitzel recalled when he was on the council previously, this project was just the Seaview infiltration facility and it did not include phasing. He asked why it was being done in two phases. Mr. English explained the potential for increased capacity at this location was identified in later states of design for phase 1. Staff approached Ecology about expanding project, but because the grant had already been issued for the specific scope of phase 1, Ecology did not agree to expand the project and recommended applying for a grant for phase 2 which staff did. Councilmember Chen asked about the process for sourcing contractors. Mr. English answered there are different thresholds; for a project of this size, it is advertised for construction bids in the DJC and the Everett Herald and depending on the project size, contractors are given 2-3 weeks to submit bids. A pre- bid meeting was offered for this project in an effort to help contractors complete the paperwork. Bids were due on September 6th; typically bids are received right before 2:00 p.m.. They are opened by the city clerk, read aloud, a process that is open to the public. The City received three bids; staff reviews the documentation to ensure they are responsive and responsible which in this case all three were. On smaller projects, there is a small works process that is quicker and requires less documentation. Job Order Contracting is a new process that the council approved earlier this year. Councilmember Chen asked if the City or Snohomish County have resources to assist smaller contractors with the process. Mr. English answered the City does not offer resources; a pre-bid meeting was held for this project to help contractors fill out the paperwork correctly, especially the prequalification paperwork. Larger cities and agencies like Seattle or Snohomish County may have specific divisions that offer assistance to contractors; Edmonds does not have those resources. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 25 Council President Olson commended public works for the good job they do going after grants for projects, especially going back to Ecology for another project to increase capacity. From her former life, she noted the SBA offers assistance to small contractors with completing bid documentation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. EDMONDS CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT EXTENSION Council President Olson referred to the background/history in the agenda packet that it would be difficult to do a thorough evaluation and other steps that are required to either renew the city attorney’s contract or do an RFP. Therefore, she proposed extending the city attorney’s contract for one year to allow for a more robust process. She invited Councilmember Teitzel to speak to this item. Councilmember Teitzel explained he was involved in the last city attorney review in 2019 which resulted in the current three year contract with Lighthouse. He recalled it that was a substantial amount of work and a rigorous process to get internal client input regarding the quality of service Lighthouse provided. He recommended that be done again as there have been mixed informal responses where some people are very pleased with Lighthouse and some are not. There needs to be a rigorous process to ensure everyone Lighthouse serves has an opportunity to have input into the quality of work they receive. Extending the contract would allow time to compile those results and report to council. Councilmember Teitzel recalled during Mr. Taraday’s presentation on August 23rd, he reported Lighthouse worked 1,855 hours for Edmonds during the first six months of 2022 and earned a flat monthly fee of $323,718 for that six month period. Dividing those equates to an average hourly rate of $175. Lighthouse charges the City of Maple Valley an average of $310/hour. If Edmonds paid the rate Maple Valley is charged, the cost would be substantially more, $575,000 for the first six months of 2022 rather than $323,000. He verified the hours Mr. Taraday reported via backup documentation Mr. Taraday provided which he shared with council. He concluded Edmonds was receiving a very attractive deal from a price perspective. Councilmember Teitzel continued, the more difficult consideration is the quality which will take time to investigate. There have also been questions raised about the terms of the contract extension including a look back clause. He explained if the City terminated Lighthouse during 2023, Lighthouse would refund what the City paid and rebill based on the higher hourly rate. This same look back clause exists in the City’s current 3-year contract with Lighthouse. In 2019, on a 5-2 vote, council found those terms reasonable, providing some precedent for it. Councilmember Teitzel explained in the private business world, there is a termination liability agreement (TLA); the look back clause is much like a TLA which protects both parties in the event of an early termination. In an effort to have an independent legal review of the terms of the 12-month extension contract, he contacted MSRC, AWC and WCIA; all three declined, saying the City would need to obtain its own independent legal counsel. If the council wishes, he will seek independent legal counsel to provide an opinion. He asked for council authorization to spend up to $600 from the council contingency to have outside legal analysis done to, 1) ensure it is legal, and 2) ensure it is within ethical legal bounds. He expected that analysis would not take more than 1-2 hours of an attorney’s time for up to $600. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE HIM AUTHORIZATION TO SPEND UP TO $600 FOR AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL REVIEW OF THE 12-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE LIGHTHOUSE CONTRACT. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND BRING IT UP TO $1000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 26 Councilmember Paine anticipated it would take time for research and to provide an opinion to council. She anticipated $300/hour for 3 hours of work. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel said he spoke with a principal at the law firm of Foster Garvey in downtown Seattle, an attorney recommended to him by Marysville’s city attorney. He would be willing to do the analysis but charges $700/hour. He will continuing pursuing other attorneys and has a call into an attorney at Lane Powell, another very reputable firm. He assured the intent is to get a good, unbiased opinion on the contract. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the 9% increase when historically increases have been 4%. With this increase, the City will be paying $705,708 or $58,809/month, about a 9% increase over the $647,436 that was paid in 2022. She said a 9% increase seemed high even in an inflationary year. She was unsure who negotiated the increase and recommended going back to the drawing board. She suggested looking at that aspect of the contract as well. Councilmember Paine concurred with Councilmember Buckshnis’ questions about the 9% increase, especially since it is unknown whether the current rate of inflation will be sustained for the remainder of this year and into next year. She was also concerned with the look back due to instability it offers in budget planning and puts the City over a barrel with regard to city attorney costs and if the council terminates the contract, it end up costing a lot more than anticipated. She preferred to have a honest rate from the start. She recommended forming a taskforce of three councilmembers to put this together. Mayor Nelson suggested discussion focus on the motion to hire an independent attorney to analyze the contract. Councilmember Teitzel said the 9% increase is based on CPI-U for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue for 2022. He agreed it seemed high in terms of an increase, but there is a foundation for it. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Council President Olson requested any councilmembers interested in being on a taskforce email her tomorrow and she will put something together. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested looking at the proposed 9% increase. She noted the CPI-U for Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue has already dipped to 8%. Councilmember Paine recommended the taskforce start now; it should have been done three years ago when the three-year contract started. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked City staff including the disaster coordinator and everyone who attended the Emergency Preparedness Expo on Saturday. The expo included the American Red Cross, ham radio operators, Snohomish County Search & Rescue, Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management, and others. He relayed the American Red Cross provides smoke protectors and will install them as well as change batteries for those unable to do so. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 20, 2022 Page 27 Councilmember Paine commented tonight was a good meeting with a lot of interesting topics. This weekend’s Oktoberfest will include volunteers demonstrating electric leaf blowers, the Great Oktober Blowout, sponsored in part by Ace Hardware. There will be fun games using the blowers and a chance for the public to checkout electric leaf blowers. Councilmember Tibbott advised September is Suicide Prevention Month. He reached out to a local Edmonds author, Dr. Gregory Jantz, for resources related to suicide prevention. Dr. Jantz wrote a book in 2021, a resource for families dealing with loved ones who have suicidal thoughts. Dr. Jantz donated several books to the City which are available in the council office. The book lists a number of myths related to suicide, myth #1 is suicide is a result of mental illness. The truth is many people who suffer with mental illness never consider suicide. And while it is true suicidal thinking can be related to mental illnesses such as depression or addiction, just as often it isn’t. Councilmember Tibbott summarized there are valuable insights in the book. Council President Olson said she was excited about the leaf blower demo. She thanked the community for their support for the many late summer/early fall fundraisers. The MAE Harvest Moon event was sold out, tomorrow night’s food bank fundraiser is sold out, and there is still time to sell out the Edmonds Center for the Arts GALA on Friday, September 23rd. The ECA has been an excellent, generous community partner who does a lot for the community for free as well as fee based. It takes generous donors and the support of the community to keep the ECA in operation and enriching the community with arts and culture. Further information is available at ec4arts.org. Councilmember Buckshnis said for anyone unable to attend the ECA GALA, they can bid on packages at their website, ec4arts.org. She encouraged the community to attend the Rotary Oktoberfest on Friday and Saturday which will include a dog parade and costume contest where she is a judge. She thanked everyone who continues to contact her about the late-Councilmember K. Johnson. Donations can be made to the City of Edmonds with an indication the funds are for her memorial. Plans for using the funds are being discussed. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation to the City’s employees. In addition to the appreciation luncheon, he wanted to add the council’s appreciation for their good work. Councilmember Teitzel complimented the parks department and contractor working on Civic Park. He lives near Civic Field and sees the great progress being made. He encouraged the public to drive by, assuring they would be excited by what they see. Turf has been installed on the soccer field, the light standards are up, the walking path concrete has been installed, and the skate park is essentially done. It will be a very attractive amenity for the entire City when it is finished. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.