2022-02-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
February 23, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
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.
Board Members Present Staff Present
Alicia Crank, Chair Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Roger Pence, Vice Chair Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Matt Cheung Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy Director
Todd Cloutier Michael Clugston, Senior Planner
Judi Gladstone Steve Duh, Consultant with Parks
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO
APPROVE THE PARTIAL MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 2022 MEETING AS PRESENTED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
Chair Crank proposed moving the Administrative Report, Division Work Plan, to the 3/9 meeting to dedicate
most of tonight's meeting to the public hearing. Vice Chair Pence commented that the department had published
an RFQ that he was hoping to get an overview of tonight. The qualifications are due before the 3/9 retreat, and
he thought this was part of the director's report. Director McLaughlin offered to do a quick summary of that.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 1 of 8
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM TO THE 3/9
RETREAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE UPCOMING
RFQ.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Division Work Plan
Director McLaughlin reviewed the RFQ to develop public space typologies and public space activation
strategies. This will be coming to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation to Council. Vice Chair
Pence commented that the Planning Board needs to be more integrated in the process in general. He thought
that one of them should be on the selection committee when choosing the consultant. Chair Crank suggested
this would be a good topic to discuss at the Planning Board Retreat.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Public Hearing
Staff Presentation:
Director Feser restated that there was a technical glitch at the 1/26 hearing so they are holding the hearing again.
There have been quite a few public comments. Those have been included in the packet and forwarded to the
Planning Board. She reviewed the format of the hearing and noted the goal was to have a recommendation
tonight to the City Council. She pointed out a table of some comments received and suggested revisions.
Consultant Steve Duh of Conservation Technix, Inc. gave an overview of the PROS Plan document with a
PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed community feedback, the plan structure and content, key
recommendations, and next steps. Director Feser reviewed the 2022 PROS Plan Capital Program with a listing
of projects, timeline, estimated costs, and revenues. An illustration showing geographic location and timeline
was shared with the Board. She also discussed revision considerations and limitations.
Board Comments and Questions:
Board Member Cloutier asked about the million -dollar grant that the City had turned down. Director Feser
explained that Council voted not to accept the RCO grant for the Marina Beach Park project in January.
Board Member Kuehn asked for more information about this. Director Feser explained the grant applications
were very specific to this project at Marina Beach Park.
Board Member Rosen noted he had strongly encouraged the Council to accept the money. His understanding
was the Council thought it should be a bigger part of the marsh conversation and should be tied to the Unocal
acquisition. He asked staff if there was a sense of what is next in this process. Director Feser explained the
Unocal site is a Superfund site and is being cleaned up right now. Once it is cleaned up the Department of
Transportation (DOT) will own the site. Her understanding is the DOT has no use for it. Last year the City
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 2 of 8
acquired the first right of refusal for the property should it become available. There has been discussion about
trying to create a marsh/estuary/restoration plan that would include this site, but the City is hesitant to move into
this without being sure of the ownership of this property. She summarized they are in a holding pattern until a
decision is made with the Unocal property. The Marina Beach Park project and Master Plan is at 30% currently
and would be in consideration of the larger planning process.
Board Member Kuehn asked if taking the grant money would have affected any other projects. Staff explained
that it would not.
Board Member Rosen asked if it would be acceptable to recommend that Council give this project a higher
priority and move it up three years. This would give momentum to future plans and allow a phasing of any
future project.
Public Hearing:
Natalie Seitz stated she had advocated for the Council rejecting the money because it would require $4 million
of city funds to be put into a well-resourced area. She noted that the Council had talked at length about equity
when they talked about that decision. She offered to provide her emails around this subject to the Board for
consideration. She then commented that the PROS Plan identifies three neighborhood parks in South
Edmonds/SR 99 with a total proposed investment of $8.1 million. This is less than the investment in the Civic
Center, Cultural Corridor, and potential investment in the Unocal property each. The proposed investment in
South Edmonds park would still leave the area with significantly lower per capita acreage in parks compared to
other areas in Edmonds. She commented that the $3.89 million of proposed investments in the SR99 area only
represents about $2 million above direct impact fees of GRE and pending land use applications. There is every
indication that the per capita provision of parks will decrease over the next six year for the SR99 area. This is
not equitable, will not keep up with growth, and does not provide investment that seeks to address the City's
past lack of investment in this area. Every investment in the downtown area is a decision to continue to
underserve eastern, lower income and more diverse residents of the city. She expressed concern about the
disparity in park resources and urged the City to change its course and to benefit those who have not been
equitably served. She doesn't support the revised Level of Service because it doesn't account for over 50 acres
of park resources downtown and the resources the City provides to that area. It would prevent other areas from
achieving community centers and park resources to support the commercial center of the city which is the SR99
corridor.
Dr. Philo Calhoun suggested that Parks take over the management of Southwest County Park, noting that the
County has been trying to give Edmonds the park for many years. The park has much more historic interest
than other areas in town. It also has significant wildlife and is ecologically very important. If the City is serious
about bringing salmon back to the Perrinville area it would make sense to take control of the park to control
waterflow that goes in that area. It also is an area that currently has invasive species that affects the rest of
Edmonds and is an area where there is petty crime, vandalism, and drug deals. Police and EMTs do not know
the trails that go through the park. There is a lack of mapping of the trails in the park which results in people
routinely getting lost. If there were an emergency the EMTs don't even know how to get to that area. The
County only pays $8,000 a year for management of this, and the City can get 117 acres for free. The park is
increasingly used and is one of the most beautiful parks in Edmonds.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 3 of 8
Selena Bollotin stated she sees very little mention in the Plan to the assets and value of Southwest County Park
because it is a Snohomish County Park within the Edmonds city limits. One of the deficits of the Plan is there
is not a specific goal to partner with parks in other jurisdictions to leverage assets for Edmonds residents. She
referenced Lake Ballinger, Esperance, and Southwest County Park. She also supports acquisition of Southwest
County Park as it is in full alignment with the goals of the PROS Plan, specifically to address the 74-acre open
space target gap. There is no purchase cost for the park. Acquiring the park would increase Edmonds overall
park acreage by 50%. Within the open space category Edmonds' parks would increase from 76 to almost 200
acres. Edmonds should acquire the park to be in control of the social, health, and environmental assets of the
park. She noted the park is currently neglected, and invasive species are extensive, jeopardizing environmental
aspects. Perrinville Creek watershed is within the park with extensive eroded areas. Formulas in the Level of
Service in the Plan show a deficit in open space. She spoke to the value of the 120-acre park as an ecosystem as
well as a repository of Edmonds logging and Native American history. She believes acquisition of this park
would be a huge value to the City. She also is in favor of adding parks to underserved areas and does not believe
this needs to be an either/or situation. She encouraged acquisition of the park as a goal in the PROS Plan.
Jim Ogonowski, resident of Edmonds, agreed with previous speakers encouraging acquisition of Southwest
County Park particularly considering the moving goalposts, changing metrics, and lowered standards in the
PROS Plan. Regarding partnerships, he recommended partnering with the Edmonds School District for
enhancements in playground facilities as was recently done with the Sherwood Elementary playground project.
Likewise, Meadowdale Playfields are a prime example where they can partner to leverage funding to
incorporate stormwater retention capabilities to help with the Perrinville erosion issues. He also thinks there
should be partnerships with other disciplines such as Public Safety.
Laurie Sorensen, resident of Edmonds, commended the PROS Plan and the complexity of the document. She
thinks there should be more goals related to the restoration and protection of wildlife diversity. Regarding the
surveys, she commented that they didn't really include young people and children, who are the ones who will
be most impacted by extinction.
Michael Ohman, resident of Edmonds, commented he has been volunteering in Southwest County Park since
2005 and working on removing invasive species. Southwest County Park is a piece of original native land and
one of the last remaining pieces of Edmonds logging history. There are also miles of trails. It is currently under
threat of invasive plants and a lot of erosion, especially in Perrinville Creek. However, the City doesn't have
any control of it because it is a County park and doesn't get a lot of love and attention from the County. The
park is currently underused; there is no mention of it on the Edmonds website; and there is a lack of signage and
maps showing where the trails are, especially the trails on the north side of the park. The County wants to give
the park to Edmonds, and maintenance costs would be low. He noted there would be no difference in the cost
of policing because it is already the Edmonds police who respond to 911 calls in that area. He commented that
at the last meeting they were pitted against underserved areas in south and southeast Edmonds. He did not think
it was right to compare the two in this way since this would be getting 120 areas open space for free versus
paying a couple million bucks for an acre or an acre and a half. They don't serve the same purpose. If this is
managed correctly that size of the park should be the responsibility of developers.
Joe Scordino, resident of Edmonds, commented that the PROS Plan is supposed to be a guide for managing and
enhancing open spaces but is deficient in the whole arena of managing. Yost Park is an example of neglect and
isn't even mentioned in the PROS Plan. He commented that the Plan seems to be totally focused on acquisitions
at the expense of management of existing parks. He noted that the marine beaches have issues and they also
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 4 of 8
weren't mentioned. He asked why the plan for the Marina Beach/marsh/Unocal project isn't in the PROS Plan.
He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan currently says that the Unocal property is for a multimodal facility
(ferry terminal, etc.). The Comprehensive Plan also needs to be updated. He stated there is a lot of work that
needs to be done on the PROS Plan before it is ready for approval. There have been a lot of other comments
mentioned by residents that should be reflected in the Plan to manage and enhance the parks.
Michael Ohman (again) agreed that they need to take care of what they have before they go after other stuff. If
they lose these parks, they will never get them back.
Susie Schaefer commented that Edmonds has large, special areas, such as the beach or marsh, which are special
opportunities with wildlife and birds for everyone in the community to enjoy, regardless of where they live. Just
focusing on placing parks in neighborhoods isn't enough. She referred to Meadowdale estuary restoration
project and suggested that the City take notes on how the County did this in thinking about its own marsh
project.
Seeing no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m.
Board Deliberation:
Board Member Cloutier thanked everyone for their comments. He referred to the metric of park acreage per
thousand residents and noted that it would be impossible to spread this evenly throughout the city. The west
side of Edmonds has the beach and the marsh as well as massive watershed areas and trails that cannot just be
created in neighborhoods. He agreed that everyone should be able to walk to a park, but they are not going to
be able to put in a beach or a watershed in these areas and it will never be the same acres per thousand people
in these areas. He is interested in seeing what the real cost of Southwest County Park would be, but that is a
separate issue from the PROS Plan. He asked Director Feser to address comments stating that maintenance isn't
in the PROS Plan, noting that these are addressed even though the Board wasn't briefed. Director Feser
commented that the PROS Plan is a broad document that includes a lot of things that they haven't had much
discussion here. Goals, recommendations, and key recommendations must be general enough and flexible
enough that they are applicable in the future and also leave the City open for opportunities. Very specific
maintenance issues per park is not something that is done in this document. However, as an example, she noted
that one of the recommendations for Yost Park is a Master Plan which would address the environmental issues
they are having in the park in addition to usage and layout issues. Mr. Duh agreed that they are trying to take a
systemwide approach with the goals and objectives. Maintenance or upkeep concerns tend to be addressed with
the operational side.
Board Member Gladstone expressed appreciation for all the comments. She asked how the marsh is referenced
in the PROS Plan. Is there an objective to have a Master Plan? If so, does that provide a roadmap for accepting
future grant opportunities like the Marina Beach Park improvements? Director Feser replied there is a
recommendation within the Edmonds Marsh assessment in the Appendices that mentions work around a
restoration plan. It is worded in such a way that if the Unocal property were acquired it would be included in
the restoration plan as well as Marina Beach Park. She added that in response to comments, staff created a new
section around Environmental Goals (Section 6). There is also more language around the marsh narrative.
Board Member Gladstone asked if there has been any study done related to Southwest County Park on the costs
of taking on ownership versus a partnership. Director Feser commented that staff would need time to put that
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 5 of 8
information together if desired by the Board. She has had talks with the County, and the annual maintenance
costs are not $8,000-9,000 as has been stated tonight. She thinks those are costs related to supplies and materials
for the parks, not staffing, administration, management, or vehicles. They could also look at an interlocal
agreement like they do with Lynnwood. This is a step beyond the PROS Plan. Board Member Gladstone asked
if the County is open to an interlocal agreement. Director Feser was not sure.
Vice Chair Pence asked if there is anything that could or should be added to the Plan to make the acquisition or
improvements of Southwest County Park more likely to come about. Director Feser replied that it is adequately
covered in the PROS Plan. Consideration of the park would be the next step.
Board Member Rosen thanked people who spoke tonight. He spoke to the hundreds of comments they have
received on this matter. Topics that he heard the loudest were related to the Underwater Park, the Southwest
County Park, the marsh, and overall interest in the role of parks in the environment. Equity is an issue that cut
through many others. He referred to the proposed language regarding the Underwater Park and asked if this was
mainly looking at volunteerism. Director Feser explained the intent of this and offered to clarify this more.
Board Member Rosen then referred to the Southwest County Park and stated he would like to send a message
to Council that encourages exploring the feasibility of different options.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, TO
RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL ADVISE STAFF TO EXPLORE WITH THE COUNTY
THE FEASIBILITY OF DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS AND/OR ACQUISITION OF SOUTHWEST
COUNTY PARK.
Board Member Gladstone asked if this was separate from the table of recommendations. Board Member Rosen
replied that it was.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Rosen referred to Marina Beach Park and suggested this be moved up in the timeline to 2024
or 2025. Director Feser she was not sure how it could be done any sooner without grant funding. She has it
listed at the end of the timeline as a placeholder to keep it active. Board Member Rosen clarified he was more
concerned with sending a message that it was important to get it going than the actual date. Board Member
Gladstone asked if they had to have the marsh planning done before the Marina Beach Park. She also wondered
how this would impact other items that are earlier in the timeline. Director Feser commented that project is
solely Marina Beach Park. She discussed the need to daylight Willow Creek, which is currently underground,
and how this relates to Marina Beach Park planning. Board Member Gladstone asked how this would impact
other projects. Director Feser indicated this would require some staff work to sort out.
Board Member Kuehn expressed appreciation for all the public comments and spoke in support of exploring
options for the Southwest County Park.
Chair Crank asked if there were comments they received that are not in scope of discussion for the PROS Plan.
Mr. Duh generally reviewed this and noted that certain operational items are good to hear about but are not part
of the PROS Plan.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 6 of 8
Board Member Rosen asked about the request to Cascadia Art Museum to the list of art and cultural facilities
and organizations on page 35. Director Feser commented that would be included in the next version.
Board Member Gladstone asked how much would be changed before sending it to Council. Director Feser
replied that everything on the table would be included as well as a few minor additions such as the name of a
group or facility as mentioned above.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROS PLAN VERSION 4 INCLUDING THE REVISIONS
SUGGESTED IN THE ATTACHED TABLE AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY
THE BOARD TONIGHT.
Board Member Gladstone referred to 3(b) in the table and commented that the metrics need to be specific to the
Parks although they may be in coordination with the Climate Action Plan. She suggested using verbiage like
"in coordination with the Climate Action Plan". She then referred to 4(b) and recommended revision 8.7 read
"Support and promote volunteerism ..." She also recommended deleting the second sentence.
Board Member Rosen also referred to 8.7 and recommended language about formalizing relationships with
community partners, as opposed to just making it about volunteerism.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Director Feser thanked the Board for all their hard work. Chair Crank thanked staff and the consultant for their
tremendous amount of work on this item. She also thanked the public for the wonderful involvement and
encouraged them to stay involved in the process.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Crank reviewed upcoming items. Board Member Gladstone suggested adding some items that Vice Chair
Pence had asked for briefings on into the extended agenda. Chair Crank explained that some of the items would
be addressed at the Board Retreat on March 9 as well as the work plan. Vice Chair Pence commented that the
extended agenda can be fleshed out at the retreat because they will have feedback from departments about what
they can handle.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 7 of 8
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank thanked everyone for all their time and hard work.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
February 23, 2022 Page 8 of 8