[0:46] Sure, it's like disco pattern. Good

[1:02] evening everyone. I'm going to try this remote. I'm way visiting family, so I'm going to try to see how this remote zoom works. So I apologize for the different background there.

[1:13] Like to call to order the Citarra 21st, Evan City council meeting at 7 p.m.

[1:18] And the first order of business will be the flag salute, we do have a flag appearing here, momentarily.

[1:25] Okay.

[1:26] I pledge allegiance to the future.

[1:28] That's too flagged.

[1:29] The United States of America.

[1:31] Public for which it stands.

[1:33] And when nation under God, it is the best.

[1:37] We're going to be in justice for all.

[1:41] Next we have a landing management.

[1:42] I've asked council president to read the acknowledgement.

[1:46] Thank you Mr. Mayor.

[1:47] We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place that's the

[1:50] publish people and their successors to lay up tribes who since time immemorial have hunted,

[1:56] fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their subreddit, their right

[2:00] to self-determination, and we are their sacred spiritual connection with the land in the water.

[2:07] Thank you, next is Rokal's secret. Council member Kristiana Johnson.

[2:12] Here. Council member Dispelhorst. Here. Council member Fraley Manila. Present.

[2:17] Councilmember Buccines.

[2:19] Here.

[2:20] Councilmember Olsen.

[2:22] Here.

[2:22] Councilmember President Payne.

[2:24] Councilmember Lara Johnson.

[2:27] And Mayor Nelson.

[2:28] Here.

[2:29] I would like to introduce our President.

[2:31] Great.

[2:32] Next, we have a presentation.

[2:34] This is from the Snahoma Health District.

[2:36] Here to give us their update.

[2:39] As required by our agreement.

[2:54] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:55] And thank you, Council.

[2:56] Friend, inviting the health district here tonight.

[2:58] My name is Katie Curtis. I'm the Director of our Prevention Services Division here at the Health District and they do have a site presentation to show up. That's okay.

[3:20] So I'm going to start out with some of our community trends that we have been seeing from

[3:28] 2020 to 2021.

[3:31] we have seen our rates of Climidea, Hepatitis B and C, and Protossus all going down, which is

[3:40] nice to see disease case rates going down in some of our areas. Our gonorrhea, HIV, and tuberculosis

[3:47] cases have all remained level over the past year. And unfortunately we have seen a significant increase in

[3:54] not only in some home-ish county, but across the state.

[3:59] Here to date, we've had 32 new cases through the end of June.

[4:03] Compare that to last year and we only had 25 cases for the same period.

[4:08] We had 60 new syphilis cases in 2020 and only 46 in 2019.

[4:15] We have received some additional funding from the Washington State Department of Health

[4:18] to add two more disease investigators to our STD program

[4:23] to help us investigate these new cases with syphilis to try and get a handle on those rising

[4:29] cases.

[4:37] Some of the countywide trends that we've seen over the past year are around some

[4:42] of our chronic diseases and injuries such as droid overdoses have gone up. I assure you

[4:47] have heard that in the news and then our youth suicides have gone down and I'm going to go over

[4:52] those two data points. So this slide outlines all of the drug overdoses and so I'm

[4:59] county from 2016 through about mid-2021. The first blue bar is all drive overdoses. A little

[5:09] red line that's going across the top are the opioid related overdose deaths and then we've

[5:15] broken out some of the drugs you'll see heroin is green. That kind of picks up in 2011 through 2021

[5:25] on prescription opioids have remained high,

[5:27] a little bit of drop going on into 2020, 2021.

[5:32] And then synthetic opioids,

[5:35] which would largely be fentanyl

[5:36] have really increased over the last few years.

[5:40] So I was county continues to work

[5:42] with the Somish County Multi-Agency Coordination Group

[5:47] to help combat drug overdoses in the county.

[5:51] And then we are leveraging some of our state

[5:53] federal funding to work with local hospitals and health care providers in other community groups

[5:58] to try and get education and look at what they're seeing locally at the health care provider level.

[6:06] And as a reminder, we have a number of prevention treatment and recovery resources online at

[6:12] to hommishoverdoseprovention.com.

[6:18] One of the things that's kind of in happier news is that the 2020-2021 school year was the first year in a long time that we have not had any youth suicides.

[6:31] And you'll see the chart. This is from a larger presentation that I think Wendy Burke Schilt presented to the council a few months ago,

[6:40] That shows calls to EMS are also down related to suicidal ideation or an overdose attempt related at self-harm or suicide, so that's all good news.

[6:53] The health district is also the coordinator for the county's child death review as well as the newly formed suicide prevention task force.

[7:02] Many of these partners came together recently to discuss the trends to see what protective factors may have been in place

[7:09] that caused these decreases that we've seen in the last year.

[7:14] Some of those might have included the pandemic and the shutdowns, which left more adults at home,

[7:20] and youth were less likely to be locked home alone.

[7:23] They also youth may have been sleeping more and receiving less testing, which led to less anxiety.

[7:31] But we will be looking more at that over the coming months.

[7:38] So for Edmonds, we issued 238 annual food permits this year.

[7:46] We've had down 1951 food inspections.

[7:49] We've followed up on 18 food complaints.

[7:52] And then we've done 48 water recreation inspections.

[7:56] And this is a picture of a pool that one of our staff went out to help them get it reestablished

[8:02] for safe use.

[8:03] a lot of pools were shuddered and not used for quite some time and so those have been coming back online and

[8:10] our staff have been going out to make sure they have everything that they need.

[8:16] Our land use activity is also increasing in Snohomish County. You can see that we are, we have an

[8:22] increased permits in almost every area, building clearances, new wells, new septic systems and

[8:31] and I was built to have all gone up to help with the increase workload that our staff are

[8:36] seeing we're looking to increase the number of staff we have to reduce the turnaround

[8:40] time on these applications.

[8:46] So this is one of the programs from my division, our maternal

[8:49] child health program, and we under that program we have our child care health outreach program,

[8:56] where we provide consultation to both center-based and home-based child care providers, answering

[9:02] questions from COVID related questions to cleaning questions, to air quality. Last year, we had

[9:11] a lot of smoke this year. We didn't get so much of that, but we could help provide them with

[9:16] ideas and resources. And we also have an online learning module where child care providers

[9:23] can earn stars credits. And we do a lot of training around aces and resiliency and trauma-informed

[9:31] care with our child care providers.

[9:40] The other things we do at the health district are provide the legally required vital records,

[9:44] such as birth and death certificates. Our front counter at the health district is now open for

[9:50] services, but you can still make some of these requests online. If you've been on our lobby lately,

[9:57] you've seen the two new cool key asks that we have, but they also have the not working yet

[10:02] on them. We are really hoping that the kiosks are opened up soon to make it a little bit easier for people to get the information that records that they're looking for.

[10:13] I just wanted to let you know that in January 1st of 2021, Washington became a closed record state.

[10:22] So that means only specific individuals can request birth or a death certificate, along with the documentation that comes with that.

[10:32] This new RCWR also limits the amount and type of data that the health district is able to share about deaths in order to protect people's privacy.

[10:47] For our goal of addressing ongoing critical public health issues, we continue to address the rise of COVID cases.

[10:58] This is our rolling case count from the very beginning until now, and you can see the peaks that we've had last fall was our last big peak.

[11:08] We rolled into the springtime with a little bump, and then the summer was kind of down, and then we really skyrocketed back up to higher than what we saw last fall.

[11:18] We're watching the current plateau.

[11:20] We're hoping that that starts creeping down over these next couple of weeks.

[11:25] So we can try and get these back under control.

[11:30] One of the unfortunate things is in August.

[11:32] We lost 30 residents to COVID compared to 14 in July.

[11:38] So we are still seeing unfortunate outcomes with COVID infections.

[11:42] So,

[11:46] two of the maps that we have been putting out, it shows the case rates in the Homish

[11:52] County.

[11:53] You'll see that kind of along the IFI4 door is really have more of our coconut infections

[11:59] just because that's where the population is more intense.

[12:03] And then the other map, the green one, shows our work on increasing vaccination in the

[12:08] county.

[12:08] We're starting to see more darker green colors, which is really exciting.

[12:13] So

[12:18] looking ahead for COVID, we are working to preserve hospital capacity and assisting them

[12:27] where we can with their continued bed crunch and ventilators and all of the things that

[12:34] they're still needing more preparing for the possibility of booster doses. The FDA did

[12:40] clear 65 and older and those immunocompromised to get a third dose and then we're watching

[12:47] to see if recommendations are made in further months for more of the population to get a booster

[12:54] dose. And we are concerned that the temperatures go down. People tend to congregate inside

[13:00] and being in larger groups. So we are watching our cases and hoping that we can get more people

[13:09] vaccinated to help reduce the spread that may come with more people being closer together.

[13:18] Let's say I just want to share a few updates on how we're working to make some

[13:21] which helped district a more sustainable organization.

[13:29] This is a snapshot of our adopted budget from 2021 compared to the amended budget.

[13:35] The biggest shift is because of the COVID planning that we've had coming in over the year.

[13:41] We are currently projecting roughly a $7.7 million surplus for 2021,

[13:47] but it is expected that money will be held in reserve for COVID response into 2022 and beyond.

[13:55] Our COVID funding is the biggest unknown for us at this moment. We are not currently allocated

[14:01] any of the ARPA funding. And most of our COVID funding has very specific scopes of work,

[14:08] such as for case investigation, contact tracing, testing, and vaccine efforts.

[14:15] And all of those are being funded through the Department of Health and through the CDC.

[14:21] Excitingly another piece of funding that's starting to become a little bit more clear as the

[14:24] foundational public health service is funding. We are extremely grateful to the state legislature

[14:30] for the significant and ongoing investments into public health. They appropriated money through

[14:36] the general fund that will continue to increase each year through fiscal year 2025.

[14:43] This has been a multi-step process with the Department of Health in the Washington State Association

[14:48] of local and public health officials to agree on the allocation model for this spending.

[14:55] We are expecting to see our contract from the Department of Health soon.

[15:00] We are looking to get approximately $3 million to put towards our communicable disease programs, assessment, which is our epidemiology program, is environmental health and then some of our cross-cutting capabilities.

[15:14] Funding for maternal and child health, chronic disease and injury prevention is allocated to start coming in fiscal year 2024. So we're really excited to have money dedicated to those programs also.

[15:28] And then we're also pursuing other funding streams like federal grants and per capita funding.

[15:38] We really appreciate Edmund's continued support to the two public health three or per capita contributions.

[15:45] We use that money to buy Narcan for your law enforcement officers and first responders to assist you with collecting data from your community and doing special reports.

[15:55] and working on healthy community program and policy support and other initiatives that the city of Edmunds has.

[16:06] I want to just give you a brief update on the sound foundation for public health.

[16:12] A nine person board is in place and they have their logo and they are an official nonprofit corporation in the state of Washington.

[16:21] The board is currently working on developing both a strategic plan and a fundraising plan for the foundation

[16:26] and they will be submitting paperwork for 501-C3 status soon and it's anticipated that they'll get that designation in 2022.

[16:38] So we're really excited about this new foundation.

[16:44] So in closing I just want to share with you a few ways you can get involved with the health district.

[16:49] We have a number of resources on our website including social media messaging you can share.

[16:56] If you're a social media outlet or posters that you can print out, news, letters, and updates

[17:03] that are free,

[17:07] you can also participate in our BackSept Snowco video series.

[17:10] We've had a lot of great people come on board and talk about why they decided to get vaccinated.

[17:17] So that's been a nice way to interact with the community.

[17:22] And I want to thank you for allowing us time on your agenda.

[17:26] I know you guys often have a busy schedule.

[17:28] I really thank you for the time.

[17:32] Thank you.

[17:33] Any questions for the health district?

[17:36] Councillor Christian and Johnson, then Councillor Freda and Allison and Councillor President.

[17:42] And Councillor Buchnus.

[17:45] Thank you for your presentation.

[17:48] Our mayor recently formed a homelessness task force.

[17:52] And I was wondering if the health department has,

[17:56] if you track any information about homelessness and if you have any correlation data to COVID-19 or your drug tracking and overdoses.

[18:13] Specifically with homeless individuals. Correct.

[18:18] Yes, we do rely a bit on the point in time survey that's done every year that goes out and they kind of survey.

[18:27] people in the communities. And I can follow up with our epidemiologists on what data we might

[18:32] specifically have around homelessness and COVID and some of the overdoses and get that right

[18:37] back to you. Okay, thank you. I'm not on the task force but we have several council members that are.

[18:46] I'm sure they'd appreciate that.

[18:52] That's my feeling. Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you to our rock star

[19:08] I'm looking forward to working through this strategic plan and the fundraising plan for the foundation, which is a volunteer board of folks that has came in to try and figure out a way to provide funding for public health.

[19:24] I would hope that the city eventually here would go back to having a fund where we can look at things like overdose prevention.

[19:36] Our fund was reduced in light of other sorts of projects here in the last couple of years.

[19:43] And COVID kind of put a screeching stop to a lot of the work we were doing around overdose prevention.

[19:48] But hopefully we can start building that fun back up again to start looking at ways of teaching seniors and children and lots of people how to manage drugs and itself in bringing them into your houses and then thanks for the overview of the current budget it looks like I'm sure the budget committee again, and I wasn't aware that we had such a nice reserve there, but you are right Katie.

[20:18] that is really to be used in the following years for COVID.

[20:24] And we hired Katie, was it 150 staff this year?

[20:28] Yeah. 150 staff to track COVID.

[20:32] And that's quite a huge amount of money.

[20:34] They were all, you know, I believe, temporary

[20:36] or the majority of them were, but we needed that level

[20:40] of staffing to, to continue with COVID.

[20:42] So again, thanks, Katie, and we shall see you soon.

[20:52] Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Curtis, for your presentation. It was very

[20:57] interesting. There's been a lot of changes in public health over the last year and a half,

[21:03] and I'm sure it's a rapidly moving target. I had noticed last spring or whenever it was that

[21:10] that the public foundation was put into place. Now, what is the funding need that the foundation

[21:18] is going to be trying to meet for the public health district.

[21:24] So the foundation, since it is a nonprofit,

[21:29] and hopefully we'll become a 501C3,

[21:31] they'll be able to apply for grants that the health district

[21:34] isn't eligible for as a governmental organization.

[21:37] So hopefully they'll be able to help fund some of the projects

[21:40] that we really would like to work on

[21:42] and that our community would like to see us work on,

[21:44] but we just aren't eligible for that for those funding streams.

[21:47] Okay, great. Well, good luck with all that and keep this posted because this is, you know, you're a huge part of our community.

[21:55] More and more and more and more, so thank you so much for all your work.

[22:00] That's our voices.

[22:02] Thank you, Ms. Curtis, for your presentation.

[22:04] I too am interested in the sound foundation for Public Health.

[22:09] Is it strictly in Snohelmish County?

[22:11] Or is it going to be more like Pugest Sound Partnership where you have all groups involved?

[22:16] Now, it should just be for the home-ish county.

[22:19] So home-ish county.

[22:20] And then, so you're going to try and get

[22:23] fill in for off of dollars to help do different programs.

[22:28] Correct.

[22:28] Are you going to go out to maybe large donors?

[22:31] Or you haven't really gotten to that purpose?

[22:34] Or that mission statements yet?

[22:37] I don't know if they've gotten that far yet.

[22:39] I would expect they'll be looking at all avenues of funding

[22:42] that may be available to them.

[22:44] Okay. Great. I think this will be great. I will look forward to seeing what your business

[22:51] plan and your mission statement is because, you know, pizza sound partnership, which is obviously

[22:56] the environment. They also are looking into using a foundation to get philanthropic dollars

[23:02] because you just don't have any money anymore. I mean, you have money coming in from the state,

[23:08] the federal, but you don't have money that you can easily obtain from the millionaires and billionaires

[23:13] live in the community. So that's one reason to have that foundation funded. So great. Thank you very much.

[23:27] Other questions? Thank you very much, Keith.

[23:31] Thank you so much.

[23:36] Excitemally, Janet, is approval of the agenda.

[23:39] Is there a motion to approve?

[23:40] Motion to approve.

[23:42] Is there a second move in second in discussion?

[23:47] All those in favor, show of hands?

[23:51] All those opposed?

[23:52] Motion passes.

[23:54] Next, I think Janet is audience comments, and I should probably preface it that we do

[23:59] also have a public hearing tonight.

[24:02] So if you hear for that, that will be coming right after.

[24:07] So we're right after our approval in the Senate, so if you hear for the stormwater management

[24:11] could have public hearing, this is not the comments section for that.

[24:14] This is anything but the public hearing on stormwater management.

[24:18] So, in the other topic, this is the time for audience comments.

[24:23] You'll have three minutes.

[24:24] You'll get a three second warning from our city clerk Scott Passy, and then a final warning

[24:30] at the three minute mark.

[24:31] You press star nine on your, I'm sorry, you use your, raise your virtual hand, excuse me,

[24:37] if you're on a computer tablet, smart phone, but if you're on a landline, you press star

[24:42] nine.

[24:43] So, we'll go check them on to see who we have.

[24:46] And

[24:51] first person I see is Linda S.

[25:02] I'm Linda Furking, Stad.

[25:04] In 10 days, Governor Inslee is imposing a plastic bag, plastic straw, plastic coffee stir

[25:10] ban in Washington State.

[25:12] It requires more trees to be cut for paper bags, paper straws and wood stirs,

[25:16] amongst other things.

[25:18] Ironically, this council is voted in a tree ordinance to save trees in Washington State.

[25:24] A state that is the second largest timber and exporter of the United States.

[25:30] Everyone who lives or works in Edmunds has reached the benefits of property division,

[25:34] tree removal, and building without it, facing a 100% tree tax.

[25:40] Your tree ordinance requires Edmunds landowners and soon homeowners to pay for

[25:44] arborist assessment and pay fee equal to the worth of their trees from 3312,000

[25:50] each treat before removal. There is no equity or equality in the Edmund Street Code.

[25:56] Trees belong to the owners of the property they are growing on, not the city. This ordinance

[26:02] allows the city to possess all Edmund's trees above 24 inch, DBH, and property owners are required

[26:09] to buy them back from the city, purchasing them twice before they're allowed to trim or remove their

[26:15] This is an obvious, unconstitutional taking of private property which was advised against by the Washington State Attorney General in number 5 on today's agenda packet page 213 regarding the capital facilities plan.

[26:30] It applies here too. You are breaking the law to accomplish an agenda you feel is more important than our constitutional rights.

[26:38] It is obviously illegal and you are imposing it.

[26:43] You are punishing those working to fulfill the single family housing needs of our community

[26:47] and greatly raising costs to build new homes in Edmunds that is zone for high density.

[26:53] As council members, you swore to uphold the constitution when installed in the office.

[26:58] You are moved to punish property and homeowners who need to remove a treat, especially

[27:02] while they are adhering to the strict guidelines of Edmonds as noted in your 283 pages

[27:08] of just stormwater rules, defies your sworn oath, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Washington

[27:17] Growth Management Act, and Edmonds' own comprehensive plan. You voted to place undue hardship

[27:22] on Edmonds' land and homeowners. The city of Edmonds has delayed our building plans by years

[27:27] and increased our building costs by more than $100,000, by lading the Growth Management Act.

[27:34] We're here in Nelson and each council member here live in homes for which trees were removed

[27:40] in order for your homes to be built and views of the sound and mountains to be seen.

[27:44] Are you willing to pay a 100% tree tax for the trees that were removed from your properties?

[27:50] If not, your tree code is illegally and discriminately targeting and punishing a group of people

[27:56] who are legally allowed to build phones on the property they own, which is also zoned single

[28:03] family zoned.

[28:05] Thank you for listening and please revise your tree ordinance to avoid undue hardship

[28:09] on Edmund's citizens.

[28:11] Next, we have the showroom.

[28:32] Hi there, am I on?

[28:34] Yes.

[28:35] Okay, very good.

[28:36] All right.

[28:36] First and foremost, keep our single family zoning intact.

[28:40] We have already met the density requirements for Edmunds for the Growth Management Act.

[28:43] We've already gone from 44,000 to 52,000 people,

[28:48] add in another 3,300 units on Aurora and we will exceed 60,000.

[28:52] Crime has gone up and will continue to do so as our population grows.

[28:56] We must keep this under control.

[28:58] A homeless task force was created without public involvement or

[29:01] initiation by the council.

[29:04] Bias is going to be created and it appears that those

[29:08] include as a far police, public defender,

[29:10] office social worker and the City Attorney, it's a sign you're expecting Edmunds to be headed

[29:17] for some hard times. That troubles me. Revisiting a code for use of public spaces I believe

[29:23] is code for allowing others to eventually take over our public spaces and I know most tax

[29:29] paying constituents will be very angry over this. It would be a violation of Washington State

[29:35] to allow illegal loitering. Mr. Mayor, your executive powers include enforcing laws, codes,

[29:42] ordinances, and handling our budget. Continuous overreach will not serve you or the constituents

[29:47] of this community if allowed to continue. And Council, it's your job to enforce what I'm saying here.

[29:54] Citizens should be represented on the task course.

[30:02] Agencies, agencies should be added to help self-reliance. This is important. Edmund's community college offers worker retraining programs, consider investing in people for programs that will get the work on their feet.

[30:16] If we don't provide a way of reentry into the workforce, you're creating a dependency for federal dollars. In which case we will ask our government here to stop accepting federal monies.

[30:27] Please establish bare minimum criteria that housing will be provided to those that are drug and alcohol free to

[30:32] do otherwise puts the community at risk of crime by those seeking to steal and get money for drugs.

[30:38] That showed up on men, by the way, your actions matter on this and we will be watching.

[30:42] It is imperative as our representatives that you develop a process for filing formal complaints when the code of conduct

[30:49] and or the code of ethics violations occur to have a code of conduct but no way to enforce it is useless.

[30:57] That code is there to help you understand appropriate behavior for your conduct and to help guide your actions.

[31:03] A complete process must be initiated now and it reflects poorly on you that you have not done so already.

[31:10] Please take care of this. This is embarrassing.

[31:12] officials committing code of conduct violations can be dealt with to remedy almost any situation.

[31:18] No sanctions from you to other members, you are setting that member up to fail.

[31:23] Not getting poor decision making under control will not stand with us.

[31:27] We are beyond not okay with any of you drinking prior to or during a council meeting, while you are voting on our laws.

[31:35] Any disrespect shown to citizens is not okay and needs to be dealt with.

[31:39] When you do it, expect to be called on it.

[31:43] I was a Paul.

[31:44] Please, could you include your marks?

[31:47] All right.

[31:47] Thank you.

[31:48] Thank you.

[31:49] Next we have Susan H.

[31:54] Good.

[31:56] May I mute?

[31:57] Can you mute?

[31:57] I know.

[31:58] I can hear you.

[31:59] Okay.

[32:01] Yes.

[32:01] Susan Hues, I'm 40-year-old resident of Edmunds.

[32:04] I'm concerned about the council member.

[32:06] Adriana Failing Manise has gone from trying to justify drinking on the job.

[32:10] to bowling, concerns, citizens, and making false statements.

[32:14] I spoke about holding council members accountable for their action that the September 7th

[32:18] Council meeting.

[32:19] Monize stated in her comments at the end of the meeting that I and Carolyn Strong, who also

[32:23] commented about Monize drinking on the job Carter drunk, and what we said was hate speech.

[32:28] She also turned off her camera while I was speaking, and flipped the loser sign at Carolyn Strong

[32:32] who spoke.

[32:33] All of this can be seen, heard, and read on the council minutes.

[32:36] Evidently, Council Member Monius has taken a page out of Mayor Nelson's playbook.

[32:40] Gaslight, I'm true inflammatory statements, vindictive and bowling.

[32:44] Every citizen should watch a read the comments made by citizens at the July 27th

[32:48] meeting.

[32:49] These are heartfelt comments from concerned citizens on issues affecting the city of Edmunds.

[32:54] But the mayor turned on the citizens.

[32:56] This isn't needs to listen to the mayor's false statements at the end of the August 3rd

[32:59] meeting.

[32:59] He was bowling, gaslighting and creating a false narrative as to what the citizen had said

[33:04] at the July 27 meeting.

[33:06] Citizens have verifiable evidence to the false statements outright lies of the mayor.

[33:10] The silence for city council members to hold the mayor accountable for the false statements

[33:14] shows that the citizens that they approve of the mayor's lies.

[33:17] So now the mayor has said and done nothing concerning a council member drink on the

[33:20] job.

[33:21] Just two in the Edmund City government is allowed to drink on the job.

[33:24] Evidently the mayor feels everyone is.

[33:26] Wife and City Council upholding the code of conduct.

[33:28] It states, personal, insulting, or intimidating language, body language, and actions are not allowed,

[33:35] and states, no signs are partially prejudiced or disrespect should be evident on the part of

[33:40] council members toward any individual participating in a public meeting.

[33:44] City Council adopted a code of conduct they don't follow.

[33:47] I've lived in Edmonton for 40 years and just started paying attention to the city government, and

[33:51] I'm appalled.

[33:52] It is frightening that we have a mayor and a council member attacking concerned citizens,

[33:56] and attitude of they can do no wrong and are above-reported.

[34:00] Does not best serve the citizens.

[34:02] They have taken an oath to represent.

[34:04] Time to raise a level of professionalism in our city government.

[34:07] It is an honor to be elected to City Council.

[34:09] And on number of a second, we need to let people that respect that position.

[34:14] That's it.

[34:19] Next we have Natalie Sains.

[34:24] Are you able to hear me?

[34:26] Yes.

[34:26] Thank you.

[34:27] I'm commenting right about trees and equity.

[34:29] as these topics touched several of the council agenda items tonight, and I understand what's

[34:34] speaking up the hearing. Tonight, the city is conducting a hearing on the Stormwater Code,

[34:39] given the process by which draft code amendments are reviewed by ecology, it is too late to make

[34:43] major adjustments at this point. I want to use this opportunity to point out that this is one code

[34:48] where the city can make real progress at favors retention and planting of trees. trees are already

[34:53] recognizes a low impact development, best management practice, 5.1-16, or 5.16 in the western

[34:59] Washington stormwater manual.

[35:01] This city could take further steps to prioritize the use of this BMP in its code and seek

[35:06] to require drainage easements for trees as a stormwater BMP.

[35:09] Drainage easements can provide a long-term durable space for trees in the urban environment

[35:13] and comes with a built-in enforcement mechanism through the Clean Water Act.

[35:17] It would be significantly easier to enforce than a tree maintenance regulation.

[35:20] City planners can look at the City of Philadelphia for an example of trees used as drainage infrastructure.

[35:26] I hope the city will put the preliminary planning work in necessary to have this be a component of the city's code.

[35:32] When the next municipal permit update and corresponding code revision happens in five years.

[35:37] With regard to equity, 1.6 million for part construction and other 4.44 facilities maintenance,

[35:44] likely including renovation of Francis Anderson for the benefit of downtown.

[35:47] I will continue to be critical of the selection and planning process that went into civic

[35:51] center.

[35:52] The 2016 closed plan both identifying that the downtown was well-resourced in comparison

[35:56] to the rest of the city and designed that this $15 million investment in civic center was

[36:01] the right action.

[36:02] A neighborhood park with no parking for the Quote Greater Edmunds community and the 2016 closed

[36:08] plan process with a vast majority of public events were held downtown, similarly to the

[36:13] master plan for civic center.

[36:14] These were selected rather than robust training processes, is it any wonder that this is the outcome?

[36:20] While the toxic taste of admins and hanging flower baskets boosts downtown businesses,

[36:24] where is the investment in the international district in SR-994 that drive the commercial sales taxes for the city?

[36:30] Why hasn't the city help create spaces near the international district so that events can be held there?

[36:35] Why isn't the Inter-Eurvent Trail a recognized recreational bicycle resource with no dedicated lane from the intersection with SR-104?

[36:43] identified in the citywide bicycle improvement project. How many of the grants from the Edmund's

[36:48] rescue plan went to businesses and nonprofit organizations outside the bowl, not many, not enough.

[36:54] The city has spoken a specific center as a generational and the legacy investment. While many of the

[37:00] funding decisions I just mentioned were not initiated by this council and I do understand it is hard to

[37:05] change course. The current council is responsible for the decision this makes today and upholding the

[37:13] Civics Center will be remembered as a generational legacy, perhaps not the one you intended.

[37:18] Thank you for your time and consideration on these comments, and thank you for your service.

[37:23] Thanks for your time and consideration on these comments, and thank you for your service.

[37:28] Good evening, Mayor, and council members.

[37:31] I am speaking to you once again from outside City Hall, along with others of your constituents.

[37:36] I am requesting that council vote to be turned to in-person meetings on September 28th, as citizens,

[37:41] We have a right to take in the meetings and the fact that we have been shut out of in-person

[37:48] opportunities to speak with our electives is unacceptable.

[37:51] As adults who can choose to be here or to take part on Zoom, our health choices are our

[37:57] choices.

[37:58] The fact that council member, Disilhorses, ridiculed adults who may or may not have taken the

[38:04] vaccine was out of line and not pertinent to the fact that you refuse to have council meetings

[38:09] in person.

[38:10] He is calling some first responders, teachers, medical personnel, and other adults who have

[38:15] decided that the vaccine may not be the best for their help, not responsible adults

[38:21] outrageous and out of touch.

[38:24] Who does he think he is to speak to constituents like that?

[38:28] It must be easy to speak to outlandishly when hiding behind a computer camera.

[38:33] Adrian Prawley Manellis spoke to the council by spoke for the council by signing a letter

[38:41] as such in the response to my letter to the editor in my Edmunds News last week.

[38:47] In it, she falsely likened constituents speaking their heartfelt concerns to the council

[38:51] as an insurrection out of touch.

[38:55] She then went on to double down on the mayor's insiduating that on July 27, the citizens

[39:01] at the council meeting whose median age was well over 50, we're having some kind of

[39:06] kegger in the parking lot. This from the council member co-authentate drinking while voting

[39:11] on city issues and never apologizing to the people for breaching the city's code of

[39:16] conduct out of touch. I asked the council to censure this council member for drinking on the

[39:25] job, slandering the citizens of Edmunds and for image surely flashing a loser signet made

[39:30] during my public comments two weeks ago.

[39:33] Are we in grade school really?

[39:35] Grow up and take your job seriously.

[39:38] Until the council puts some teeth

[39:39] behind breaching a code of conduct

[39:41] and enforces it, nobody can take this council seriously.

[39:45] Will it take a lawsuit from my slander citizen

[39:47] to make you wake up?

[39:49] We may soon find out.

[39:51] These outrageous behaviors mentioned above

[39:54] come about because you are out of touch with citizens.

[39:57] Not seeing your constituents face to face

[40:00] as giving you a look, and is completely out of touch with reality.

[40:05] Edmund craze and deserves accountability and dignity in our local government.

[40:10] Sadly, we have none.

[40:12] Do your job and serve the people of Edmunds rather than continually disrespecting them.

[40:17] Thank you.

[40:24] Next, we have Nora Carlson.

[40:32] Good evening.

[40:35] As I said, my name is Nora Carlson, and I live in the Westgate neighborhood of Edmunds.

[40:40] I'm speaking to you tonight once again to go on record as a resident urging you to assist all of the neighbors along with the staff of Westgate Elementary School, who have ongoing concerns about the safety issues with the dangerous intersection of 96 and 224th.

[40:58] You should have received a message from me yesterday, but the summary of the issues and actions

[41:04] taken thus far to address the safety concerns of this intersection that is well known for its

[41:11] challenges. If you have not yet read the summary, I certainly hope you will do so soon.

[41:18] For the sake of time, here are highlights of the continued safety concerns.

[41:23] Vehicles frequently exceeding the speed limit along to 24th in both directions. Vehicles

[41:29] using 224th to bypass 220th and Edmund's way to access 9th with fewer stops. Vehicles

[41:38] preceding through the stop signs on 96th in both directions, causing near misses with other

[41:44] vehicles and pedestrians. Confusion by drivers, whether it is a 2-way or 4-way stop, even

[41:52] with the current signage.

[41:54] Visibility challenges for drivers at the north facing stop sign at 96 with current signage

[42:01] location and pavement markings.

[42:05] On behalf of our neighbors, along with the staff, parents, and students at Westgate Elementary

[42:11] School, I request that the intersection become a priority for needed changes to ensure the safety

[42:19] pedestrians and drivers who use this intersection so near Westgate Elementary School.

[42:26] It is truly a matter of time before there could be a serious accident where 96 and

[42:32] 224th intersect that could potentially injure or kill an adult or child. I certainly do not

[42:40] want to live with that, which is what motivates me to continue working toward improving the safety

[42:46] of this location. We urgently need your help to effectively address changes to this intersection.

[42:55] I greatly appreciate your time, attention, and support. Thank you.

[43:03] Next we have is a phone number of 407. Is there any code?

[43:10] And the last four are eight four six five. Do you just stay your name for the record?

[43:19] Yes.

[43:20] You hear me.

[43:23] My name is Adam Becher.

[43:27] I would like to comment on the design of 100 and Edmund's way.

[43:36] I both drive and bike is this intersection and it's pretty messy for both modes to

[43:40] right now to be honest.

[43:42] There's been some discussion whether to share as your bike lanes and I'm glad we're looking

[43:46] premiums, but as somebody could both drive and buy to this intersection, I support bike lanes.

[43:52] They're pretty much the bare minimum need to help get sort of this kind of investment intersection.

[43:58] It's pretty risky right now, and with shares, I don't think it's going to get a whole lot better,

[44:04] because they don't really get clear direction. They're like the thoughts and prayers of bike infrastructure,

[44:08] and can actually make things more dangerous and confusing by giving it false sincerity.

[44:13] I've had close call to both in cars and bikes and definitely would appreciate that clarity.

[44:19] I know there are some concerns about this option not being optimized to make cars so

[44:23] the staff is possible to keep travel kind of which is sort of in narrow period of the day.

[44:28] A slightly less efficient intersection for car speeding isn't really the only factor.

[44:32] Since Edmunds, I feel like it was once you pound and not just like the sewer system.

[44:39] I think people of all ages care getting around in this neighborhood and I feel like the decisions

[44:43] making more dangerous street as this intersection would make it more hostile and could

[44:47] result, you know, in some pretty bad outcomes that had friends get the hit at the center

[44:51] side of the intersection, somebody is taken good dye. That's not a decision you want to make,

[44:57] because it's not worth making the neighborhood more hostile.

[45:01] This is not a high-speed sewer for Congress.

[45:06] So please do the bike lanes, they're nice and clear.

[45:11] There's some like there's a minimal

[45:12] it to traffic and I think we'll ultimately make it safer and as a motorist and a cyclist, I would appreciate this.

[45:20] Thanks for your time and thanks for listening and thanks for adjusting this intersection. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes up.

[45:30] Next, we have Michelle Dodge.

[45:41] Alright, thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Council President and other council members.

[45:45] My name is Michelle Dodge, Edmund Resident.

[45:47] The comment is regarding the bicycle lane configuration and pedestrian safety discussion on your agenda for tonight.

[45:55] Since I used this route to drive to and from work for over 20 years, I was extremely concerned

[45:59] about Westgate and the potential loss of the dual through vehicle lanes in each direction.

[46:04] They easily allow vehicles to both get through the area to travel to a further destination

[46:08] as well as those vehicles who slow down and turn in and out to do business at so many businesses located in this tight commercial access for cars right now.

[46:18] It must be one of our most heavily traveled intersections with tight business corridors outside of Highway 99.

[46:24] It even crosses a state highway.

[46:26] In the package of night, there is yet another attempt to remove a vehicle driving lane from each direction on 100 through the Westgate corridor.

[46:33] If you listen to the public at these previous meetings, the hundreds of emails you receive from the residents who live by and travel these routes,

[46:40] there was no clamor by almost anyone to remove drive lanes at Westgate and exchange for dedicated bike lanes.

[46:46] If anything, the overwhelming majority expressed the same concern of losing vehicle lanes at Westgate.

[46:52] Vehicle trips are now closer to pre-COVID numbers with schools back in person.

[46:55] Literally, those few bicyclists who travel through there could now be directed to go toward

[47:00] the middle of that intersection with cars turning every which way, and it is just not going

[47:05] to be safe for anyone, especially bicyclists competing for even tighter lane spaces with cars.

[47:11] Having the bicyclists take a single minute to dismount and walk their bicycles across a very

[47:15] well-marked crosswalk, along with the pedestrians, would be the best and safest option.

[47:20] Please keep the original plan of bicycles using the sidewalk and crosswalk there and do not

[47:24] remove two of the four lanes of vehicle travel north and south through Westgate and the

[47:28] supporting businesses. Even director Williams agreed this was the best option at the

[47:32] last presentation. Why revisit this again? The seems like pushing for a square peg to fit

[47:37] into a round hole. As for the proposed bullbats, please use the flashing beacons and crosswalks

[47:43] only. The bullbats as the four people living on Dayton Street can tell you are the reason

[47:48] the ridiculous ghost island had to be put in at 8th and Dayton. The consequence of a two and

[47:52] have time-sized corner sidewalk pushes the buses, trucks, cars, and even bicycles into the center

[47:58] of the road, making the old-wide turning radius with the more effective small roundabout

[48:03] in that intersection no longer possible.

[48:06] Drive on 84th from 220th to 5 corners, and you will immediately see more problems from these

[48:10] bullbats.

[48:12] There have been orange cones.

[48:14] There have been orange cones for two years now on the 84th bullbats, because it is literally

[48:19] in the road.

[48:20] No one can see it or expect it to be there.

[48:23] It is redundant and is creating other unintended consequences.

[48:27] Please take the proposed two and a half times side sidewalks and put that extra cement

[48:30] to better use for normal sidewalks and admins that citizens are begging you for safety.

[48:35] There are so many needed right now to choose from.

[48:36] Take your pick.

[48:38] Or use the extra money for the intersection that the previous commentator,

[48:41] commentator, commentator, spoke of.

[48:43] Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.

[48:47] Okay, look at your seat. There's any more hands raised.

[49:00] Okay, not seeing any next move to approval of the consent agenda.

[49:04] Is there a motion to approve?

[49:06] Motion to approve consent agenda.

[49:08] Is there a second move in seconded discussion?

[49:12] All is the favorite show of hands?

[49:16] What's the post? Motion passes.

[49:19] Next we have the public hearing for Stormwater Management Code,

[49:23] ECDC 18.30 there

[49:39] are stormwater people, Mr. Williams, Mr. Richardson,

[49:48] I believe Rob and also

[49:50] our consultant are also waiting to join the Cascadia staff.

[49:58] I'm going to have to be the bike step. That's the bike step, I'm not sure.

[50:06] Yeah, it's not that's good then. Yeah, good evening.

[50:12] So, shall I go ahead with the presentation piece and we'll do the comments after that?

[50:16] Yeah, I guess I would just start out by saying you've heard this before.

[50:21] I think that presentation went well as a short while ago, and we're going to repeat that.

[50:26] And then obviously take comments at the public hearing and you happy to answer your questions after that,

[50:31] or even during this presentation if you'd like.

[50:38] So I had Jack.

[50:42] Okay.

[50:42] So I should be said, like you'll said, this is pretty much the same presentation that I gave last time we discussed this topic.

[50:51] I did tweak the presentation just slightly since your packet version just includes some like cost information to address some questions we got last time.

[50:59] So just a couple minor differences as we go through this, but it's just one section.

[51:04] So the first starting point is why is it we are doing this obviously it's required for

[51:12] our NPDS permit with the state the state issues their new manual and then we follow suit so

[51:17] their new manual their 2019 manual has been issued and so we are required to comply by July of 2022

[51:25] right now we're on track for January 1st 2022 that just being for simplicity and applying it to new

[51:33] It's cleaner to have the beginning of the years, the start date, and then the changes inside the

[51:40] ecology manual are summarized in your packet and that document is called the crosswalk.

[51:45] That's an ecology document.

[51:47] It just sums up the changes that they've made within their document that we are now adopting.

[51:55] So quick run down of the drainage review process.

[51:58] string and review is really required when we start doing new development or read development.

[52:04] When there's new or replaced hard surfaces, that's the main threshold we use for determining

[52:09] when drainage reviews are required. There are some larger thresholds for just land clearing

[52:14] activities too, but generally it's the impervious thresholds that are going to trigger the drainage review.

[52:20] So smaller projects, we call them category one projects. They are projects that are between

[52:26] in square feet and 5,000 square feet of new in replace hard surfaces.

[52:31] Sorry, I want to back up, right?

[52:32] Hard surfaces is kind of a new return ecology event.

[52:37] It's just meant to be more of a catch-all than the term impervious surface,

[52:41] because we have things like purvious pavements and gravel roads.

[52:45] So anything that slows down the infiltration of natural water into the ground is considered a hard surface.

[52:52] So that includes any vehicle road surface, whether it's gravel, dirt, paved, or not.

[52:58] So it's not just pavement, it's just a slightly more robust term.

[53:02] And then the term replace includes anything where in the process of reconstruction,

[53:07] you're going to remove the pavement and expose the subgrade underneath.

[53:11] So, you know, ripping out the whole driveway and replacing it,

[53:13] that's going to trigger drainage review as replaced in previous.

[53:16] But a grind in overlay where you leave some of the asphalt in place,

[53:20] that may not trigger the drainage review.

[53:24] So, sorry, then going ahead, where are smaller projects are 2,000 to 5,000 square feet?

[53:29] And those trigger what we call minimum requirements 1 through 5, minimum requirement 5 is probably

[53:35] the really important one.

[53:36] That's our LED requirement.

[53:37] And this is how we get most of our stormwater mitigation amendments, most of the projects

[53:43] fall into this smaller size and it's the LED requirement, which you see is aimed at actually

[53:49] low flow events. So this is looking at those events that we know have the potential to cause a

[53:54] erosion and those are the ones we're looking to reduce.

[53:57] Category 2 are the larger projects. This is when projects start to get over 5,000 square

[54:03] feet of impervious. Some of the larger single-family homes do trigger that, but very rarely do.

[54:10] We have projects single-family projects that trigger the full flow control requirement.

[54:15] So over 5,000, the requirements you have to comply with go from 1 through 5 to 1 through 9,

[54:23] these add in to pretty big requirements, 1 being the flow control, which has been a

[54:27] moment apart with 7.

[54:29] So for anything over 10,000 square feet, this is where you're matching the entire duration

[54:33] of a store.

[54:35] We run a model for fully-forced conditions and we compare the current model and we match it

[54:41] that not only are the peaks all matched, but the flow durations are all matched over that course,

[54:46] and we are taking that historic conditions as back to the force to conditions in models.

[54:51] So we are trying to go all the way back to the beginning when we do that process.

[54:56] And then what quality is minimum requirements fixed so that anything that has over 5,000 square feet

[55:01] of pollution generating surfaces is actually required to treat their strong water.

[55:06] Pollution generating surfaces are generally any surface where a vehicle can drive anywhere

[55:11] where they can drip oil, it instantly becomes subject of pollution. Usually roofs are not considered

[55:18] pollution generating, assuming they're properly treated with kind of more modern chemicals

[55:23] and such. So this is more specific to parking spaces that require treatment. And that design requirement

[55:31] is for that two-year flow, which is that first flush where we really get most of the gunk off

[55:36] road in that very first wash-out. So that's the target we use for that. Looking at how

[55:43] we've done since our last code came in, again, not looking at the large commercial projects

[55:50] or plat projects, just looking at the single family homes as they got built, whether they're

[55:54] utilizing their own system or a plat system. So about half of them, 24 of those 52 used

[56:01] through LED VMPs, the infiltration base,

[56:05] actually leading to reduced storm water.

[56:08] We had a handful that did still slip through

[56:10] with the direct discharge and exemption,

[56:12] where basically if you're so close to the sound,

[56:14] we don't really care about slowing the water down.

[56:16] We just want you to go ahead and let it get to the sound.

[56:19] And then perverted pipe connections are kind of the

[56:21] bare, bare, last minimum thing we can get out of storm water.

[56:25] But the thing that's really worth highlighting in this slide to me is

[56:28] without our Edmund's additions that we've added to the code,

[56:33] 22 of those projects would have gone through without any

[56:35] stormwater mitigation.

[56:37] So Edmund's addition to add detention tanks

[56:40] to the LED list is a huge one.

[56:43] For the way, we actually achieve stormwater mitigation

[56:46] in the city.

[56:52] Is that all right?

[56:57] OK.

[56:58] So this is actually a really simple change

[57:01] as far as a simple update as far as stormwater code goes.

[57:04] There's no major new requirements coming down from ecology, no new LED requirement or new change to use that forced ignition, which have really been big shake ups in the past.

[57:15] This one's pretty quiet on that front.

[57:18] So most of their changes are mostly a reorganization and just kind of clean up stuff.

[57:24] Most of them are really substantive changes.

[57:28] But inside your agenda packet, I did provide a spreadsheet where we broken out all the changes.

[57:33] The ones that are highlighted in orange are really the ones that they've already prescribed so we're pretty much our hands are tied on those

[57:41] The ones in white are ones that we've proposed but they're really just reorganization or clarifications are not such and it changes either and then the handful and green or the ones that actually have potential impacts on development in our opinion.

[57:55] So those are the ones we'll discuss kind of from here on out, but currently the draft you have in front of you is running through a CPA

[58:02] Let's see for review and a Department of Commerce review so that we can bring it back.

[58:09] So, the first of the four major changes is how we handle existing surfaces that aren't

[58:16] already connected to our system.

[58:19] As I mentioned, the way we do drainage review now is all based on new plus replaced impervious

[58:23] surfaces.

[58:24] So, there's kind of this gray area on how everyone handles existing situations that are

[58:29] potentially be considered a new impact. So our old code didn't allow for some connection

[58:36] of existing surfaces, but it required some documentation focused mostly on just the capacity

[58:43] of the pipe system. It wasn't really focused on protecting the streams and creeks and downstream

[58:48] waters. So the revision we propose is that if you're going to connect 2,000 square feet or more

[58:56] of existing and appropriate service that didn't drain to our system before, we're going to treat that just like it's brand new to us, even if it's not developed.

[59:05] So that would require going through the whole drain interview and providing mitigation for those existing services before you connect.

[59:13] And to be very clear, this is not for older homes that had a connection that they need to maintain or replace those would totally be permitted.

[59:21] this is just where we actually think there's a new impact to the system where the water was

[59:27] most likely infiltrating or dispersing through a natural process somewhere before,

[59:31] and now it's going to go straight into our pipes system and how do we manage that change?

[59:36] So, staff opinion is that these should really be treated like new connections because they really are

[59:40] to impact, and so that's the way we see it. There's a very small handful of projects that I can

[59:48] think of that would come in like this. Again, this would be for a project that's not doing

[59:53] development over 2000 square feet. They're not, they don't already have a drainage system

[59:58] connecting to our system.

[1:00:00] But somehow they just want to change their whole way of their sight drains. I haven't seen very many of these come in. Just occasionally people want to change their drainage. So in that case, we would implement this change. And this change does have potentially a big impact because it would require a full drainage review. The rest of the changes you'll see, they're just small volume increases over what was already required.

[1:00:28] And this change would be going from nothing to everything, so this has the biggest potential

[1:00:35] cost to a single developer or a single family home.

[1:00:40] And so you can see I think we cost, unfortunately that slide's partially covered up on my

[1:00:44] screen, but I think it says 6,000,000,000,000 if I don't quite remember, but there's a price

[1:00:49] down there and it's a bottom in the text.

[1:00:54] Change that word to comes from the fact that we now know there's an overflow to the Edmunds

[1:00:59] from Edmund's way of basin. The pipe system that comes down the highway cuts through the marsh,

[1:01:04] and eventually discharges to the sound. But there is a manhole in between where in high

[1:01:10] tides the water pops up and ends up draining into the marsh and becoming part of that natural

[1:01:15] system. As I mentioned that direct discharge was really meant to be an exemption where there's

[1:01:21] no way you're going to impact the natural system. So go ahead and get it out to the sound. So

[1:01:26] Now that we know this has a potential to impact the natural system, it really shouldn't qualify for direct discharge anymore.

[1:01:33] And then we had some other exemptions that were also tied to that qualification.

[1:01:37] So, the new code is proposing to just remove all of the exemptions for Edmund's way.

[1:01:42] And ultimately, this just means that projects within Edmund's way are going to go through the exact same process, the exact same standards as any other project in the city.

[1:01:51] And I put some estimated cost down there for small projects, it's going to be really minimal.

[1:01:57] They're just a handful of extra BMPs they have to consider.

[1:02:01] So, and most again, you're talking about a very small change in BMP type or volume.

[1:02:05] $500 to $2,000 pretty small to all their figures when you're talking about building a whole home.

[1:02:12] And on the larger side where it is going to get larger is on the larger commercial sites where they trigger that flow control requirement,

[1:02:18] where we're actually going to match their entire discharge rate to the historic rate and that

[1:02:24] because you have to match such a wide range of things.

[1:02:27] That is at up to a decent cost.

[1:02:29] You know, potentially like $20 or $50,000 to the commercial site.

[1:02:33] Again, sites that size, we're talking about large multi-family or multi-unit commercial strip

[1:02:42] strip all types of things. These are not single family homes that we're seeing.

[1:02:49] The third proposed change has to do with Perimbo Creek. We're all pretty aware of what's

[1:02:54] going on with Perimbo Creek, and it's a basis that it happens for development over the years.

[1:03:01] And currently the code is just kind of status quo for Perimbo. So we've proposed two ways to

[1:03:06] strengthen our code and apply some more standards within that base into more aggressively

[1:03:13] protect that basin and help the recovery. One is in the retrofit requirement which is

[1:03:18] their requirement we have for people to treat 25% of their existing unminigated

[1:03:24] impervious surfaces. So again they've already triggered a view they're doing some sort

[1:03:28] of development and we say okay whatever you're leaving you have to treat 25% of that because

[1:03:34] it was grandfathered in essentially. And so we're just going to increase within that basin

[1:03:39] increase that amount from 25% to 50%.

[1:03:42] This would begin impacts small, single-family projects,

[1:03:46] but it's gonna be really, really minimal

[1:03:48] because again, we're talking about 25%

[1:03:51] of what they're leaving behind on a project

[1:03:54] that's already got more than 2000

[1:03:56] impervious surface involved in it.

[1:03:59] There's like so much they can still be leaving behind

[1:04:01] and only 25% that that is the change.

[1:04:04] So we're talking just a couple hundred bucks

[1:04:06] potential change to your average single-family home. The second piece, the flow control piece is

[1:04:12] where for this standard, we're going to suggest that they match the 100-year peak in addition to

[1:04:18] the flow duration they currently match. This is a pretty common practice in King County. It's just

[1:04:24] called the Level 3 standard. It's their standard for protecting impacted waterways. It's not,

[1:04:31] It's a pretty industry standard thing to use this.

[1:04:35] It's not overly bearing.

[1:04:37] By my estimate, again, one of those large commercial development projects,

[1:04:42] where you're talking about multiple units,

[1:04:45] they could see increases somewhere around the range of 12 to 16,000.

[1:04:51] But we do think that's really really critical to helping improve the conditions in parallel

[1:04:56] and moving towards recovery there.

[1:05:02] Change number four, this is, like I said, we had added detention pipes to the BMP list.

[1:05:08] This is how we caught those 22 projects I mentioned earlier.

[1:05:12] It was this edition that we had.

[1:05:14] However, at the time, we didn't feel confident to put this above the ecology BMP list.

[1:05:23] We put it at the very bottom of the way there, less operated.

[1:05:27] Since then, we've seen a lot of problems with these perforated pipe connections.

[1:05:29] generally they're being clicked in areas where infiltration is not desired for one

[1:05:34] reason or another ready so usually they're used in somewhat under desirable

[1:05:38] locations where they could be potentially safety concerns and so and besides that

[1:05:43] fact they've really provide almost no benefit because we have established we don't

[1:05:47] have good infiltration conditions so from a stormwater perspective they're nearly

[1:05:52] worthless from mitigation so after running an backup information we're going to

[1:05:59] type connections. This would just mean that if a person doesn't get, doesn't have

[1:06:04] infiltrative capabilities on their site, and they get to the bottom of the list, all

[1:06:08] of their surfaces are going to be a detention tank instead of just a little

[1:06:11] perforated type connection. Again, the result of this would be that nearly every

[1:06:17] project and Edmunds that's over 2,000 square feet will have some form of

[1:06:21] detention. It will more essentially guarantee that we can get some mitigation,

[1:06:25] usable mitigation out of every project. And then by my estimates, it depends on how big of a project you have, obviously, because you started to pay for building your trench one way or the other.

[1:06:38] So, as you get bigger, you get further more and more cost areas.

[1:06:42] For typical single-family project, best I could estimate it would be somewhere between $500 or $4,000 to add on that one change.

[1:06:49] So,

[1:06:53] next steps, so I mentioned our super reviews underway and our Department of Commerce Reviews underway.

[1:06:58] Both of those have a certain time period of our waiting, and I believe it's October 27th that we'll be officially through those.

[1:07:06] And then we obviously brought this public hearing now. We're not ready for formal adoption just yet.

[1:07:11] The plan is to bring it back in around November. Once we have all those approvals in place,

[1:07:16] Obviously, recognizing that November agendas are fairly packed, we wanted to get this hopefully

[1:07:22] off that plate at least and do it this way. So we will bring it back for a formal approval once we

[1:07:28] have all of those approvals from Commerce and our super review. And that is it.

[1:07:40] Do you folks want to do a few questions now? I want to go ahead and open up the public hearing.

[1:07:46] That's the question's comments on our comments on our questions.

[1:07:52] Thank you for that very thoughtful presentation.

[1:07:56] You know, I think the largest or the biggest elephant in the room on change number three,

[1:08:01] which deals with parent bill, is our neighbor to the east or linwood.

[1:08:08] Is there anything that is being done to attempt to do some sort of

[1:08:15] mitigation or ILA or something with Linwood, because, you know, they're building a lot of

[1:08:21] buildings over there. If you look at what's happening to Parenthville Creek and right by

[1:08:26] the, I see Phil one stands for my question already, even though I haven't just finished,

[1:08:31] but, but, you know, with that pipe and right there by the post office, I mean, there's just,

[1:08:42] tremendous amount of sediment that is flowing down to the creek because it's just so much water coming down from

[1:08:50] parent or from linguists are winwood, which is across the street.

[1:08:54] So how can we address that in this if possible?

[1:08:59] We could all chip in any meaningful comments we have.

[1:09:03] There was a conversation this afternoon.

[1:09:05] We had about, you know, if we get our code adopted and we're well on our way to doing that.

[1:09:12] perhaps work through the council to suggest to Linwood that they adopted similar code for

[1:09:21] the portions of the Perennial Basin that are in Linwood, that would be at least one meeting

[1:09:28] full step.

[1:09:29] I had a conversation with your council president today about that and I thought that was a

[1:09:35] good idea that she had. So maybe, I don't want to speak for Susan, but pass a resolution at the

[1:09:43] right point in time and ask Linwood to participate at least at that level. I think the county is also

[1:09:50] a potential partner. Since a great deal, we believe of the sediment that we have to deal with at

[1:09:57] the bottom of the hill comes from the county park and having conversations with them too about partnering

[1:10:03] with us. There's ultimately, there's an awful lot of work to do on Farmedville Creek to get it

[1:10:07] right again, or as right as you can get it at this point and certainly Linwood and Snowwich

[1:10:14] County, I think, are legitimate places to look for some assistance. Right now we're kind of involved

[1:10:20] in almost, almost still an emergency reaction to what's going on in the very lower parts of Farmedville

[1:10:27] Creek, and we're trying to get that off the ground. But I think there's important conversations

[1:10:32] just to be had later to put together larger projects?

[1:10:37] Good, because I mean, you know, at least in a homeish county is coming to the table at

[1:10:43] Riot 8, so we are discussing things like this, but you know, I know Lynn

[1:10:47] Wood doesn't believe that they have any impact, but our water shed and they have

[1:10:51] a tremendous impact on our waters and I know you know that.

[1:10:55] So I just hope that we can do some sort of, get in some sort of

[1:11:02] help us with this cost because it's

[1:11:06] for sure. So thank you.

[1:11:09] I have reached out to my counterpart in Lidwood and my understanding is they have not done this update yet.

[1:11:15] So there is opportunity for us to still get in with such a thing.

[1:11:23] Councillor Vissiano Johnson is your hand.

[1:11:27] I don't know if you still have your hand virtually up or if it's a new one.

[1:11:31] Sorry.

[1:11:33] You're on mute.

[1:11:41] Thank you, Mr. Richardson, for your presentation.

[1:11:46] And I, too, am concerned about Parentville Creek, the drainage basin and the storm events,

[1:11:52] which have caused flooding and saltation. Could you please explain

[1:12:00] how the proposed changes in this storm water code will affect future development

[1:12:07] in the parent-ville, drainage space, and both in Edmunds and Lundwood.

[1:12:15] So, this is just our code, in order to enact anything and then what we would have to cooperate with them,

[1:12:20] and get them to implement something in their own code.

[1:12:23] So, for Edmunds though, the two changes, one is that we will start to take a slightly bigger chunk out of the existing impervious.

[1:12:31] That's the idea behind the retrofit change.

[1:12:33] It actually seeks to go out and mitigate for the stuff that's already impacting the creating.

[1:12:41] The second change will be pretty much solely to redevelopment.

[1:12:45] It will necessarily go after what's already been done,

[1:12:48] but anything that redevelopes or anything new would be matching per or model.

[1:12:53] They'd be matching the 100-year peak, so their in theory is no flow change to the creek from those projects.

[1:12:59] the way that typical flow controls done, we actually top out at 50-year mark.

[1:13:06] So, there could, in theory, under current code, be a storm where the 100-year peak is still

[1:13:11] exceeded at the end of their development requirement.

[1:13:14] So, this change will address that, any new one will actually mess it 100-year peak.

[1:13:19] So, we should hopefully start getting that upper end, high flows under control as well.

[1:13:26] And not the 50 year peak. I'm a little unsure. I believe that our 100 year peaks occur more frequently than before.

[1:13:40] So would a more strict requirement be preferred?

[1:13:48] I don't, to be honest, I don't know within our current data how we would go above the 100-year

[1:13:53] storm, the state modeling data that we typically use for this stuff.

[1:13:58] It tops out at the 100-year storm, and so I believe at that point we kind of need an hydrology

[1:14:04] update from the state to come down, and so eventually that should catch up behind the scenes

[1:14:10] in the numbers.

[1:14:11] We are not there yet, though, admitted.

[1:14:13] Okay.

[1:14:14] All right.

[1:14:14] Thank you.

[1:14:18] have some of the more drawn to them and then Council President. Thank you. Mr. Richardson,

[1:14:23] thank you for your presentation. I, like my fellow council members, share concerns about

[1:14:28] parent-ville Creek. I am actually going to concentrate on three things that you said earlier

[1:14:36] that, um, caught my attention and concerned me just a bit, um, the first one is with regard to the term

[1:14:43] using the term hard surfaces versus the term, you know, permeable surfaces, which we're

[1:14:51] all used to, we know the definition of it. And, you know, it's not well known. You, in fact,

[1:14:56] use them interchangeably during the presentation of sort of concern.

[1:15:00] Members about confusion, you know, widespread confusion with these terms, misunderstandings, or, you know, possible misuse of it, given the, given it as such a new term. And when you say, you know, hard surfaces that does conjure up certain certain

[1:15:19] ideas versus, you know, pervious, which we've come to understand what that means. So it have concerns there that we need to do a better job defining that and making sure that it won't be misused.

[1:15:31] You mentioned that there were a handful with regard to the 52 recently reviewed SFR applications.

[1:15:39] A handful slipped through with direct discharge and exemption.

[1:15:42] And basically, for so close to the sound, we don't really care about slowing the water down.

[1:15:46] We just want it to go ahead and get it to the sound.

[1:15:51] I wanted to know more about that.

[1:15:53] Are we actually saying, you know, that roads and houses that are close to the sound

[1:16:00] are allowed to pollute, and then finally that the comment about the roofs not usually considered

[1:16:08] pollution generating, and I'm thinking about, you know, we often put moss killer in different

[1:16:12] chemicals on our roofs, and if we're not considering the pollution generating, that could be a problem for us,

[1:16:18] and you're the expert, so you know, some more input from you on that, why we're not considering them.

[1:16:25] Thank you.

[1:16:25] Yeah, so the heart surface is impervious surfaces. Yeah, I am not a stickler for those when we speak when we get to review it's obviously a much more technical separation between those. So they're not they're not terms we defined that they actually were handed down from a college with that last update.

[1:16:44] So the industry has been using those for about five years at least.

[1:16:50] So they're pretty, most people know that they are.

[1:16:53] I think the single biggest thing was there's a lot of kind

[1:16:57] of in-between things like like pervious pavements or turf fields.

[1:17:02] Is that impervious?

[1:17:03] And so they created this catch-all so that they could just grab it

[1:17:07] all and there wasn't just a bait over impervious pervious.

[1:17:10] That's my understanding of it.

[1:17:12] We do have the definitions in the the front end of that section though, so that I think it is pretty well spelled out if you actually read the definitions

[1:17:22] But yeah, I would welcome I guess more direction there if if you think we still need more

[1:17:30] Yeah, and I did not give the second one written a parent bill

[1:17:34] The direct discharge

[1:17:36] There is more to that than just there it has to be in an all pipe system so it means it does not go to a creek or anything like that and then the other thing being

[1:17:49] They do have to check the capacity on the pipe system before they can qualify for that. So we know for fact that the pipe system can handle it out to the sound. Now that requirement is a flow control requirement. And so that is a that is a flow volume flow management.

[1:18:05] management that the speed and velocity with which that water is discharged. The water quality

[1:18:11] treatment piece is completely independent of that. So if you have direct discharge and you're

[1:18:16] over the 5,000 square feet of pollution generating, you still are going to have to do the water

[1:18:20] quality treatment piece, just not the flow of constable piece. So hopefully that clarifies that.

[1:18:27] The roofs, yeah, the roofs is another thing where we really have to drill down it.

[1:18:33] The example you gave was a really good one.

[1:18:36] I believe the answer to that is education is our best weapon.

[1:18:41] To educate people on what to use, what not to use, what is illicit, what is illicit.

[1:18:47] Most of it is.

[1:18:48] It's really difficult to find things that actually can meet people's needs.

[1:18:52] But we certainly could do more research into that particular issue.

[1:18:56] that we've done that topic with yardcare before,

[1:19:00] we haven't done that with Groofcare though.

[1:19:02] So that would be an interesting suggestion to consider.

[1:19:05] The issue where I usually have it pop up more frequently

[1:19:07] is actually on the commercial and the multi-family projects

[1:19:10] where they're putting actual mechanical equipment on the roof

[1:19:13] or they're using these metals.

[1:19:15] So we do have to make sure that they're treating them properly.

[1:19:19] So they won't reach the metal material when it rains.

[1:19:21] And then also that any mechanical equipment on the roof

[1:19:24] have to be self-contained and it's still control.

[1:19:26] So if you talk to hydrochloride, it's not going to go out

[1:19:29] until it's going to stay within its units.

[1:19:33] So there are some more steps to that.

[1:19:36] But that's why I say usually there are some follow-up

[1:19:38] parts to that.

[1:19:40] So did that answer all the questions?

[1:19:43] That did a pretty good job.

[1:19:44] Thank you.

[1:19:48] That counts for me also.

[1:19:51] So I count to President and Councilor Wilson, madam.

[1:19:53] Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

[1:19:54] And thank you for the presentation, this is absolutely a wonderful presentation and I appreciate all the work that you've put into doing this and getting this to us sooner rather than later.

[1:20:09] My comment is going to be directed to director Williams, who went ahead and kind of out of one of my ideas and thoughts that I ran past them.

[1:20:18] So I just wanted to clarify with Council a little bit, and is that all this in research, and if people

[1:20:24] have some interest in working with me, I'd love to hear your thoughts, and maybe generate

[1:20:31] some ideas to run past all of Council, you know, when we have a pretty good idea about what

[1:20:38] we could do, but in a nutshell, it was to see if our neighboring city would adopt a code that

[1:20:46] with specific to the parent bill watershed, and similar to ours, so it would be, you know,

[1:20:53] like to like for the watershed. But we'll see. But if you do have some interest, please let

[1:20:58] me know. And thanks again for your presentation, Mr. Richardson.

[1:21:05] That's right.

[1:21:07] Yeah. This was a question that I asked to Director Williams ahead of time, but I think it's

[1:21:11] important for the public to get the answer that I was able to receive. And that was regarding

[1:21:17] the Salmon Safe Certification and the process that we financed in the budget last year that

[1:21:24] could very well have a significant impact on the stormwater code, depending on what they find

[1:21:30] and what their citations are, and some gestions are, and I just wanted you, Mr. Director Williams,

[1:21:36] to be able to share with the public what the process would be if there would be impacts to this,

[1:21:42] how we would go about bringing the code back again later.

[1:21:46] I think what I sent to you and I believe I copied Council was just, is there a reason to move forward with these changes or should we wait to do it all when the salmon safe recommendations are available and I suggested no, I think it's important enough to move forward with these, we should do that.

[1:22:07] Another question you asked is, you know, how long would it take after we have those recommendations to incorporate them as well as we see fit?

[1:22:18] I don't have a really crisp answer to that, but it'd probably be similar to the process we're following here.

[1:22:23] If we want to make additional changes in the code, there's a pretty deliberate process of how to do that.

[1:22:28] So it would probably look much like these did.

[1:22:31] And then, I think you asked a third question, can you remind me what that was, it was on the same topic.

[1:22:46] And it was sort of, is it our intent to do that?

[1:22:49] Yeah, I mean, if we, we receive the information, will make,

[1:22:58] with those in the public to see if we want to make additional changes to the code.

[1:23:04] But I can't see waiting to do these.

[1:23:07] I think these are important. We should get them down as soon as we can.

[1:23:12] Yeah. My understanding is that if those changes are at all substantive,

[1:23:16] we basically have to do this whole process all over again in a way.

[1:23:19] So there's not a whole lot of benefit in not implementing these improvements to stormwater now.

[1:23:25] So, that's what I think goes my negative.

[1:23:33] So remember, Councillor Boucher's in Councillor Nard?

[1:23:37] I just want to do another follow up on just what,

[1:23:42] because part of that female's strength stream.

[1:23:46] If we have time, I think we should maybe have a second public hearing

[1:23:50] or maybe a continuation.

[1:23:52] I don't think people are aware that they will be actually responsible

[1:23:56] for pain for some of this stormwater changes that might be occurring, especially in

[1:24:05] Parenthoodville, or I know very interesting email came in about Shellabarger, the

[1:24:12] same issue with all this erosion coming in, because again, as we all know, the

[1:24:18] more dense you get and if you don't have enough infiltration going on with trees

[1:24:24] And everything like that, everything's just going to, you know, float downhill or float to the sound.

[1:24:29] And so I just don't know if if people are really aware that they will be having to pay to help implement this storm water code.

[1:24:41] And I don't know if that is shouldness, necessitate a second public hearing, but I certainly would want to know.

[1:24:48] But if I was living on parental creek and knowing that I would have to have to start paying

[1:24:55] for some of these standards that we're going to implement.

[1:24:58] And again, I still believe we need to loop Linwood in because we are Linwood's base in pretty

[1:25:04] much.

[1:25:06] So I just find that to be interesting that we are going to try and work with them.

[1:25:12] but it's really important that we try and get something

[1:25:16] for them to understand that we are responsive.

[1:25:20] We are the victims of their developments.

[1:25:26] And I don't know if we can do any type of input

[1:25:31] in terms of when they were building those 52, again,

[1:25:35] I don't know this, if you knew how they built those units,

[1:25:38] if they put in ground wells or dry wells,

[1:25:41] or anything like that. So I just think that it's important that we might want to consider

[1:25:46] either extending this or having a second public hearing due to cost factors.

[1:25:52] Well, I can see a couple of possible approaches to that. I mean, I think we're at the spot where

[1:25:58] we honestly feel like together the administration and the council need to make some decisions

[1:26:04] in terms of dials on the regulations for sure that are going to be specific to Perinville.

[1:26:12] We've got a huge workload ahead of us there in that basin.

[1:26:16] And I think we need to start making these changes, but it certainly could come once maybe

[1:26:22] once we adopt these to do a lot of public outreach and communication about what we're

[1:26:28] trying to do there and make sure people understand why it's necessary and what the impact

[1:26:34] is going to be, and you had asked the question about potential costs.

[1:26:38] So these are all a bit of a way on what that might come out to.

[1:26:45] But it would just be part of the review process going forward, and they would get our

[1:26:50] comments on whatever their application was, and they'd have certain requirements they need

[1:26:54] to meet.

[1:26:54] Most of which are really given to us by the state, but we have done, we have made some changes

[1:27:01] and are recommending a few more that would make it an Edmund specific code as well.

[1:27:08] I think it's justified.

[1:27:09] I think it's the right thing to do.

[1:27:12] I'd hate to see a slowdown at this point, but that'd be up to the council.

[1:27:22] Yes or more, thanks.

[1:27:24] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:27:25] So, I looked up hard surfaces in the definition and it doesn't by say, you know, an impervious

[1:27:29] service, service, permeable payment, pavement, or vegetated roof. I think if we were to,

[1:27:39] so I'm taking that as impervious services, including permeable payment and vegetated roofs,

[1:27:45] possibly something indicating, but not limited to, so that we're not leaving out things like turf fields

[1:27:51] or other things that might fall under that to make sure that we encompass it.

[1:27:57] And then my question is, oh, earlier today, Ms. Sites gave a public comment and mentioned

[1:28:05] using trees as drainage infrastructure with drainage easements for trees. Is this something

[1:28:10] that we have ever considered? And, you know, quite likely it wouldn't be done in time for

[1:28:18] this for what we're working on now, but, you know, is that something that we could work on?

[1:28:23] Yeah, yeah, she have to knew her stuff that that is an existing BMP, so that is already available in our toolkit.

[1:28:31] It's not there's a couple of issues with it.

[1:28:35] In my 10 years doing this in Washington, I think I've seen that years once.

[1:28:41] So it's a weird way to do an accredited.

[1:28:43] It doesn't quite count towards the LED BMPs.

[1:28:46] It's a flow control BMP, so if somebody is in a single family home,

[1:28:51] going through the list approach, which is just as you pick a ring garden at 5% or I pick a

[1:28:58] trench at 1000 feet per square foot. So if you're going through that, the tree, the tree

[1:29:05] option is not in there. You actually have to get into the modeling in order to get the credit for

[1:29:09] the trees. I think one of the reasons it's not used very frequently is the credits aren't super

[1:29:16] grow. And I believe that's because a lot of people, probably myself included, are little hesitant

[1:29:23] to build trees as infrastructure because we see them as potentially temporary. So if you

[1:29:31] were to actually have a tree providing the stormwater mitigation, one of that tree to fall

[1:29:36] or die in the future, are you going to have a new stormwatering problem? So I think there's

[1:29:42] hesitance to go towards that is a soul VMP, but like I said, it is in there as an option for

[1:29:49] for some projects. There is also a VMP for reducing clearing footprint too. So if you can

[1:29:55] show that you, you know, although typically you would clear this big footprint.

[1:30:00] But if you can actually shrink it, there are some credits for that too. Again, they're kind of cumbersome. So they're not used very frequently, but they are there in the toolkit.

[1:30:11] Okay. Thank you.

[1:30:16] Yeah.

[1:30:16] Councillor Sources.

[1:30:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to follow up on council member Laura Johnson's comments on the turf fields.

[1:30:24] the way I read that definition of impervious surface, like 60% of the way down,

[1:30:30] packet page 310, tier fields would be included. Is that right, in the hard surfaces?

[1:30:37] Yes, it's actually its own special exception. It all depends on where it's under

[1:30:41] grade 6. This is the short question. Yeah. So with the 8-8 inches or exactly. Yeah.

[1:30:48] Yeah, okay, thanks.

[1:30:54] Right, so with that, we will go ahead and now open up the public hearing for Stormwater

[1:30:58] Management Code ECBC 18.30, if you'd like to comment in this public hearing, please raise

[1:31:06] your virtual hand if you're on a computer laptop, tablet, smartphone, if you're calling

[1:31:12] on a landline, you can also raise your hand by pressing star 9.

[1:31:17] Go ahead and look and see if we have any hands raised,

[1:31:28] not seeing any,

[1:31:33] to hear it for that.

[1:31:34] Please raise your virtual hand or press star nine.

[1:31:51] See, drop English as raised as virtual hand.

[1:31:59] So I don't see anybody else.

[1:32:03] Okay, we will go ahead and close the public hearing.

[1:32:09] Point of order.

[1:32:11] Is it open to discussion whether we would be continuing it?

[1:32:15] because I have, I have some questions.

[1:32:23] Sure.

[1:32:26] We did have one citizen who expressly asked to continue it,

[1:32:31] and I was surprised that there were no comments to be had

[1:32:34] because there were quite a few that came in by email today.

[1:32:38] So my first question is whether the ones that came in

[1:32:40] by email are registered as comments for the public hearing,

[1:32:47] where they would have rights to be considered again.

[1:32:51] Excuse me.

[1:32:57] I'm sorry.

[1:32:57] I was distracted, could you repeat the question?

[1:33:01] Yes, I was wondering if the questions that came in by email today that we're referring

[1:33:06] to this public hearing issue, whether they get counted as far as the public hearing is concerned

[1:33:12] so that those people have standing on this subject.

[1:33:15] Yeah, they are part of the public record, and they're entered into the minute suddenly.

[1:33:20] Okay, and because we had that level of interest for it by email, I was surprised that we didn't

[1:33:26] have any commenters here today, especially since we have our technology at play, would we be able to

[1:33:32] continue it for next week, where if there were technical difficulties that people would be able to

[1:33:39] come back next week? That would be a council decision.

[1:33:45] Man, make that motion. You sure in the net? I'll send like. Okay, go ahead.

[1:33:53] I'd like to move that we continue the hearing to next week in case there were other commenters.

[1:33:59] I'll second vote.

[1:34:01] Move in second-end discussion.

[1:34:04] Council President.

[1:34:08] I don't per se have any trouble with having a continuous of public hearing.

[1:34:16] I would like the introduction to be abbreviated if we do,

[1:34:21] because we already have a pretty busy meeting on the 28th and I don't think it can absorb much more

[1:34:30] and if we don't have any additional public commenters then or receive you know within the

[1:34:38] received emails of course I don't have any objection but I would like to get this the public hearing

[1:34:44] part wrapped up quickly so it can have some certainty regarding all the efforts that have been done by staff

[1:34:51] So, I would, I'm look warm on putting it on for next week, but it's something that I, you know, I won't oppose.

[1:35:03] It's an refunctionistic customer.

[1:35:07] Thank you, Mr. Passy.

[1:35:09] So, you're saying that every citizen that sent us an email today, even though it didn't say public hearing,

[1:35:16] And the only one that I received from a citizen that said was Laura Petzel, public hearing

[1:35:21] on storm water and all the others did not indicate public hearing, they just said storm

[1:35:28] water threat or storm water issue.

[1:35:31] So you're telling me that you're going to go through each of our emails and pull out the

[1:35:36] ones that just have been worth storm water and then add them to the packet for next week.

[1:35:41] So citizens can read that.

[1:35:43] I'm a little confused at that process.

[1:35:45] So, what I'm saying is that when we publish the public hearing notice, which goes to the

[1:35:52] effort peril, essentially there's a line in there that says public comments can also

[1:35:58] be submitted to and I think it's the public comment at EdmundsWad.gov email address and so

[1:36:04] if they come in in that way then we count them as the public hearing comment.

[1:36:08] Oh, no, I agree with that, but these comments that I have received come into Council and not to public comment.

[1:36:15] So that's, that's, I think what the, what Council member Olson was saying is that we have been receiving comments,

[1:36:23] but they haven't been coming in through the public comments window.

[1:36:26] They've been coming in through just to Council and that's it.

[1:36:31] So that would be one reason that I think would be important to do a continuation.

[1:36:37] Thank you.

[1:36:39] That's my distal horse and council president to think that's where I feel the most.

[1:36:44] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My understanding from director Williams and Mr. Richardson was this was going to be coming back

[1:36:49] months down the road. Anyways, so whether it's an official public hearing with a notice period or just collecting

[1:36:57] comments and feedback as we normally do, this period is still going to be going on for a matter of months

[1:37:04] During the ecology and seep a review so it seems to me like there's still quite a bit of time

[1:37:12] We're not taking any action next week that we can receive comments over the next 45-60 days and see if anything changes

[1:37:21] So I'm you know, I'm not really sure if there's a necessity to continue the public hearing

[1:37:27] Because we still have options to to review and make comments during that time period before adoption

[1:37:32] Thanks.

[1:37:39] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that Mr. Passy covered my comment. This is regarding public comments.

[1:37:45] And so I don't need to state. Thank you, though.

[1:37:48] Councillor interjecting.

[1:37:48] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The only two comments I received was from Ms. Petzell.

[1:37:55] And from one other citizen,

[1:38:01] Joe Scordino, the were identified.

[1:38:04] Well, I'm sorry, Anne Margie Field. So we do have a few comments. Just for clarification. There was some.

[1:38:18] Yeah, I think Councilmember Düsseldorf has made a really good point.

[1:38:22] Except that I know the public hearings give people certain standing regarding issues to be able to come back and have further, I don't know what the standing on those issues.

[1:38:32] So I do think that there is a difference.

[1:38:35] I'm going to go ahead and forward all of those emails

[1:38:37] that we got today to the public comment thing,

[1:38:41] so that they're, will that suffice for those.

[1:38:45] And but I still hope that we'll vote to continue the public

[1:38:48] hearing it'll be really short if there's nobody showing that,

[1:38:51] but just in case there's any technical difficulties

[1:38:53] that are keeping all the people that had a lot of interest

[1:38:57] that look like from showing up tonight

[1:38:59] that they still wanted to be here for some reason

[1:39:01] for some reason. They're not getting on and keep that happened.

[1:39:10] Not seeing any more discussion, all in favor of continuing the public hearing till the next meeting

[1:39:15] at September 28th to the Council meeting. Show of hands

[1:39:22] all those opposed in the motion passes.

[1:39:27] We'll continue till next meeting.

[1:39:33] Thank you, John. Next item on the agenda under unfinished business

[1:39:39] is Edmund's Rescue Plan Fund, non-profit organization grant alors.

[1:39:46] Mr. Gourney.

[1:39:49] Good evening, Mayor and Council.

[1:39:51] So we're back to consider the amount of profit organization grants from our Edmund's Rescue Plan Fund.

[1:39:58] And we'll just do our short PowerPoint presentation again for anyone watching it.

[1:40:03] Really, I'm in the final slide, it's different, but for you all.

[1:40:05] So I will share screen and do that in a moment.

[1:40:08] I

[1:40:19] hope that you can see that.

[1:40:23] So, again, as I mentioned last time, two weeks ago,

[1:40:28] the Evans Rescue Plan Fund was approved by

[1:40:30] U.L. on the 20th of July as ordinance 4229.

[1:40:35] There are six accounts in that fund, including a county,

[1:40:38] which is the Evans Rescue Plan Fund non-profit organization

[1:40:41] support for the allocation of half a million dollars.

[1:40:44] Small grants, up to $20,000, are approval by the mayor,

[1:40:48] for a cumulative total of $100,000.

[1:40:50] A larger grant that any amount of over $20,000

[1:40:53] are approval by a city council

[1:40:54] for a cumulative total of $400,000,

[1:40:56] which is the reason why we're here this evening.

[1:40:59] We did send out a notice on the 30th of July,

[1:41:01] it'll be availability of grants that went out

[1:41:04] by a press release on our Facebook City's website,

[1:41:08] on our city Facebook page and direct mail

[1:41:10] to a network of some organizations.

[1:41:13] The deadline was the 25th August.

[1:41:15] The applications required proof of nonprofit status, and just to say as a parent medical because I think this question was asked for at least some reference.

[1:41:26] We did not require File and C3 or any federal designation of the nonprofit that's simply registration to the state as a nonprofit entity.

[1:41:36] The amount requested, the proposed use of the requested funds, the statement of need, especially

[1:41:42] focusing on financial hardship, greeted by COVID, other sources of funds available in a statement

[1:41:47] of how the organization enhances the account on the cultural and the quality of life aspects

[1:41:51] of events, 16 applications were received, one application is ineligible since the organization

[1:41:57] is not currently located in advance, seven applications were for amounts of 20,000 less,

[1:42:03] which they reviewed and awarded in the following table you see the award amounts compared

[1:42:09] to the requested amounts and that total 100,000.

[1:42:13] The remaining aid applications as we mentioned last time are available for your review and

[1:42:17] consideration and approval are summarized as follows, I'm not going to read them all out loud

[1:42:24] but I'll leave them on the screen for just a moment so that anyone watching can see what the

[1:42:29] amounts are from whom those are the requests, totaling 350,000,500.

[1:42:37] All of the applications do meet our eligibility criteria, as I mentioned last time,

[1:42:41] Art Start Northwest appears to include 13,000 in capital-related items associated more

[1:42:48] directly with the completion of the graphite arts complex than with its own stated nonprofit

[1:42:53] mission, so that's something to consider.

[1:42:57] Council has the direct authority to grant the amounts up to the amount requested or anything

[1:43:02] less. Any leftover amounts will roll over to a future call for requests. I just recommended

[1:43:09] to suggest that perhaps we wait till January for that. And then lastly, it's just a question

[1:43:15] of you're discussing again these requests and making a grant award decisions this evening.

[1:43:22] If you do so, of course, we will notify the applicants immediately, and we have been developing

[1:43:27] a, because of the previous approval by Mayer, but a weeks ago, developed and completed contracts,

[1:43:35] that those other entities have now received.

[1:43:38] So we'll be quick to get the other new ones on your contract right away.

[1:43:42] So I'll go back just for a second to the screen that has the ones that are for consideration for council this evening.

[1:43:49] I'm not going to leave this up, because I know we want to get back to seeing each other,

[1:43:53] but please take note of that and with that, I will stop sharing screen and we'll go back.

[1:44:11] All right, that's all. That's your customer alarm, Johnson,

[1:44:15] Johnson, work, president, and customer for the bills. Make us more pretty soon, Johnson.

[1:44:21] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Archie. I have a question concerning the

[1:44:27] One, application that was denied Washington kids in transition because they are not based in

[1:44:35] Edmunds, reading the statement, you know, how the organization and its programs, projects

[1:44:40] or activities and hands, economic, cultural, and or quality of life aspects within Edmund's

[1:44:44] community.

[1:44:45] You know, I feel that they most definitely do that, so I understand that they are not based

[1:44:50] in Edmunds.

[1:44:52] So my questions, are they going to qualify somewhere else along the line here?

[1:44:58] All right, those needs going to be met somewhere else.

[1:45:00] Or is this a case of, you know, there is still money remaining and should be considered whether they, you know, whether we should consider them and, you know, with a caveat that money would be used to benefit specifically Edmund's residents.

[1:45:18] Right. So that's a very good question. And I would say that when we, whatever amount is left over, we already know that just the total of the request to you is 352.

[1:45:29] So we know there would be at least a 48,000 and then the sum of the deductions I mentioned it will likely be a little bit more than that that's left over.

[1:45:38] We can potentially at that time, again, there's so much in the ordinance that you all approve, so much specificity, then it will take some tweaks to the ordinance, but we can certainly take that to you all.

[1:45:50] If we if we preview that we'd like to go out of January, after holidays are over, people's attention is focused on the opportunity.

[1:45:56] then we can before that go back to you with some tweaks to the ordinance and we could say, for example,

[1:46:02] non-profit organizations located in this or primarily serving or substantially serving as

[1:46:07] residents. There's something like that. We didn't think of that in advance, unfortunately,

[1:46:11] and I think getting our ordinance done. So we could certainly bring that to you as an

[1:46:15] amendment and then they would potentially qualify if they wish to apply again.

[1:46:21] Okay, thank you.

[1:46:27] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:46:30] Directed already.

[1:46:31] So one of the questions that I asked last time, because as I think I mentioned last time, I was surprised that we didn't see from the Edmunds Food Bank.

[1:46:42] And similarly to Council Member Laura Johnson's concerns, having a group that does do direct work with our families here.

[1:46:53] Did you ever hear from the Edmunds Food Bank if there were barriers with doing the accounting?

[1:47:02] Because they surveyed everybody across the communities and I know that they were specifically

[1:47:07] tasked with counting, you know, making sure that these funds were directed towards Edmund's

[1:47:14] residents.

[1:47:16] Was that sort of bookkeeping a barrier for the Edmunds Food Bank?

[1:47:20] Did you ever get a chance to hear about about that for the non-profits that serve more than just

[1:47:29] Edmund's?

[1:47:30] Because, and then when I look at this list that we have before us tonight, we also have groups that serve our broader communities

[1:47:37] in ways that

[1:47:40] enhanced, you know, Edmund's, so Edmund's does ultimately benefit

[1:47:44] overall, but there, but there could be these groups

[1:47:48] constituents like the food bank or Washington kids

[1:47:52] in transition, you know, come from a broader community.

[1:47:57] Right.

[1:47:58] So the food bank did not contact us during the

[1:48:02] application period.

[1:48:04] I would be surprised that they didn't know what the

[1:48:07] application period, but obviously I don't know that

[1:48:09] because I wanted to be fair and put it out through

[1:48:13] the regular channels and not be cherry picking people that I know of to call and prompt them to apply.

[1:48:20] But I will remind you that we did provide money last year with CARES on the two the

[1:48:26] Edmunds Food Bank to really help them meet the food needs. It was a substantial amount of money

[1:48:31] that I don't have off the top of my head. No, I totally understand that, but they have been served.

[1:48:37] But, so I'm just wondering if the traffic is going to be

[1:48:41] part of the barrier?

[1:48:43] No, I don't believe that was because we talked about that related to their care

[1:48:46] funding.

[1:48:47] We talked about the fact that some people might be in the mix who are not that in

[1:48:50] his residence.

[1:48:53] And we basically made the judgment, along the lines that you just, I think,

[1:48:58] verbalized, that certainly the majority of people are, and those people who may not be

[1:49:02] in his residence, they don't ask for a residency in the line, they don't have a very

[1:49:06] a little barrier, that really is an enhancement to our community as well, we're welcoming, we're

[1:49:12] accepting, we're a generous community and even if you're from outside the city limit,

[1:49:17] you can still find some support in our community. So there's an overall general enhancement to

[1:49:21] the quality of life by helping people, even if they happen to be just beyond our boundaries.

[1:49:27] And the business model is not one to create that barrier, ask for an ID that they may not have or something.

[1:49:33] So we already talked through that with them, and we portrayed to them that we didn't want them to create that barrier.

[1:49:41] And so my interpretation from that is that they didn't perceive that that was a barrier.

[1:49:46] All right. I really appreciate that explanation. Thank you so much.

[1:49:57] Councillor Ferryman else and Councillor Member Christian Johnson and the Councillor else.

[1:50:01] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I like this list. I like the way it's been drawn up.

[1:50:06] It really looks fair to each organization, I guess, I would say, and I think round two, you know, perhaps we, you know, will have this discussion later. I'm assuming, but, but I would guess that we start looking at the agencies that we had not supported in the past. So, you know, if it's a possible kids and transition or of course the food bank and and their needs, I think those are really good things.

[1:50:35] And there is probably a couple more organizations that perhaps may be interested in this

[1:50:41] once they see the level of funding that's been given out.

[1:50:46] But I think this is a really solid list, and thank you for building it.

[1:50:52] I think it's going to help a number of people with a number of arenas.

[1:50:57] I like, you know, I was surprised when I like to see the Edvin's Waterfront Center that

[1:51:01] many will be given to them for their lunch program.

[1:51:04] I think that's a good thing. I'm not sure how sustainable $15 a meal is for folks, which is the actual cost of it, but at least I think it's going to serve a number of seniors in a long-term basis at lunchtime at least.

[1:51:22] I actually went down and observed lunch down there a couple weeks ago just to see how many folks we had coming in.

[1:51:29] And I think that data was 11, maybe.

[1:51:32] And I think it's good that we're helping those

[1:51:34] that have food instability and, you know,

[1:51:39] numerous other reasons why they're not eating at home.

[1:51:43] So, anyway, thank you.

[1:51:46] That's my question.

[1:51:50] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:51:52] Mr. Dordy, you had a slide that's not in our packet.

[1:51:56] It showed the seven grants through the mayor

[1:52:00] that were proposed totally now $100,000.

[1:52:04] My question for you is what's the difference between the requests and the actual grants?

[1:52:14] Right, yeah.

[1:52:15] That was presented last time as well.

[1:52:17] Do you want me to go back to that?

[1:52:18] Or do you just want me to address the question?

[1:52:21] I just want to address the question.

[1:52:24] So again, as I said last time, we had the eight and then the one was not eligible.

[1:52:30] So the mayor's authority is to grant that to 20,000

[1:52:35] milligrams with a total of 100,000.

[1:52:38] The mayor is very interested in the programs

[1:52:40] and the services provided by those agencies

[1:52:42] really desiring to make those grants quickly

[1:52:45] and directly to those agencies.

[1:52:49] And they just, they were just,

[1:52:51] the total was just about 100,000.

[1:52:54] In order to provide that, those managed quickly

[1:52:56] and directly from the mayor's office,

[1:52:58] we made a decision to cut just like we, the amounts awarded from the amounts requested.

[1:53:05] And if you look at that table, you see it a thousand to two thousand off from the total request.

[1:53:10] Yes, very, that information in the packet. I did see it tonight.

[1:53:15] And how many thousands dollars were the difference between what was funded and what was requested?

[1:53:24] I don't have to go back to that. I suppose to do the math in my head. I'm not sure that I know that.

[1:53:29] Talk in my head. So if you want me to, I can share a screening in short.

[1:53:33] Well, that gets me to my second question.

[1:53:36] If there were funds, we had allocated 400,000 for council funds.

[1:53:44] And if we need to allocate that difference by the council,

[1:53:52] in order to meet their needs.

[1:53:55] Let me, yeah.

[1:53:57] Let me, I'm just going to have to quickly do some math here on my own.

[1:54:00] Two, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

[1:54:16] Looks like 11,500, but I did that quickly.

[1:54:21] So I'll just leave up there for one more moment for everything to read that.

[1:54:24] I will tell you, I'll share the screen back.

[1:54:28] I mean, I will come back to the full screen,

[1:54:30] but what we're sticking to, I'll say a lot of the thing.

[1:54:33] Actually, I can just go back.

[1:54:34] I think you've seen a lot of that.

[1:54:38] When I said last time too, and I think it's even potentially

[1:54:42] for your consideration on your decisions,

[1:54:46] it's not unusual.

[1:54:47] In fact, it's really very commonly case when you apply for grants

[1:54:53] that you might receive something slightly less than the total that you asked for.

[1:54:57] I'm not encouraging that people not receive the totals, but it's a very normal thing.

[1:55:02] Having received grants myself and having been on grant review committees.

[1:55:05] There's not always the full amount of money to give to every

[1:55:08] requester and sometimes you have one award to those that are just have slightly stronger

[1:55:16] cases that they've made.

[1:55:18] All of the applicants with the mayor who suit the early awardees at the mayor's grants have gone to, have been awarded, contacted and their contracts have been sent for the amounts listed.

[1:55:31] They're all thrilled. Nobody said, gosh, I wish I'd gotten that extra, thousand, I mean, they're all thrilled that they've got anything great thing.

[1:55:38] So of course it is within your authority to grant your majority portion of the funds in any way you wish.

[1:55:46] But I guess my recommendation, just by having processed this is that we maybe leave it as it is, goes back into the full for the second round, and

[1:55:55] Consider the ones that are in front of you to see.

[1:56:09] I just wanted to remind

[1:56:13] The

[1:56:13] Audiences as well as the council members that it probably isn't much of a coincidence, though, so many of these were arts related

[1:56:21] And because they weren't covered by as many of the past programs and they weren't covered

[1:56:26] by the private donations, this is the rescue plan and this was absolutely intended for

[1:56:32] some of these more institutional kind of things that were so impacted by volume of people

[1:56:42] going that they weren't going to survive without this assistance so that we could maintain

[1:56:49] and kind of the best old kids of our local society.

[1:56:55] So I think that, you know, I understand the feeling like oh,

[1:57:02] it's weird that we don't have the more direct, you know,

[1:57:06] human needs food, whatever programs in here.

[1:57:11] But those have been supported by so many of the other programs.

[1:57:16] this program was really designed for this purpose. So I just wanted to make sure that people

[1:57:23] understood kind of the terms of what the rescue plan was about. And I also wanted to thank

[1:57:28] everybody for allowing this extra time for me to have dug into this this week. And thank the

[1:57:34] Director Doherty for having gotten us more information.

[1:57:41] Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to accept

[1:57:45] the staff recommendations for the consideration of the fall and grant awards.

[1:57:48] Arts start in Northwest, $18,000, cascadia art museum, $50,000, and then center for the arts,

[1:57:59] $50,000, and then strip with players, $50,000, and then center waterfront center, $50,000,

[1:58:07] Olympic ballet theater, $45,000.

[1:58:11] Phoenix Theater, $27,500.

[1:58:15] Roadary Club of Edson's, $30,000 for a total of $320,000.

[1:58:23] $320,500.

[1:58:27] There are second, the move in seconded discussion.

[1:58:34] All this in favor of show of hands.

[1:58:37] All those opposed.

[1:58:42] Thank you.

[1:58:44] Thank you.

[1:58:44] Thanks, Patrick.

[1:58:45] Next item under new business.

[1:58:47] We have two items.

[1:58:48] First is project update for the citywide bicycle improvement project.

[1:58:53] Point of order.

[1:58:54] It is 9 o'clock.

[1:58:56] May we take a short break.

[1:58:59] Sure.

[1:58:59] Let's say we have 858, so let's say a 903-ish, a little germ to lie down free.

[2:04:11] We're meeting back to order. So next item under new business, two items first is Project Update for Citywide My School Improvement Project.

[2:04:23] Yes, good evening. Thank you. Of course, Ryan Hague is here in Rob English and also Pablo Perra are consultant and we're here for a second time. We'll go through our presentation fairly quickly and remind you where we're at and what the recommendations are.

[2:04:41] and then be happy to talk with you more about where we go from here.

[2:04:47] Thank you.

[2:04:48] Go ahead, Ryan.

[2:04:54] Thank you so much, Bill.

[2:04:55] Good evening, everyone.

[2:04:56] Once again, my name is Ryan Hague.

[2:04:58] I am the project manager for this project.

[2:05:01] I'm not going to present any new information tonight, so as Bill mentioned,

[2:05:05] we will kind of breeze through it.

[2:05:07] And as I also mentioned, I'm joined by the usual cast of characters,

[2:05:11] Phil, Rob, and we're also joined by Palo Palo,

[2:05:15] from each consulting. So tonight, just going to do a quick recap of the timeline and talk

[2:05:21] about how we got where we are right now. Then we're going to take a look at some of the alternatives

[2:05:26] for the intersection of Westgate. We're going to look at some of the additional improvements

[2:05:30] that we're requested during our public outreach process and then take a really quick look

[2:05:35] at remaining schedule. So really brief timeline recap. In 2019, the City of the Women's

[2:05:42] sued and won out over many other agencies a $1.85 million sound transit grant. We awarded

[2:05:50] the design contract last year and during the award process of design, we learned that there

[2:05:56] was quite a bit of public interest in this project. So we launched a fairly aggressive public

[2:06:02] outreach effort. This included listening sessions that were held with interested residents,

[2:06:07] So people who had actually reached out to council, we had a public meeting in February of

[2:06:11] this year.

[2:06:12] A lot of us met one-on-one with residents, I personally went out and met with a number of

[2:06:16] residents as did Bertrand and one of our other gentleman on staff.

[2:06:21] We had online surveys, the surveys were very illuminating, we learned a lot of really good

[2:06:25] information from those online surveys, and we also had a project email address, website.

[2:06:31] During this public outreach effort, we collected quite a bit of data, and we combined that

[2:06:36] our engineering data to drive design decisions that were presented to Council on May 4th of

[2:06:41] this year during that meeting. Some questions were raised about the West Gate intersection,

[2:06:46] which will discuss here a few minutes, and just a second or other, and also an additional

[2:06:51] public meeting was requested. And that public meeting was held on June 2nd of this year.

[2:06:56] So without further ado, let's dive into West Gate intersection. Again, we're not presenting any new

[2:07:02] information, but I do want to just remind everybody of the tool alternatives that we're

[2:07:06] going to be looking at tonight, alternative one, as two bike lanes, one in each direction,

[2:07:12] in order to make room for this, this alternative would eliminate a through vehicle lane

[2:07:18] in each direction.

[2:07:20] alternative two, which was, during May 4th meeting, and is still the department's recommended

[2:07:27] alternative. We're proposing to add one northbound bike lane. In the southbound we're proposing to install

[2:07:34] shared lane markings also known as Sheros. This would involve southbound cyclists sharing the road with

[2:07:41] traffic. So we're going to provide some ramps for cyclists who aren't comfortable with this configuration

[2:07:47] to get up onto the sidewalk and walk through the intersection. Side by side comparison let's first

[2:07:54] start with how each alternative is going to impact motorists.

[2:07:58] I'll turn it at one of the vehicle lanes

[2:08:00] maintaining the current width.

[2:08:01] There's just the order of them.

[2:08:02] And I'll turn it at two in order to make room

[2:08:05] for that one additional lane.

[2:08:06] The vehicle lanes do get slightly narrower.

[2:08:09] And of course, alternative one, again,

[2:08:12] we're limiting through motor slain in each direction.

[2:08:15] And what that means is that it's going to take

[2:08:16] a little bit longer to get through there.

[2:08:18] So we're, so this alternative would add about 20 each seconds

[2:08:23] So the travel time from Elm down, I'm sorry, from 238's up to Elm,

[2:08:29] whereas alternative 2 only adds about 2 and a half seconds.

[2:08:34] Let's take a look at what the impacts are on Q-link.

[2:08:38] The graphic that you're looking at has a couple of bars that

[2:08:42] represent Q-link during the peak hour.

[2:08:45] Is that red represents the 50% Q-link?

[2:08:48] And what that means is that, of course, the median Q-link

[2:08:52] during our peak hour. So that's what we expect to see roughly 50% of the time. And then the

[2:08:58] blue extension bar is the 95% QA. That's what you would expect to see about 5% of the time

[2:09:05] or in terms of minutes, 3 minutes of each hour of each day. As you can see here, I'll turn it one,

[2:09:13] extend Q's pretty substantially. This would really impact entrance and exit from the local

[2:09:21] businesses. We have a number of grocery stores here. We have a lot of restaurants that are busy during these hours.

[2:09:28] And so as you can see, this alternative would impact those businesses. Moving on, total target of two.

[2:09:37] We have two through lanes in each direction now, and Q-links have gotten substantially shorter.

[2:09:42] During those worst three minutes, we're blocking that main entrance to QFC, and we're blocking the main entrance to the offices there on the cell-sided intersection.

[2:09:53] But by and large, we're not impacting businesses anymore than we are today.

[2:09:59] Let's take a look at how each of these alternatives impact the bicyclists because it is important to note that alternative one would provide a complete network.

[2:10:07] Result alternative to what we feel that a lot of self-owned cyclists would not consider this corridor to be safe or efficient in their for not attractive.

[2:10:16] It's either going off from the estate because you have to share the world of cyclists with excuse me with motorists or it's not going to be the efficient because you have to get off and walk it by through the intersection.

[2:10:27] We did look at some intangibles, we're engineers, and we love numbers, but not everything can be quantified.

[2:10:33] So we did think about some of the other impacts.

[2:10:36] Alternative one, we think that the greater cues in the greater delays of this interception would cause motorists to seek alternate routes.

[2:10:46] And we just heard earlier this evening from a resident or down on 224 who says that motors are taking that route to avoid taking to 20th.

[2:10:56] This is not new. This is something that motors do. If they don't feel like dealing with an intersection, they find a way around it.

[2:11:04] Additionally, alternative 2 we feel could excuse me. We feel alternative 2 gives us a greater likelihood of future grant opportunities.

[2:11:15] If we're standing in front of a granting agency in 2, 3, 5, 10 years, whenever that would happen, we are looking for money to expand our system.

[2:11:24] We feel that those agencies may look more favorably upon us if we're trying to fund bikes rather than trying to fund motorized vehicles.

[2:11:33] Moving along to the additional improvements that we are proposing.

[2:11:38] Again, we had a pretty extensive public outreach campaign and during that public outreach, the thing we heard most often is pedestrian safety.

[2:11:45] Safety safety, I want to be able to walk to where I'm going, I want to be able to take my wheelchair, my scooters, where I'm going, and I want to feel safe when I'm doing it.

[2:11:54] So, we identified a number of intersections where we think that pedestrian improvements could bring some quality to the project.

[2:12:01] We also identified one that already has safe pedestrian crossings, but we are proposing relocating them to streamline vehicle traffic and get to that here in just a couple minutes.

[2:12:12] It's important to note that none of these improvements were scoped in the original project, so they would require additional city funds to install.

[2:12:20] We're going to look at each of these improvements, and again, Council saw these in May 4th, so we're not going to dwell too long on them, but going in order of what we see as their priority.

[2:12:30] We're going to start with 9th and 9th and 9th and 9th. We already see a lot of traffic, a lot of pedestrians crossing here.

[2:12:37] There's a marked crosswalk that motorists aren't always super quick to observe.

[2:12:43] So we think that we're going to make pedestrian and a little safer here by installing

[2:12:47] some flashing beacons and potentially boldel perds off.

[2:12:51] But you're going to hear me say potentially boldel perds, quite a bit, and that's because

[2:12:55] we haven't done any full design work getting these intersections.

[2:12:59] Boldel perds aren't always safe, they're not always effective, they're not always possible.

[2:13:03] But anytime we can install them, we find that they do make pedestrian safer.

[2:13:10] Our next alternative is that Yoast Park is against Yoast Park.

[2:13:15] Anyone who drives through this quite a bit knows that there's a lot of traffic,

[2:13:18] a lot of folks walking, riding the bike, driving.

[2:13:22] There's a really busy little intersection.

[2:13:24] The visibility is not free.

[2:13:26] So we are proposing minor realignment intersection so that motorists, bicyclists,

[2:13:32] list will be looking at each other at 90 degree angles, we're going to bring people out

[2:13:37] in the intersection a little further before they stop, make them a little more visible

[2:13:40] to each other, and that should make everyone safer.

[2:13:44] And then additionally, if you look down on your screen, you'll see that we're proposing

[2:13:48] some parallel parking stalls, is going to do serve two purposes.

[2:13:52] Number one, they're going to provide some overflow parking for Yos, because a lot, once

[2:13:57] Once in a while traffic does come out on the ghost, but also perhaps more importantly, we learn that anytime we have vehicles parked on the street, it's low traffic down and anytime we so traffic down, we make everyone safer.

[2:14:13] Our third alternative is Bedouin and Pioneer. This one was pretty fascinating. This came from a pretty sizable public outcry from this neighborhood.

[2:14:23] We heard from a lot of residents who pointed out accurately so that there's not a single

[2:14:28] mark crossing between five corners and a Yosepark intersection that is nearly a mile without

[2:14:35] a single mark intersection, but people are crossing it anyway, so we're proposing to make

[2:14:41] these people that are crossing it anyway safer by installing, again, the potential for bolds

[2:14:48] and some flashing beacons. Well, of course, strike this and draw a draw, draw,

[2:14:53] as a pedestrian's to it and make them a little bit safer as a crossing.

[2:14:58] Number four, one hundredth and two.

[2:15:00] This is a similar situation that we saw in the going from Westgate to 220F. There's not a single mark crossing, that's a little more than half a mile, and we'd like to remedy that by providing a crossing here at 220F.

[2:15:14] Again, we already see pedestrian traffic at this intersection. There's just not necessarily doing it safely, so we're proposing some bullbels, some flashing beacons, and some strike.

[2:15:26] Number five, this is the entrance to the old woodweight high school, just south of Westgate.

[2:15:33] Right now, there's a crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, and pedestrian's interfere

[2:15:38] with motorists who are turning left to go north on 100.

[2:15:41] In fact, Council Member Laura Johnson identified during committee last week that she herself

[2:15:45] has sat through this intersection from high school side to even three light cycles before she could get on to 100.

[2:15:52] We'd like to remedy that as well, we'd like to move that crosswalk down to the other side of the intersection so that pedestrians will no longer interfere with turning vehicles.

[2:16:02] This will clear the high school off quicker, which should streamline everybody.

[2:16:08] You know, take a look at some of these costs, which as I mentioned earlier, not covered by the grant.

[2:16:12] These are in your packets. I don't want to dwell on them too terribly, but if you want to help you a little bit.

[2:16:18] If you look obviously designing construction costs, so speak for themselves, there is that bottom

[2:16:23] set of rows at the bottom of your screen. We have the total cost per alternative and then

[2:16:28] a running total. As we mentioned earlier, these are presented in terms in order of priority.

[2:16:33] So as a for instance, if you look at the bottom of alternative 3, you'll see that the pet improvements

[2:16:37] there by doing and the entrance to Sheldalli are expected to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of

[2:16:41] $56,000. And the running total for 1 through 3 is $25,000.

[2:16:48] So just a really quick look at

[2:16:49] remaining schedule, we still expect to be able to complete design sometime this winter, that

[2:16:55] would have us bidding in the late winter and going to construction in the spring. We expect

[2:17:00] to have the work complete by the end of next year. So now I'm going to turn it over to Phil and

[2:17:06] Rob and they will be able to build your questions. Yeah, Ryan, could you fill up as long as you're

[2:17:11] still sharing the screen go back to that slide with the cues on it? Yeah, absolutely. I just wanted

[2:17:17] So we want to turn it one alternative to let's go with alternative of one the bike length both bike lengths. Yeah, okay

[2:17:27] So just to make sure we're clear on this I think it's kind of important. The red is that 50% Q so that would be the average

[2:17:37] Q during the

[2:17:40] PMP hour from 430 to 5 p.m. On a weekday

[2:17:44] So basically worst case, that would be the average cue.

[2:17:50] If you add the blue bar to the red bar in the lane that they're found,

[2:17:56] that would take it to the 95th percentile,

[2:18:00] where Ryan's talking about three minutes.

[2:18:02] That's three minutes out of an hour.

[2:18:05] That's, in other words, only three minutes in a given hour

[2:18:08] would the cue exceed the combined blue and red cue.

[2:18:12] Now, that's three minutes in a given hour, five days a week, so that's 15 minutes a week.

[2:18:22] And if I did the math right, that's there's 10,000 somewhat minutes in a week.

[2:18:28] So 99.85% of the time that you wouldn't see that on a 24 hour basis.

[2:18:36] You know, so it is a fairly short period of time, but it's an acute and important period of time,

[2:18:42] but you just have to put it in context.

[2:18:45] This is a worst case look at things I just wanted to emphasize that.

[2:18:49] Does that make sense?

[2:18:51] Does anybody have any questions about that?

[2:18:55] So, yeah, that's all I had to say at this point.

[2:19:03] I have questions about your delay.

[2:19:06] Councilor Laura Johnson, Councilor Dista Horst, Councilor Christian Johnson.

[2:19:13] Thank you, ma'am.

[2:19:15] So, okay, so we're adding bike lanes to encourage people of all ages to use them.

[2:19:26] And, you know, with adding bike lanes approaching the West Lake intersection, we're encouraging bike riders to go through the Westgate intersection.

[2:19:35] And your own document state that alternative one creates a complete network, an alternative

[2:19:41] two does not, and cyclists will not consider this corridor to be as safe or as efficient

[2:19:47] as alternative number one.

[2:19:50] And under intangibles, one of the things is using alternate routes, and you know, as mentioned

[2:19:59] earlier that one of the comments earlier talked about, you know, driver's using alternate routes.

[2:20:08] So I understand, you know, the East West alternate routes, like 220F and 220F to avoid

[2:20:15] Edmund's way. But the bike routes were planning for run north and south. So what are reasonable

[2:20:21] North, and South alternate routes that your intangibles are supposed to be encompassing.

[2:20:31] Well, there's not a lot of good North South routes in Edmunds.

[2:20:35] They're absolutely right.

[2:20:39] This is an important corridor, but it isn't a really a complete blockage either.

[2:20:46] I don't think our recommendation is suggesting that, I think it's pretty obvious though,

[2:20:50] be handier, more convenient, and a bit faster for bicyclists, of course, to just cycle

[2:20:56] right through the intersection and a dedicated space.

[2:20:59] We just don't have the real estate for that currently, without eliminating two travel lanes.

[2:21:04] And so it's a balance.

[2:21:07] We were talking about this a couple of days ago, and that entire cycle time, which we didn't

[2:21:13] define in our last conversation, I think, Pablo, you said the current timing is 130 seconds.

[2:21:19] So it takes two minutes and 10 seconds for the green ball to come back, which the delays that

[2:21:27] you're seeing are essentially, it could be that much for it to be zero.

[2:21:34] If you happen to arrive at the intersection, it's just the right time, which never happens

[2:21:38] to me, but it must happen to somebody, they're going to get the green ball and they'll be

[2:21:42] delay. But with that cycle timing in place, there's going to be people on the back end that

[2:21:50] will wait as long as we at least the model projects that they would have to wait that long

[2:21:56] for the total of three minutes out of the PMP count, the combined cues. The average cues,

[2:22:04] I think, are maybe a little more useful to think about. That's what you would likely experience

[2:22:10] most of the time. You might have a little less, you might have a little more, but I think that's helpful.

[2:22:17] The extreme case really is that, a pretty extreme case. But there is some interference.

[2:22:23] You can't ignore that with driveway access. However, I don't know if you've been up there,

[2:22:28] or some of you probably do, drive through there quite frequently. I know I happen.

[2:22:32] You know, ready is a place where you can see a couple of light cycles go by and not get through

[2:22:40] the direction you want to go.

[2:22:42] And the longest key was the through movement, northbound, and I'm just trying to make sure you

[2:22:48] have a context of what the balance is because there has been some attempt in these numbers you're seeing

[2:22:54] to balance, it hasn't been really fine tuned yet, but to balance the delay for all phases of the

[2:23:01] intersection, so you can take a little bit of green time from the SR104 side, even though

[2:23:08] that is the dominant street movement with more vehicles on it, does not have bicycles on

[2:23:14] it, but fairly very, very few, they're willing to do that. And you can take a few seconds

[2:23:21] of green time from that and add it to the north-south movements, but it's a balance.

[2:23:31] You're

[2:23:31] And, you know, we could show you a ton of numbers on what that looks like, but it depends

[2:23:39] on your perspective as to how much it means to you.

[2:23:41] Right?

[2:23:41] I guess that's all I can say.

[2:23:43] I just want you to understand what these numbers mean.

[2:23:48] I'm certainly with, you know, we're attempting to provide complete straights, working towards

[2:23:53] that.

[2:23:54] We're working hard to increase safety.

[2:23:57] And then, you know, you made it really clear earlier, you know, that's a, you know, when we're talking these 28 seconds peak delayed between the 435 that it was worst case in that 99.95% of the time, it won't be.

[2:24:13] And so it keeps adding up to make me question why we're not going with alternative one, when I keep hearing all of that.

[2:24:22] I'm really struggling with why we're not, because you're saying we're not, but then the affirmation you're giving me leads me to believe that alternative one should be the preferred alternative.

[2:24:36] So, I think if we have the additional space, it'd be a really obvious choice.

[2:24:43] It's just that we don't and losing two travel lanes is also going to be important to people.

[2:24:52] You know, right now you can look at the counts for bicycles at that intersection and they're very extremely low.

[2:25:01] They're very low.

[2:25:02] But that's probably because people just look at it is something I don't even want to try to do.

[2:25:08] I don't know how much weight you can put on that.

[2:25:10] If you build it, will they come?

[2:25:12] We have seen some of that in our other bike lane projects that we've done.

[2:25:16] There's been a pretty dramatic growth and bicycle activity after we put in bike lanes.

[2:25:22] I would expect that to occur here.

[2:25:26] But how you feel about that is what's important.

[2:25:29] We're not trying to lead you in a particular direction.

[2:25:32] We've made a recommendation we think is a reasonable one for right now.

[2:25:36] I think there can be a follow-on project.

[2:25:38] I think we could put that on the CIP and begin to do some planning for what that would look like.

[2:25:45] Try to acquire the funding to do it to add that second separated bike lane.

[2:25:52] I mean that is our recommendation at the moment is to go ahead and do it that way.

[2:25:56] Go with alternative to and try to acquire the rights to enough room to put it in the second bike lane.

[2:26:04] If you're riding your bike, you're riding your bike somewhere and then you're returning from that somewhere.

[2:26:08] So if, you know, if we really do want to see this to success,

[2:26:12] it, I'm challenged with only providing half of it,

[2:26:16] and I'm challenged that we're going to see that full,

[2:26:18] you know, the full usage that we could have by only providing half of it,

[2:26:22] because I can be safe one way, but not so much the other,

[2:26:25] or, you know, that.

[2:26:26] Well, you can be safe.

[2:26:28] It's just, it's going to be some additional delay.

[2:26:31] We were putting the ramps in.

[2:26:33] You can, unless you're an incredibly confident cyclist,

[2:26:37] and not bothered by it, you can certainly take the ramp, walk through the intersection like

[2:26:42] a pedestrian, get back on the bike, keep on going, you know, dedicated bike lane.

[2:26:46] I don't think it's the end of the world, but I understand the research that's been done

[2:26:51] on that, and that is that is a, just seen as a real negative for bicyclists, and it probably

[2:26:57] would impact, you know, the, the stimulus that this project would provide at some level.

[2:27:04] I think if you're only going to put in one by plane, because that's what fits, I think we picked the right one in the PMB hours in Northbound Lane.

[2:27:21] Thank you.

[2:27:23] Councillor, just a little more.

[2:27:25] So, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:27:27] Council knows that I don't speak too often or for too long.

[2:27:32] Tonight will indeed be different.

[2:27:35] Thank you, Mr. Hague and Director Williams for your presentation again after seeing this last

[2:27:40] week and many various times.

[2:27:42] What would it be that the way to cyclists who have to go and use the crosswalk, a minimum

[2:27:48] of 132 seconds, so two minutes.

[2:27:51] No, I would say on average, again, I kind of believe in looking at the average, depending on

[2:27:57] when you arrive at the intersection, it's going to dictate how long it takes.

[2:27:59] It could be almost modulate and you're right across, but you probably would count on half that much.

[2:28:07] So half the time you'd be there quicker half the time you'd be on the back end of that.

[2:28:11] So usually like for transit headways, you would divide it by half.

[2:28:16] So if it's, if it's 132nds, a little over single time, right, a little over a minute,

[2:28:21] versus a potential worst case scenario of 28 seconds during 30 minutes of the day, right?

[2:28:28] for the automobile, you're not doing it.

[2:28:31] Yeah, right.

[2:28:33] Yeah, now the delay on the center,

[2:28:39] related just to the center through lane,

[2:28:42] going north, one direction, long to skew.

[2:28:46] That's currently, and Pablo, you might need to help me with this.

[2:28:49] I recall that's currently around 47 seconds,

[2:28:53] and it would go to something like 68 seconds.

[2:28:56] So instead of 29 seconds on top of 209 seconds, that's the total intersection delay for that

[2:29:03] one movement.

[2:29:04] I think it's, you know, a pretty significant increase of 28 seconds over added to the current

[2:29:10] 47 seconds.

[2:29:12] Right.

[2:29:12] But still totally, it's going to be shorter.

[2:29:15] And still shorter than the average delay for someone on a bike, they say decide to take

[2:29:20] the crosswalk.

[2:29:20] Even at that extent.

[2:29:22] Yes, I think that's.

[2:29:23] Okay.

[2:29:24] Thanks.

[2:29:24] So one of the things we talked about in the committee last week was, actually one question,

[2:29:30] maybe have you modeled how much time savings there will be for people turning right onto SR104,

[2:29:35] southbound or 104 eastbound because now if they're the car in the through lane,

[2:29:42] if we went with alternative one, or if you went with alternative two,

[2:29:45] and there's a car in the through lane going straight, but there are three cars behind it that want to turn right,

[2:29:51] and are blocked by that through lane car,

[2:29:54] would having that right turn lane now.

[2:29:55] How much time would those vehicles save?

[2:29:58] Has that been modeled?

[2:30:00] Well, they certainly don't have that off the top of my head. We can take a look at that and get back to you on that.

[2:30:06] Okay. So, I mean, overall what I heard was pedestrian improvements, five projects. Mr. Hague said, safety safety safety.

[2:30:14] I'm fully there. I support all those five projects. Council receives public comments. We receive emails all the time. People want enhanced public safety related to being a pedestrian, being on a scooter, being on a sidewalk.

[2:30:29] But we can't couple that with a bike lane project for non-motorized access that does not prioritize safety.

[2:30:39] So when we look at adding two bike lanes, I mean bike lanes in these days are really the bare minimum.

[2:30:45] I mean, Sheros are pretty insulting and there are a lot of studies that are coming out that Sheros actually decrease safety as opposed to increasing safety.

[2:30:53] I actually went back through the sound transit access grant comments for the awards for the

[2:30:59] grant.

[2:31:00] And I love this comment.

[2:31:01] It says Edmunds needs to construct protected bike lanes, not ineffective painted lanes

[2:31:06] and cheros.

[2:31:08] None of this money should go to that kind of outdated infrastructure.

[2:31:12] Use better designs now that are safer.

[2:31:15] Pay attention to where your plan makes bicyclists across the street, especially around highway

[2:31:20] interchanges, and this I know I've provided to you and to Council, but Wastot historically

[2:31:26] pretty conservative organization when it comes to active transportation came out with

[2:31:31] the new active transportation program plan one this May, and they've produced public engagement

[2:31:39] and some graphics around bicycle level, right? Bicycle, a level of traffic stress, right?

[2:31:48] So that really looks at what type of facilities you have and who will use them depending on how stressful it is.

[2:31:57] So when you look at our buffered bike lanes, which our design has south of 104 and also north of 104,

[2:32:05] 82% of people feel comfortable using that infrastructure.

[2:32:10] They have a dedicated bike lane as well as a buffer between moving traffic.

[2:32:14] When you look at our design for 104 with the Sheros,

[2:32:20] 1% of people on bikes will use that infrastructure.

[2:32:25] So your slide is totally right.

[2:32:26] It doesn't create a full network.

[2:32:29] It doesn't create a phase environment,

[2:32:32] and it's only going to have the bare minimum of use

[2:32:35] from people who are already using it,

[2:32:37] because there's absolutely no upgrade.

[2:32:40] You know, I don't want to out specific public work staff,

[2:32:43] but I've asked public work staff,

[2:32:44] would you ride this intersection to the share rows

[2:32:46] and you say no?

[2:32:49] I'm wondering if any other council members

[2:32:50] have written this intersection?

[2:32:53] Here we go, right?

[2:32:55] Staff, anyone?

[2:32:57] I mean, it's a bad intersection.

[2:32:59] Mr. Hague, thank you.

[2:33:00] I mean, you know, it's a bad intersection

[2:33:02] and share rows won't improve that.

[2:33:05] We have schools, we have parks, we have businesses

[2:33:08] that people can access by something other than a motor vehicle

[2:33:12] But if we don't provide that infrastructure, it won't get used.

[2:33:17] I'm a little concerned with a statement about addressing this project in two five or ten years,

[2:33:22] because what you're doing is holding the safety of someone on a bike hostage

[2:33:26] for a future grant opportunity.

[2:33:29] I mean, this is a non-motorized grant.

[2:33:32] It needs to prioritize non-motorized transportation.

[2:33:36] That's included in our climate action plan.

[2:33:38] That's included in our comprehensive plan.

[2:33:41] If we build for cars, we're going to get more car than you're not going to see that mode shift that we want.

[2:33:47] I'm also a little concerned about the fiscal implications of doing it in the future.

[2:33:52] We have an opportunity right now to achieve both the bicycle connected, like the connection of the network,

[2:33:58] as well as the safety without extending more money.

[2:34:02] Going out and looking at future grant opportunities is going to mean more money.

[2:34:07] It's actually going to take land away from the businesses to acquire that right of way.

[2:34:12] It means buying land from those businesses on the intersection. Is that correct?

[2:34:17] Yes. Or, yeah. If we happen to get fortunate and there's some redevelopment that takes place,

[2:34:23] we can certainly get that to happen there without the investment of municipal dollars.

[2:34:29] Okay, so if they decide to tear down any of those businesses and grow the right of way,

[2:34:33] reconfigure them or whatever.

[2:34:35] Right, but we could also achieve that right now without requiring to take further right of way

[2:34:41] with the current design of alternative one.

[2:34:45] And I know widening intersections means adding more infrastructure that we need to maintain.

[2:34:50] I know in previous conversations we've talked about our annual road maintenance program needs to be closer to two million

[2:34:57] to achieve kind of the ongoing maintenance, you know,

[2:35:02] worldwide name means more maintenance,

[2:35:04] and we're under funding our current maintenance.

[2:35:06] So I'd like to see a better achieve maintenance

[2:35:10] of our current network and not expanding our roads

[2:35:13] that we're currently under funding for the future.

[2:35:16] I mean, I could, you know, I could go all night on this stuff.

[2:35:20] I'll turn to one provides real safety.

[2:35:22] It provides real connections.

[2:35:24] Bicolines have been proven through many studies here in our region and in many areas to increase

[2:35:31] ridership to actually support businesses because you're providing multiple options for people

[2:35:36] to access those businesses as opposed to just in vehicles. I really hope Council understands

[2:35:43] the safety implications of this. We have a council member whose relative was hit on their bike

[2:35:48] by a driver in this intersection.

[2:35:51] And we need to listen to these experiences

[2:35:54] and understand that we have to do our best

[2:35:57] to provide a safe environment for people

[2:35:59] who are outside of vehicles.

[2:36:02] I mean, basic mobility is a human right

[2:36:04] and designing only around vehicles

[2:36:07] is just not sustainable for our climate

[2:36:09] or for our safety or for just our future.

[2:36:14] So thanks for listening to me, Rand and Ray,

[2:36:17] if I appreciate it.

[2:36:20] That's me, because you're on drugs and then you're also in the council president, and then you're in the council room.

[2:36:27] Well, Mr. Council member, just a horse, I have to disagree with both of your comments.

[2:36:37] And before I get into that, I like to ask Mr. Hague.

[2:36:41] You said that alternative one will drop level of service C to D.

[2:36:46] And do you mean that in which year today?

[2:36:54] That's pretty in, right?

[2:36:57] And how will correct me if I'm wrong on this?

[2:36:59] But I believe that drops our level service from a seat to a D.

[2:37:03] Yes, immediately.

[2:37:04] Immediately.

[2:37:05] I'm right in the forecast.

[2:37:09] We provided it is based on the 2030.

[2:37:12] which includes traffic growth and some some development projects that were provided by C.

[2:37:23] So that would be not today immediately, but in 2030.

[2:37:29] That's correct.

[2:37:32] And even for your added significant more delay.

[2:37:36] Those numbers just don't add up to me, but we can discuss that later.

[2:37:40] I just want to make a few points based on the transportation element of our comprehensive

[2:37:47] plan.

[2:37:48] 9th Avenue and 100th is the minor arterial.

[2:37:51] The posted speed is 30 miles per hour.

[2:37:56] And SR104 is a highway of statewide significance.

[2:38:01] This is a very important intersection in our city.

[2:38:04] And that intersection was the second highest collision rate in the city on data collected from 2009 to 2014.

[2:38:17] During that period there were 90,000 collisions.

[2:38:21] I really think that alternative one would be a mistake.

[2:38:25] because you're pitting a 2,000 pound vehicle next to, you know, a couple of 100 pounds for

[2:38:35] whoever happens to be writing that if it's a child, it's only a hundred pounds. I think that

[2:38:42] it's intrinsically unsafe. I'm a bicyclist and I would not like to be in those quote-unquote

[2:38:49] protected lanes. I would rather just dismount and cross out the intersection and there are

[2:38:57] really two kinds of bicyclists. There's the recreational bicyclists, children's families out

[2:39:04] for a ride and then there's the serious bicyclists and they can actually be in any lane. They

[2:39:10] choose if they're skill. And I think that it's a fault premise that is quote and quote protected

[2:39:19] lanes will protect people because you're looking at turning movements and through movements

[2:39:25] and there are just too many potentials for conflict. And so I really think that ultimate of one

[2:39:36] would be a mistake. And we are talking about a road. We're not talking about making it the most

[2:39:46] efficient for bicyclists, but we're talking about all the users of the road. And quite frankly,

[2:39:53] I put more value on the experience of the driver than truck driver and car driver than the bicyclists.

[2:40:03] Yes, we want a multi-modal system. Yes, we got $1.85 million from sound transit, but I think we need to go back to the drawing board.

[2:40:15] Maybe come up with alternative 3 because I don't think alternative 1 does the job.

[2:40:22] And alternative 2 is half a program. So those are my comments.

[2:40:29] And I'd like to add that I have more later when we talk about the pedestrian improvements.

[2:40:35] But right now, I want to focus on the bike improvements.

[2:40:41] Well, the 15-minute timeframe, definitely not accurate for this weekend.

[2:40:46] I'm Casino Wilson.

[2:40:48] Yeah, first of all, I wanted to thank the team.

[2:40:51] This was one of the projects where I hadn't followed it all the way through.

[2:40:55] I literally did see the public and put get implemented

[2:40:58] and take it into consideration and design changes that reflects that, and I really appreciate that so much,

[2:41:05] and I know the public does, too. I would say that alternate one does not do that. Not for me having

[2:41:14] followed that process all the way through, frankly, even from the beginning when we were deciding whether

[2:41:19] or not we were going to accept this grant. Parking was a priority on my W down that way, and also that

[2:41:27] intersection and the high volume of car traffic that it gets and the delays that were anticipated

[2:41:32] at that intersection were protested from the beginning when we weren't even looking at accepting

[2:41:39] this grant. It just goes to show what a different lens different people can bring to this thing

[2:41:44] but honestly for me seeing alternate one even for post kind of made me angry from hearing all the

[2:41:51] and puts all the way through.

[2:41:53] Downgrading that intersection, level of service from a C,

[2:41:56] which is not that great, a grade, let me just say,

[2:41:59] to a D, I think it's completely unacceptable.

[2:42:03] And we do possibly, and the future

[2:42:05] have some infrastructure money that might be coming.

[2:42:09] And I think expanding that intersection

[2:42:11] and having it all and putting the bike lanes

[2:42:13] into that intersection in the future might really

[2:42:16] be a good way of spending some infrastructure money,

[2:42:20] But to have such extraordinary delays in the big picture it just doesn't make sense and it's not just about the cars versus the bicycles and we've already established that we have very few bikers and that not all of them are in such a hurry that they can't just get off their bike on those off ramps that we're talking about providing to them and take that minute and a minute and a half week.

[2:42:45] Instead of having all of the cars, which are very high in volume, having 20 second delays,

[2:42:52] I don't think that that minute or minute and a half for the bike rider delay makes sense

[2:42:59] for to take that choice instead of the 20 second delay, especially because of the climate impact.

[2:43:06] You know, the idling of all those extra cars at that intersection for those extra 20 seconds is pollution.

[2:43:13] So, I mean, we're not achieving the climate goals that is a big thing that's behind wanting to have the bike lanes in the first place.

[2:43:22] So, I was excited that we were doing this. If we ended up actually having this happen, I would feel like it was a huge breach of trust for the public.

[2:43:32] back to the original thing about taking the grant money in the first place.

[2:43:37] They did not want to wait at the next year of 20 seconds at that intersection.

[2:43:42] And you know, we're kind of told that they wouldn't be doing that.

[2:43:45] So for me, our two alternatives should have been to have no changes at that intersection at all,

[2:43:52] except to have offerings from the bike lanes onto the sidewalks so that people could walk across.

[2:43:59] us, you know, and or Sherrows if that's not less safe, I didn't know that that was until today,

[2:44:06] but I'm either Sherrows through that intersection or get off the bike at that intersection only

[2:44:11] when we've got all the other great, you know, things that have been upgraded and then hopefully

[2:44:16] down the road get back to it. But in the short term, having this huge negative impact at this

[2:44:22] intersection and downgrading the intersection for the purpose of, you know, adding the bike lanes.

[2:44:30] I think alternate two might be a reasonable compromise, but I think, you know, not having the bike lanes in the intersection at all would be the alternate relative to that that I think we should be considering an absolutely not alternate one.

[2:44:49] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Director Williams, and the rest of the team for all of this work they've put together.

[2:44:55] And it seems like we've come a long way and in review.

[2:45:00] Viewing our past emails, I put them all into an email folder, we had a lot of comments and we've had

[2:45:08] a lot of movement around this whole discussion with bike lanes. I believe it was council member

[2:45:16] Christiana Johnson. When we first started talking about this, she pointed out that parking is in

[2:45:27] that, you know, it's not, it's not a personal parking spot, but that's a city owned thing.

[2:45:36] So, along 9th Avenue, what I like, and I have, and I have like this, and I'm not a confident

[2:45:42] biker, and I would really prefer to have, you know, designated bike lanes, both directions.

[2:45:50] And we also had a lot of comments last time around from people who are loving their electric

[2:45:58] bikes.

[2:45:58] The e-bikes movement makes things so much easier and so much better.

[2:46:03] Ninth Avenue that comes across to 100th is fantastic flat, as soon as you get some of the

[2:46:10] hills, you get to a whole new part of the city on a regular bike or even on an e-bike.

[2:46:16] You can do your grocery shopping on an e-bike and you can carry some things along

[2:46:20] you could bring up picnic to the park on an e-bike.

[2:46:25] That's what I think we are missing talking about sometimes when we look at

[2:46:30] accessing some of our other areas of town. Getting across 104, 104 does really

[2:46:38] divide the entire city into a whole new quadrant, you know, dissection.

[2:46:44] And it's not something that we should take lightly. We heard earlier from one of our

[2:46:48] that there is, there are inequities that are built into some of our decisions that are made.

[2:46:55] This is an opportunity for us to look at how we can provide some equity of additional infrastructure

[2:47:02] that will connect across 104. 104 is terrifying. I'm always scared when I see students crossing to go down to Sherwood

[2:47:12] When they crossed down 104, often 15th to head down to show it because they have to cross 104.

[2:47:19] We've had multiple fatalities based just right off of 104 over and over again across the years.

[2:47:26] We haven't had them in a few years and thank goodness because it's just terrifying.

[2:47:30] People come blasting up the road from the very terminal, eager to get where they want to go.

[2:47:36] I like building things out because it slows people down, having slow roads, make them safer roads.

[2:47:42] And so, essentially, where I am landing is I would like to see alternate one put into place.

[2:47:52] And in addition to that, I really respect all the work that you've done to listen to the community over and over and over again.

[2:48:00] We've got good pedestrian information for us to put into place.

[2:48:06] And that's a separate topic.

[2:48:08] I agree with Council Member Christiana Johnson

[2:48:10] that that may not be for tonight

[2:48:12] because we're just in the dreaming stage.

[2:48:15] And I think that these are really solid ideas

[2:48:19] that alternate ones through five,

[2:48:22] they really look like they are addressing real needs.

[2:48:24] I use to live on 14th of the state Southwest,

[2:48:28] which connects up to 224th.

[2:48:30] And I was just a couple of houses down the hill.

[2:48:33] There are people who will take those shortcuts.

[2:48:35] And they'll take those short cuts in in ways that tear and climate, the girls and I always

[2:48:39] talked about the angry, red, Volvo station wagon because it kept tearing up that hill.

[2:48:45] And people do take those short cuts through residential neighborhoods, not recognizing

[2:48:50] that, to me, that's where we have a lot of kids walking around.

[2:48:55] And having ninth avenue and 100th avenue available for bikers really adds to some dimensionality

[2:49:03] for our transportation system, Council Member Disilhorst described it really well in technical terms,

[2:49:11] but in terms of adding usability and accessibility across there with a different mode of

[2:49:17] transportation, really is kind of important for all of us and we're also connecting another

[2:49:23] part of the city with, you know, our most dense areas. So I really like the idea of alternate

[2:49:32] one because it does focus on safety and we have asked for safety over and over and over again

[2:49:38] and that's been loud and clear from the entire community as well that we do want safety. Yes,

[2:49:44] there's some delays with safety but I don't think that anyone of us wants to see anybody injured

[2:49:49] or harmed. And yes, it was one of my family members who did get hit there on his bike, and it just, you know,

[2:49:57] no one wants to go through that. No one wants to get a call from their family member saying,

[2:50:02] hey, I'm not the intersection. I've just been hit by a car because he is visiting my house. Anyway,

[2:50:08] thank you for letting me talk about that. But it's important that we do focus on safety and also

[2:50:14] and connectivity with the equity lens that is a big part of that too.

[2:50:22] That's my question.

[2:50:24] I guess we're all seeming to ramble on a lot.

[2:50:27] I just want to look at some facts here.

[2:50:29] I'm not in favor of either alternative.

[2:50:32] I do believe in safety.

[2:50:34] I believe that there are other alternatives.

[2:50:36] I've seen bikers that have gone 95th.

[2:50:39] I've seen bikers that have come down on 7th.

[2:50:40] They drop down woodway.

[2:50:43] This is a very intersection that I'm sorry Mr. Desfock. It's already been built.

[2:50:49] This is a major thoroughfare that has traffic allor. We have turned signals going.

[2:50:57] We have people turning right. We have people turning left. We have people turning left.

[2:50:59] We have people going to the QSC. I think it's just a dangerous situation.

[2:51:05] I have read all the comments. I don't recall this in saying this.

[2:51:10] do we call there are a lot of staff members that we're in support of having these these type

[2:51:16] of this intersection, but my point is the facts show there are not a lot of bikers

[2:51:22] that are biking this intersection and the counts is down. I don't have a problem with

[2:51:29] them being on 9th. I don't have a problem with them being on Baudin or Gioce. I agree with

[2:51:36] but Council Member Christiana Johnson has said,

[2:51:38] but the fact of the matter is,

[2:51:40] I do not believe we should do either alternative

[2:51:42] until we actually have maybe an open house again,

[2:51:46] because the fact of the matter is,

[2:51:49] we have heard a lot of things from the citizens

[2:51:51] that do not want this.

[2:51:53] They did not want the bike lanes.

[2:51:54] They did not want the bike lanes at Westgate.

[2:51:57] They did not want this to happen

[2:51:59] and suddenly it's happening.

[2:52:01] And I find it's baffling that we would support,

[2:52:06] I agree. We need to move to where all this diversity, and we need to all have equity, where

[2:52:12] bikers can travel with cars, but I can assure you that in Portland, when Sam Adams

[2:52:20] was mayor, they did the same thing. And it was a disaster. It was a total disaster. So the

[2:52:26] fact of the matter is, and I know it's not your main to this topic, my issue is, if you read

[2:52:31] comments from Edmund citizens. The Edmund citizens were very clear that this was a very

[2:52:37] dangerous intersection. And there's nothing wrong for the forest to go back to where they

[2:52:42] can we need to keep it on that particular intersection. They can go ahead and take get off their

[2:52:48] bike and walk across. The biggest issue I see is that we are, our ferry is the highest in terms

[2:52:57] of industry. We have the most economic drivers people coming off and on that ferry. That 104 is

[2:53:04] the thoroughfare. And you wanted to, you know, change the classification of it as well. So,

[2:53:11] I just think that this is something that we need to look at more carefully. And yes, we do

[2:53:16] want pedestrian safety. And yes, we do want bicycle safety. But the fact of the matter is,

[2:53:21] This is a very busy intersection.

[2:53:24] And it will always be a busy intersection,

[2:53:26] even if we get rid of cars,

[2:53:28] just because of the location, of the ferry,

[2:53:31] the location of all of those businesses,

[2:53:34] the location of the residents as well.

[2:53:37] So I'm in favor of going back to the drawing board.

[2:53:45] Councillor Fairley-Mandellus,

[2:53:47] and then Councillor Puzzle, and then Councillor Wormison.

[2:53:50] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:53:52] First off, I'd like to point out that we're almost an hour into this 15-minute discussion.

[2:53:57] And I'm not sure we're going to get this result tonight, frankly.

[2:54:02] You know, I do think that it's a safer position for bikers to walk their bikes across 104 at that intersection.

[2:54:15] I do understand that. I've been writing that intersection for 50 years. And, you know, I do know it's a very busy intersection, but I also know that a lot of the comments we received regarding this coming down 9th Avenue had to do with parking.

[2:54:34] And homeowners view that the parking in front of their house is they're parking and it's not anybody else is parking.

[2:54:44] And I guess I've got some concerns about that.

[2:54:47] And I believe I stated this before that I thought that perhaps if somebody was playing in that to be their parking,

[2:54:55] then I'd like to see the tax base on that because that is a piece of property that belongs to the city.

[2:55:03] So I don't I don't have a problem with putting bike lanes moving back and forth, but and this is I suppose is kind of where I fall in between somewhere, but I do have a problem with 104 and 100 their ninth and and bikes coming across that intersection that's a very dangerous intersection from somebody that spent a lot of time on those corners there, it it has a number of issues and I do think it does have a lot to do with the ferry system.

[2:55:34] So, any man, I don't have an easy answer for this, but I also don't want us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[2:55:40] Her say, I think that we need to perhaps...

[2:55:45] Maybe get some questions answered about a halfway between, but anyway, thanks.

[2:55:53] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make two motions right now.

[2:55:58] one to extend to 1025 so that we can get to the last item on our agenda, and

[2:56:08] is there a second date?

[2:56:10] Okay, 1025.

[2:56:12] Discussion,

[2:56:15] all those in favor to extend till 1025 show of hands, all those opposed, motion

[2:56:22] passes.

[2:56:23] The second motion is I'd like to pause this discussion until the October 5th meeting and then come up with having complete questions and continue this discussion to October 5th.

[2:56:40] That's our next available date.

[2:56:45] Your second.

[2:56:46] I'll second it but I'd like to speak.

[2:56:49] It's moving a second in discussion.

[2:56:51] We can ask that for emails.

[2:56:53] Yeah, I think it's great.

[2:56:54] Perhaps we can look at some of the items.

[2:56:57] But I don't want to see us undercut this item again.

[2:56:59] I think 15 minutes for an hour topic at this point is crazy.

[2:57:04] So I mean, if we're going to have it there,

[2:57:07] I want to see us take the time to discuss it,

[2:57:09] and not feel like we have to hurry through

[2:57:11] because we have multiple things coming on us.

[2:57:14] So if that's the time we have the most amount of time

[2:57:18] available, I would suggest that that be appropriate, and it not be scheduled for 15 minutes.

[2:57:24] Thank you.

[2:57:26] That's a lot of options.

[2:57:27] And I guess the question I have is we all have made our points here.

[2:57:31] We're going to have the meeting on October 5th and make the same points again.

[2:57:35] I guess I would think that I am looking for a different resolution.

[2:57:40] So I don't know what how you want to handle this, but the fact of the matter is we can go ahead and make our

[2:57:45] I mean, I've reduced the same comments from the citizens and everybody the last few times

[2:57:51] we've done this. So if we meet on October 5th, that's great. But I mean, are we going

[2:57:55] to just rehash and re state all of our same concerns, or are we going to actually have some sort

[2:58:02] of maybe alternative 3, 4, or 5? So that would be the, I don't know what the intent is other

[2:58:09] than to continue on.

[2:58:11] I see I have Mr. Williams.

[2:58:13] I don't want to comment.

[2:58:14] I did a little bit.

[2:58:15] There was a couple of comments here.

[2:58:17] I kind of wanted to react to.

[2:58:18] There was sort of a hint, I guess,

[2:58:24] that this somehow was a staff driven project.

[2:58:26] I really want to take some issue with that.

[2:58:29] Which is not a good order.

[2:58:30] I am so sorry.

[2:58:32] We, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have.

[2:58:34] Yeah, just, let's just stay with the motion.

[2:58:38] And I do totally understand that we probably do have additional questions that need to be answered and I would urge everyone to get them in earlier so.

[2:58:53] So we have a motion on the floor to bring this back on October 5th Councilmember Wilson.

[2:59:00] Yeah, do you think that Councilmember questions was making a good point though, what are we bringing it back for and what's going to happen between now and then.

[2:59:08] Because I do think that they're probably were very limited comments that are still on the same subject, but the question being, you know, where do we go from here?

[2:59:20] I'm helping the people get the questions answered.

[2:59:23] I mean, and then if we have to have additional discussion, then we'll figure it out on October 5.

[2:59:30] Right now, it's just short of 10 PM.

[2:59:33] We have one other item, which is actually a fun item, and then we can, yeah, it is.

[2:59:39] But adding fun is not a bad thing.

[2:59:42] The, anyway, move a talk to over fifth this emotion.

[2:59:48] Council President and Councillor Cassandra Cassandra Cassandra Cassandra.

[2:59:53] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:59:56] I think it's fair to get those questions answered.

[3:00:00] Number of the questions would have been answered prior to this meeting tonight. We wouldn't have had to go through this last hour. So perhaps bringing those questions forward and getting the responses to them would be a really good thing before the next meeting. Thank you.

[3:00:15] That's more Christiana Johnson.

[3:00:18] Are you on you?

[3:00:21] Pardon

[3:00:25] me.

[3:00:26] I wanted to find out from our consultants whether there would be any new information if we brought this back on October 3rd.

[3:00:37] Would there be a third alternative or a fourth alternative that we could consider because right now we're sort of at a stalemate.

[3:00:50] Yeah, I think the whole project and the grant application and everything was geared towards making this connection.

[3:01:01] I don't know of another alternative that does that.

[3:01:07] And I don't think we're going to come up with one that quickly, I don't think it's there.

[3:01:13] We've looked at a lot of different connections.

[3:01:14] This is the one that needs to be made in one form or another on 9th and 100th.

[3:01:23] Now, I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that rest of the project has a lot

[3:01:27] of good things with bicycle lanes and with pedestrian issues.

[3:01:31] And those are great improvements, and they should not be lost.

[3:01:34] We're talking about a very important piece of the system and the network, but it is small.

[3:01:42] And I don't think we should lose sight of that.

[3:01:46] So we are not to expect a third alternative.

[3:01:51] We'll just continue to...

[3:01:52] There was a third alternative.

[3:01:54] There was a third alternative.

[3:01:55] They got no love at all when we first presented it.

[3:01:58] We showed three.

[3:01:59] One was two Sheros.

[3:02:00] One was one bike lane and one Sheros.

[3:02:02] And one was two bike lanes.

[3:02:04] I don't think we have another viable option to show you.

[3:02:12] Unless somebody on our team has got one that I haven't heard about.

[3:02:21] Mr. Mayor, can we move the agenda and take a vote?

[3:02:25] Yes, so all those in favor of moving aside until October 5th, shrub hands,

[3:02:34] all those opposed, motion passes.

[3:02:39] We'll bring it back on October 5th.

[3:02:44] Next item, Shirley Johnson, property donation.

[3:02:54] Works Department is there, she is, Angie Fester.

[3:03:01] Yes, good evening.

[3:03:03] Hopefully this subject is a little more upbeat and a little easier to make a decision.

[3:03:08] So, we probably won't take 15 minutes, so bringing forward to you tonight to part of our land acquisition program, basically, a donation here.

[3:03:22] So, Angie Fester, Parks Recreation, Cultural Services and Human Services Director for the city and tonight I'm bringing forward proposals consideration, the acceptance of a donation of a piece of property,

[3:03:35] donated by Shirley Johnson. It is a little more than one acre parcel on

[3:03:41] bound with way and I'm going to, of course, bring up about our point but we've got

[3:03:46] some great graphics here to take a look at.

[3:03:55] So everyone see that. That will

[3:03:56] head done. Okay, great. So that

[3:04:04] full screen for a little better viewing.

[3:04:11] So let's

[3:04:13] on the 9,000 block of Baudin Way. It actually connects Baudin Way and Nios Park. So you can see

[3:04:22] the graphic there in the center of the string, outlined in yellow. This is Nios Park here in open space

[3:04:30] off to the west, open by the city as well. And there's the pool actually right there in the graphic.

[3:04:35] So it's a fantastic parcel, very sizable for this location of town. And we had it appraised

[3:04:42] as part of our inventory, or asset.

[3:04:47] And it actually appraised it only $350,000

[3:04:49] because of the condition placed on the property

[3:04:53] to be a community park.

[3:04:57] And so the appraisal does recognize the fact, though,

[3:05:01] if this property were to be on the open market,

[3:05:05] it's zoned to probably put in six residential units in it

[3:05:10] would have a market value probably $1.5 million. So incredibly generous donation by Shirley

[3:05:18] Johnson for this property and the consideration of that. She wrote in her will that the

[3:05:26] purposes of this is to be used for park and or community garden for the citizens of Edmunds

[3:05:31] and the local community as a city of Edmunds being expressed at their discretion.

[3:05:36] very thoughtful. Miss Johnson passed away in January of this year and Peter Bennett, it was

[3:05:44] her attorney representing the estate and has been taking care of the estate to this point.

[3:05:51] Very generous in his commitment to taking care of the property. He secured the buildings. He brought

[3:05:59] and some services to start to maintain the site and remove

[3:06:04] some debris on the site and make sure that the cars

[3:06:08] that were there were gone.

[3:06:09] So he did a lot of work around the site

[3:06:11] to help us keep it secure before became in our ownership.

[3:06:16] Part of that was some expenses related to these fate

[3:06:21] after it was settled out through the summer.

[3:06:24] There are a couple years of back taxes,

[3:06:26] a little bit for Title Insurance for the transfer and as well as some attorney fees that

[3:06:32] had a crude but considering the value of this property that, you know, that writing a check

[3:06:40] for $46,000 for this property is a small price of pay for such a generous donation.

[3:06:48] There's some images here at the site. If you've driven past it or know where it is, it's

[3:06:53] hard to see into the site is pretty well screened from the road from vegetation, but is a narrow

[3:06:59] and long site with quite a bit inside of it. The photo and the upper left is January this year,

[3:07:06] and that is a magnificent, big leaf maple there in front of the house, and you can see in the

[3:07:11] lower image there of it leafed out that one in the lower left was taken about two weeks ago. So you

[3:07:17] can kind of see how that leaves out. You can see the difference in the house and that the attorney

[3:07:22] boarded up and secure the site and removed a lot of items off the site to help us start to acquire

[3:07:29] the site and keep that secure.

[3:07:35] These are images here of some of the outbuildings on the site.

[3:07:39] This, if you're looking at the house on the outtake images to your left, would be this larger

[3:07:43] shed here. You can see the secured and boarded up with locks on it and trespassing signs.

[3:07:50] If you follow this rough line over here to the left, that's actually the corner of the building right here in this image.

[3:07:58] So to the left of this shed are two other out buildings, a small metal building here,

[3:08:03] and that another larger wooden structure that is kind of deteriorated over time.

[3:08:09] A lot of these buildings are kind of covered in blackberries and kind of a little overgrown,

[3:08:14] but those are the structures on this site.

[3:08:17] This is another good set of images of the house at how it's been secured and cleaned up around it, which is really great.

[3:08:25] I do want to note, in the lower right-hand corner, this image here, this is one polytree.

[3:08:32] This entire green area here, which I think is the largest polytree I've ever seen.

[3:08:38] I'm calling it the original Pacific Northwest polytree.

[3:08:41] So we'll have some work to do when we get to that site because that's a highly invasive climate

[3:08:47] material that we should be taking care of.

[3:08:51] So the next steps for the site and the short term basically keeping the site secure, keeping

[3:08:57] all those things in place, some assessments of the personal items inside of those buildings and

[3:09:02] deciding how to take care of those if there are some things of value and those buildings,

[3:09:09] The museum will be involved with that that also so artwork apparently could be in there and we'll

[3:09:18] get some folks involved some experts in there to get some opinions on that.

[3:09:22] We'll continue basic maintenance of the sites in general,

[3:09:26] lowering kind of keeping the vegetation down low.

[3:09:30] There are six to eight apple trees on the site, which give a nod back to this property

[3:09:38] that was actually owned by Shirley's parents, Charles and Helen Spicer, and when they were

[3:09:43] on the property, this was actually a farm within the city, and so we want to really make

[3:09:50] sure that that is recognized in this property moving forward with the design and the use

[3:09:55] of the property.

[3:09:56] As you can see, the middle photo here, those are actually apples on that tree right there

[3:10:00] in the middle, but you can see the tree on the right is actually another fruit tree that

[3:10:06] is not fairing very well.

[3:10:08] So we're going to use our field Everest ever do.

[3:10:11] Get her on site and do some assessments of the trees.

[3:10:15] See if we can start maintaining them

[3:10:17] and taking care of them and bring them back.

[3:10:20] If not, we may look at trying to take cuttings

[3:10:23] from those trees and preserve some pieces of those trees

[3:10:26] that we can bring back and to the site at some time.

[3:10:30] And then of course, we'll have to kind of make some decisions

[3:10:32] about the demolition of those buildings.

[3:10:35] they are in habitable at this type or in the habitable at this time, so demolition will probably

[3:10:43] be the solution for those buildings. Long term will be continued, basic maintenance of the site,

[3:10:51] obviously, some tree care, paying special attention to those trees and whatever else is on site.

[3:10:58] And then eventually, this property should have a master plan done on it. It will be interesting to

[3:11:04] some of the results from the 2022 Pros Plan to see how this property and the amenities and the

[3:11:12] wishes of the donation fits into the park system. And that'll be perfect timing to use the

[3:11:19] Pros Plan from that. And of course, as all Master Plan processes, there's quite a bit of community

[3:11:24] involvement engagement in that. And I'm sure we have a lot of interested groups. I just presented

[3:11:30] to the Floridum Club yesterday and of course they're quite interested in, I know we have a lot of great groups in the community that will be involved in the design and development and hopefully operation of this park eventually.

[3:11:45] So, with that, I'm going to stop sharing screen here and answer any questions. Folks may have them.

[3:11:52] That's a good man, G.

[3:11:57] I guess I'm going to work with Sean Johnson.

[3:12:00] Oh, sure.

[3:12:01] All right.

[3:12:02] You have your virtual hand if I don't know if it's.

[3:12:04] But I'll speak.

[3:12:06] I've been involved in this project for about four years.

[3:12:10] Shirley Johnson was my next door neighbor when I was growing up.

[3:12:14] And now they're about a dozen homes between us.

[3:12:18] And she lamented that she didn't want to sell

[3:12:22] this property to developers. She outlived her son and her husband and had no other relatives

[3:12:32] except in nephew and it was her wish to preserve this family farm. The outbuildings were

[3:12:40] essentially chicken groups and this was part of the family business. They had an egg laying business

[3:12:48] people would come and buy eggs and they were fresh and they were candle of them. It was, you know,

[3:12:56] part of my childhood experience. So I was really happy when I was able to help her envision

[3:13:04] this as a donation. Because she couldn't figure out exactly how to save her land and I had some early

[3:13:13] conversations with Councilmember Thomas Saros and Park's Director Kerry Height and we had several

[3:13:22] executive sessions about this and basically it was Kerry's suggestion that we connected

[3:13:29] to the Bennett law firm to help her develop a will and to come up with a plan and so it's

[3:13:37] a great satisfaction that her wishes are being carried out now.

[3:13:47] That's not a large answer.

[3:13:51] I was just going to say that I loved this presentation at last week's committee meeting.

[3:13:55] It's very touching, you know, that Shirley Johnson legacy will be carried on through the preservation of her property.

[3:14:02] So I appreciate bringing it to the full council and for more of the community to hear about.

[3:14:08] So thank you to everyone involved in this customer family and also.

[3:14:14] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:14:17] I really appreciate Ms. Johnson and her willingness to donate her property.

[3:14:23] But I do want to remind Council and those that are out there that, unfortunately, she lived

[3:14:29] the last years of her life with no water lack of electricity, a leaking roof.

[3:14:35] And this is where I think a social service program can step in and maybe have helped her in the past to be able to live a safe and productive life.

[3:14:47] Point of clarification.

[3:14:50] I'm not so nervous.

[3:14:53] Contrary to what was just stated,

[3:14:57] the roof did not leak.

[3:15:00] We had electricity, although truth should not have water service.

[3:15:06] Well, thank you for correcting me. So, at any point, it would be nice if we had a social service

[3:15:13] program that could ensure that the last years of her life would be comfortable living in

[3:15:19] her own home. So, I just want to point that out, and I think it's wonderful that she

[3:15:25] decided to donate the property to the city, and it's up to us to take good care of it.

[3:15:31] So thank you.

[3:15:34] Councillor Orpussius.

[3:15:36] Yes, Shirley Johnson was a definitely a treasure.

[3:15:40] I'd like to make a motion that the Edward Ordinance of the City of Edmunds, Washington,

[3:15:47] accepting title to real property through a personal representative's deed from the

[3:15:52] state of Shirley M. Johnson subject to certain terms, which are described in that

[3:15:57] deed.

[3:16:00] We've been seconded discussion.

[3:16:04] All of the favors show hands, all of those opposed, motion passes your hands.

[3:16:16] Thank you.

[3:16:20] Next item on the agenda is Council Committee reports.

[3:16:23] those council committee minutes are available on the online, on the agenda, next is Council

[3:16:29] Comments.

[3:16:30] We'll start with council member, family, and else.

[3:16:34] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:16:36] I like to bring up this.

[3:16:37] I want to thank Natalie Cites tonight for, again, bringing up the issues of equity and living

[3:16:45] on this side of Edmund's, I guess, the East Side of Edmund's.

[3:16:49] And I appreciate her standing up at every meeting and reminding Council that there is an

[3:16:57] inequity in between one set of Edmonds and the other.

[3:17:00] So I do appreciate her for all of her comments.

[3:17:05] Thank you.

[3:17:07] I see as Council Member Olsen.

[3:17:15] This is a point in the council number fairly many of us didn't have a different Council

[3:17:19] comment.

[3:17:20] After a session advocacy for a new Code of Conduct, putting it on the Council agenda as Council

[3:17:25] President, dedicating many hours of council member time and effort and voting for

[3:17:30] herself. I have a hard time understanding council member freely, many issues, refusal to

[3:17:35] own her to blatant code of conduct by a leader.

[3:17:38] What a murder, Mayor.

[3:17:40] Yes, I believe that this is an inappropriate place to be talking about individual

[3:17:46] council members and things. If Ms. Wilson prefers to bring up me on charges, there's always

[3:17:54] executive session to do that.

[3:17:57] When a border, is that a valid point of order?

[3:18:05] If the cast member would maybe refrain from identifying specific council members in their

[3:18:09] comments.

[3:18:11] When a border, the purpose of the council comment is to allow the council member to provide

[3:18:19] whatever information she would share he would like to say and I know we've heard many different

[3:18:25] I also comments throughout the 11 years that we have been on council, the Sprelium

[3:18:29] Manelis, and we have name names.

[3:18:33] I'm a voter.

[3:18:34] Again, this is again, our Code of Conduct, Mr.

[3:18:40] Mayor.

[3:18:41] How's so?

[3:18:43] Okay.

[3:18:48] Okay, let me move on then from the part about that.

[3:18:51] I'll just say, it's up to you.

[3:18:53] If you want to use this as a forum to go after each other then you're going to go after each other.

[3:18:58] I cannot tell you that, not to, not to a common sense, whether you want to use your

[3:19:04] kind.

[3:19:06] So, you know, I'm just going to, I'm not going to rule on how your council comments should

[3:19:11] be.

[3:19:11] Your council comments or your council comments.

[3:19:13] Thank you, Mr. Jones.

[3:19:14] No, no.

[3:19:15] I would, I don't really understand the refusal to, and then mention Renderous and Serapology

[3:19:23] to the public for both.

[3:19:24] And with that being the case, whereas the council majority, this is my message to full council, but sanctions for this council member who is snubbing the public and our code, and importantly, where is the equity?

[3:19:38] We all know the answer to whether or not I would be sanctioned if I was the one doing these things instead of another council member.

[3:19:55] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do want to thank council member Olson for her town hall meetings that were held this Saturday.

[3:20:04] I was able to attend O3 of them and I found the conversations to be very interesting.

[3:20:11] Citizens continue to say we build it.

[3:20:15] will they really come so I mean the issue that a lot of them are concerned with is that

[3:20:20] we continue to have all of these grants coming in and all of this money being spent to put

[3:20:25] guardrails here or something there and are they really needed. So I think it's important that we

[3:20:33] look very carefully at the CIP CFP this year and I do look forward to the remaining town hall meetings

[3:20:41] that Council Member Olson will be handling and in terms of her comments, I have in toll

[3:20:48] support. I have listened to many citizens and I have brought it up again that I have

[3:20:53] in the personal email, have agreed with Council Member Olson on her issues regarding the

[3:20:59] code of conduct and how nothing was. Mr. Mayor, go to boarder. I am not going to bring

[3:21:05] my personal medical issues in front of this council.

[3:21:11] I'm not making it.

[3:21:12] And I understand this is election season and this is a great time to jump.

[3:21:17] It just, I'm just making sure that people will be able to do this.

[3:21:21] That's never made their comments uninterrupted.

[3:21:24] Thank you.

[3:21:24] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:21:27] In any event, I have a look forward to the rest of the budget committee forums that

[3:21:33] are coming forward.

[3:21:34] Again, this next Saturday and I think first, I can

[3:21:37] make the 31, but please come, it was very fun to hear everybody their wishes and their concerns.

[3:21:45] They are concerned about the human services department, our program, and we are doing great

[3:21:51] providing transparency on that, and so I'm hopeful to look at the budget coming forward.

[3:21:57] Thank you.

[3:21:59] That's very large, aren't you?

[3:22:02] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:22:03] As we know, September is National Suicide Prevention Month, and this year I've had the honor of carrying on the work that Council Member Luke Düsseldorf started last year.

[3:22:12] We have two upcoming events. The first is this coming Thursday. We're going to have a community panel discussion on mental health and suicide prevention panelists include members of the American Foundation for suicide prevention, the Edmund Senior Center, the Edmund School District and other Edmund's community members.

[3:22:31] Next Thursday, the 30th, when the virtual firm's the home of health district will be presenting a free QPR, which is question, persuade, and refer suicide prevention training.

[3:22:43] Both of the events start at 7 p.m.

[3:22:45] And we'll be held virtually.

[3:22:47] All the info can be found at www.wecare.advinswa.gov on our Human Services page.

[3:22:56] And, you know, through this planning process I have been really touched by the number of individuals who are very, very passionate about mental health advocacy, removing the stigma of talking about mental health challenges and working hard towards suicide prevention.

[3:23:15] So, you know, this has been very inspiring, and I think Council Member Luke does the course for bringing this to Edmunds to start with and it's been an honor to carry on.

[3:23:26] So, I hope you can join us at one or both of the upcoming Thursdays and once again, we care.Edmunds.wa.gov. Thank you.

[3:23:37] That's Rebecca Shannon Johnson.

[3:23:39] Thank you, Mayor.

[3:23:45] I wanted to provide some additional comments about the proposal tonight about bike lanes.

[3:23:52] In addition to what was discussed, the consultant put together a five additional

[3:23:59] pedestrian improvements for a total of 312,1223 dollars that staff is recommending.

[3:24:09] And I think that this is totally good information, and I think that we can incorporate

[3:24:17] it when we update the transportation element of the comprehensive plan.

[3:24:22] But I don't think we should find it at this time because the transportation plan is planning

[3:24:29] to be updated, and they have a complete list of proposed projects, which are evaluated on

[3:24:37] a point system for all sidewalks. And they use a 1, 2, 3, 6 criteria, and they're rated.

[3:24:47] And as a result of these scores, there are 40 projects, a sidewalk projects that are listed.

[3:24:54] And none of them include the five that have been suggested for implementation now, so I would

[3:25:03] like to fold those projects into the process and not interrupt our CIP and our comprehensive

[3:25:12] plan and go outside of that process to implement them now.

[3:25:18] I see that the time is up.

[3:25:20] Board I'd like to make a motion to extend.

[3:25:24] Our second move and second it.

[3:25:27] I'd like to make a motion to extend to 1030 because we have two council members who have not spoken yet.

[3:25:32] I'm not sure how much longer this will go along for and then we haven't heard mayors comments.

[3:25:38] So I'd like to extend to 1030.

[3:25:42] Well, I just wanted to set the stage for our next discussion.

[3:25:46] And I think when I ordered, I would say I'm looking on the floor.

[3:25:50] In the 1930 discussion.

[3:25:54] All those in favor of shohans, all is opposed.

[3:25:58] Extend to 1030, customer cash ad jobs.

[3:26:02] I'll just conclude my comments by saying I want to focus on the bike lanes at our next discussion.

[3:26:12] And not spend a lot of time on the pedestrian proposals because I think that this is completely

[3:26:19] outside our normal good governance process.

[3:26:26] That's a president.

[3:26:27] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:26:29] I just want to say thank you to Director Fesser for bringing in this last bit of really great news for the city.

[3:26:38] You're always welcome to donate land to the city.

[3:26:41] It's a great way to do land acquisition.

[3:26:44] And in many ways it could help solve some problems if you're working through some of your estate planning.

[3:26:51] Anyhow, I also want to thank Council Member Olson for putting together that what I've been referring to as the budget meetups.

[3:26:59] It's nice to see I've attended two and it's nice to have a smattering of folks there who are interested in hearing about the budget and talking about city business.

[3:27:09] So I do appreciate that getting put together and I do plan on doing something similar later on in the next next year.

[3:27:18] Next up would be I'd like to remind everyone we have budget coming up during our budget

[3:27:25] process our budget retreat. We talked extensively about getting having a short budget

[3:27:32] process and so I'm going to make sure that we shepherd as much as possible get your questions

[3:27:39] in and meet up quickly and that applies to all of the all of our agendas. We've got some

[3:27:45] things that are coming through pretty quickly, and it's going to be an active discussion all

[3:27:51] around please get your questions answered early, and so we can have productive conversations

[3:27:56] and discussions in our council meetings. And so thank you to staff and everyone who's made

[3:28:04] this such a big abundant meeting. We covered a lot of territory and I do appreciate that. Thank

[3:28:13] Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you council member Laura Johnson for continuing that work I look forward to hopefully seeing council members and community members at the two upcoming events on mental health and suicide prevention that they're extremely important for people of all ages in our community as we know and I will leave it at that and you have the last few minutes Mr. Mayor. Thank you and good night.

[3:28:36] Thank you. Just on COVID related front, you know, the numbers are a telling. They're still

[3:28:42] unacceptably high, which is all over 400 and 48 or so per 100,000. And overwhelmingly

[3:28:50] the folks that are coming down with COVID are unvaccinated, and those are being hospitalized,

[3:28:56] are unvaccinated. This one glimmer of hope was announced recently for those of us who have

[3:29:03] children that are between the ages of 5 and 11, very promising is at least initially, with

[3:29:09] Pfizer having vaccine showing very good results in their clinical trials, there's still

[3:29:14] a process that has to go through the FDA, and it's going to be a little bit, you won't be able

[3:29:18] to make doctors, women, just yet, but it does seem to be very promising that the youngest

[3:29:24] and most vulnerable children will start to have access to vaccine soon rather than

[3:29:29] And with that, I wish you all a good and have a nice winter.

City Council Regular Meeting - Virtual/Online

Agenda

Transcript